4 ms·
I don't think that's the point. The point is that the required income in SV is an order of magnitude larger than what is required in most of the country to do t
by bradenb 7y ago
I don't think that's the point. The point is that the required income in SV is an order of magnitude larger than what is required in most of the country to do those same things.
- s3r3nity 7y agoIsn't that the same thing as what OP said? Why shouldn't "living in SV" be considered a "luxury?" You know where you don't need millions to do all of that? Literally most of the country. If someone was complaining to me about being unable to live in, say, Beverly Hills, I'd say the same thing: there's nothing stopping you from moving to any other state and living quite comfortably - in fact, probably having a much _better_ standard of living.
- bradenb 7y agoI interpreted OP to be referencing things like school, home, car, etc as luxury goods, not living in SV. I do obviously agree with the rest of your comment though.
- realbarack 7y agoBeverly Hills has a population of 35,000. It's a neighborhood. Silicon Valley has a population of a few million (depending on how you define it). A luxury city is more absurd than a luxury neighborhood because a city requires people who don't receive luxury salaries to function.
- arkades 7y ago> a city requires people who don't receive luxury salaries to function. That is such a key, and overlooked, point. People are so busy imagining themselves in the shoes of one of the luxuriating few that they forget about the entire human ecosystem required to make a city function.