5 ms·

Most americans dont live in "large swaths of the country", they live in or near cities where housing is expensive.

by ahoy 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210... - more people who live in rural areas are homeowners - fewer live in poverty So it seems like “city living” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
- Eric_WVGG 7y ago
  Everyone's entitled to their own metrics. Most folks I know would rather be destitute in a thriving city than owning their own shack in the country where nobody lives and nothing happens.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So instead of basing a conversation on the US Census Bureau, we should base it on “people you know”?
    - Eric_WVGG 7y ago
      I'm not disputing your numbers; I'm disputing your values. Some do not consider home ownership to be a good thing. Some believe there are worse things than living in poverty.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        The relatively small overpriced housing in the west coast would be considered horrible for someone living in other places in the US. I couldn't imagine paying twice as much for less than a third of the space.
        Eric_WVGG 7y ago
        Cool. I think having more space leads to a subconscious desire for more things to fill it. I've lived in suburban sprawl, rural hand-made cabins, and even an actual polygamist mansion once, and never been happier than in my overpriced 400sq/ft (east coast) loft. Do you grok what I mean about different values for different people now?
        scarface74 7y ago
        I agree with you. The biggest issue for us when we were looking to buy a house in the area we wanted were you only had a few choices. Buy an older cheaper smaller house from the relatively few people who were living in the city before the county started growing. But then you have an old house in an area where there is a rapid expansion of new homes. No one is going to buy a house that would be 40 years old if we did decide to sell in 10 years when they could buy a much newer home. [1] Buy a smaller condo closer to shops and businesses. But those were more expensive with less space, with the risk of random assessments based on repairs that might come up and we would still lack the benefits of individual housing. Not to mention the higher HOA dues. From the builders perspective, it doesn’t make sense to build, smaller slightly more affordable homes once you take all of the fixed costs into account. Our house was I believe the smallest floor plan available and we still had 3100 square feet - not bragging it was less than $350. Any halfway competent developer in Atlanta could afford it. This is a well known issue for why new affordable homes aren’t being built. [1] Also in our case, we weren’t comfortable living in the older parts of the county. We live in a part of Atlanta that made national news as being a “sundown town” as recently as 35 years ago (it was on Oprah in the 80s). But with the influx of a younger demographic the character has changed a lot.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    Well... that sounds like the consequence of a personal choice then, and not a public crisis.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    I know plenty of people who would rather be destitute in BFE than live in the city (and it's not even a hypothetical question, a lot of these people are employed in trades where they could make decent $ in a city but there's no work for them where they live so they can barely afford a double wide). What's your point?
- Johnny555 7y ago
  So it seems like “city living” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Couldn't that be because the poor tend to end up in urban areas where they have more access to social services?
  - souprock 7y ago
    Causality could go the other way. Consider a rational reaction to being just at the edge of the welfare cliff. If you haven't heard of that, look at the graphs in these two articles: https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/a-picture-of-how-redistribution-programs-trap-the-less-fortunate-in-lives-of-dependency/ https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/a-picture-o... https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-30/when-work-punished-again-if-you-accept-raise-you-fall-welfare-cliff https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-30/when-work-punished... It's a better deal to earn $29,000 than $69,000 due to the loss of benefits. That means people don't strive for better. They avoid promotions.
- firethief 7y ago
  The correlation is a matter of fact, but I find your inference about the direction of causality improbable. Do people decide whether to live in the country or the city, and then end up landowners or poor as a result? Or do people who own land in the country stay there, and people who are poor live in the city because it's harder to survive in poverty in the country?

Most americans dont live in "large swaths of the country", they live in or near cities where housing is expensive.

by ahoy 7y ago

Most americans dont live in "large swaths of the country", they live in or near cities where housing is expensive.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210... - more people who live in rural areas are homeowners - fewer live in poverty So it seems like “city living” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Eric_WVGG 7y ago
Everyone's entitled to their own metrics. Most folks I know would rather be destitute in a thriving city than owning their own shack in the country where nobody lives and nothing happens.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So instead of basing a conversation on the US Census Bureau, we should base it on “people you know”?
  - Eric_WVGG 7y ago
    I'm not disputing your numbers; I'm disputing your values. Some do not consider home ownership to be a good thing. Some believe there are worse things than living in poverty.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      The relatively small overpriced housing in the west coast would be considered horrible for someone living in other places in the US. I couldn't imagine paying twice as much for less than a third of the space.
      - Eric_WVGG 7y ago
        Cool. I think having more space leads to a subconscious desire for more things to fill it. I've lived in suburban sprawl, rural hand-made cabins, and even an actual polygamist mansion once, and never been happier than in my overpriced 400sq/ft (east coast) loft. Do you grok what I mean about different values for different people now?
        scarface74 7y ago
        I agree with you. The biggest issue for us when we were looking to buy a house in the area we wanted were you only had a few choices. Buy an older cheaper smaller house from the relatively few people who were living in the city before the county started growing. But then you have an old house in an area where there is a rapid expansion of new homes. No one is going to buy a house that would be 40 years old if we did decide to sell in 10 years when they could buy a much newer home. [1] Buy a smaller condo closer to shops and businesses. But those were more expensive with less space, with the risk of random assessments based on repairs that might come up and we would still lack the benefits of individual housing. Not to mention the higher HOA dues. From the builders perspective, it doesn’t make sense to build, smaller slightly more affordable homes once you take all of the fixed costs into account. Our house was I believe the smallest floor plan available and we still had 3100 square feet - not bragging it was less than $350. Any halfway competent developer in Atlanta could afford it. This is a well known issue for why new affordable homes aren’t being built. [1] Also in our case, we weren’t comfortable living in the older parts of the county. We live in a part of Atlanta that made national news as being a “sundown town” as recently as 35 years ago (it was on Oprah in the 80s). But with the influx of a younger demographic the character has changed a lot.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  Well... that sounds like the consequence of a personal choice then, and not a public crisis.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  I know plenty of people who would rather be destitute in BFE than live in the city (and it's not even a hypothetical question, a lot of these people are employed in trades where they could make decent $ in a city but there's no work for them where they live so they can barely afford a double wide). What's your point?
Johnny555 7y ago
So it seems like “city living” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Couldn't that be because the poor tend to end up in urban areas where they have more access to social services?
- souprock 7y ago
  Causality could go the other way. Consider a rational reaction to being just at the edge of the welfare cliff. If you haven't heard of that, look at the graphs in these two articles: https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/a-picture-of-how-redistribution-programs-trap-the-less-fortunate-in-lives-of-dependency/ https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/a-picture-o... https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-30/when-work-punished-again-if-you-accept-raise-you-fall-welfare-cliff https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-30/when-work-punished... It's a better deal to earn $29,000 than $69,000 due to the loss of benefits. That means people don't strive for better. They avoid promotions.
firethief 7y ago
The correlation is a matter of fact, but I find your inference about the direction of causality improbable. Do people decide whether to live in the country or the city, and then end up landowners or poor as a result? Or do people who own land in the country stay there, and people who are poor live in the city because it's harder to survive in poverty in the country?