6 ms·
Such a bad take. The actual "elite" in urban centers are the ones walking around with strollers. Have a kid in the big city is the ultimate flex. No one else h
by tempsy 7y ago
Such a bad take. The actual "elite" in urban centers are the ones walking around with strollers.
Have a kid in the big city is the ultimate flex. No one else has kids because they can barely afford to live there themselves, let alone support a kid in it.
Edit: Also, it's not as if the author failed to mention that it's expensive to raise families in the city. It's that he says "yes it's really expensive to raise kids in the big city" but then goes off on a completely different tangent to say that everyone living in NYC and SF are "affluent childless" singles who just want to turn the city into their own childless entertainment machine, which completely negates his earlier comment on cost of living as the primary reason why there are so few young families in the city (plus something about fewer people enjoying sex).
- pmart123 7y ago“violent downtowns typified by the ‘mean streets’ of the 1970s became clean and safe in the 1990s” While I’m not trying to be overly critical, he is also off base with his violent crime statistics as the nineties had the highest aggregate number of murders up until the end of the decade.
- peanutgal2600 7y ago20 years after Roe vs Wade.
- dralley 7y agoAnd, simultaneously, the removal of lead from gasoline
- iguy 7y agoThe more charitable reading is "became safe over the course of the 90s". The huge decline was late-90s, although as you say the peak was early-90s.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- burfog 7y agoThe comment about "affluent childless" singles supports his earlier comment about cost of living. The cost is high because those "affluent childless" singles are willing and able to pay more.
- braythwayt 7y agoNever confuse correlation with causation. If a city has high-paying jobs but doesn’t build enough housing for all the people working those jobs or the economy supporting those jobs, only those with lots of money to spend can afford housing, food, &c. Presto, you get a high proportion of “DINKs” (double-income, no kids.) Either explanation may drive the presence of high costs and density of DINKs. Or both: Perhaps the two things create a cycle of costs spiralling up combined with a change in demographic.
- simonebrunozzi 7y agoWell, good point, but you should be more precise: strollers with HUMAN KIDS in them. I swear that at least one in two, perhaps even more, of these strollers today tend to have dogs in them. At least in San Francisco.
- saiya-jin 7y agoSeriously? Is there some actual sane reason, ie protecting dog from scorching sun, or people are just bonkers?
- ssully 7y agoI've seen one person do it in my neighborhood (a suburb outside of Chicago) and I believe it's because it was an older dog. I am guessing it either had trouble walking, or because of the heat.
- prazgaitis 7y agoi guess if you have a stroller laying around, and your dog can't walk so well anymore, why not?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 7y agoOn reddit's frontpage, the word choices people use for posting/commenting about pets is worthy of some sort of proper study. They've started to co-opt words typically reserved for human children at a rate that is difficult to believe is some sort of bias on my part. It's bizarre. Pets are surrogate children.
- peanutgal2600 7y agoThat's the most ridiculous thing I've seen anyone on HN say, and I've seen people defending rapists. I lived in San Francisco for 20 years and never, ever saw that. I'm not some boring techie who never leaves SOMA or the Mission, I've walked every street in san francisco (according to my Garmin), I've had a drink in every bar, I've made music in almost every park. Have you ever even been to San Francisco?