10 ms·
...combined with a lifestyle choice problem. Hundreds of millions of other Americans do fine not living in the Bay Area.
by orasis 7y ago
...combined with a lifestyle choice problem. Hundreds of millions of other Americans do fine not living in the Bay Area.
- i_am_nomad 7y agoThis is a very valid point that almost nobody makes, and I still cannot understand why not. People screaming about how unaffordable the Bay Area is, seem to feel like living elsewhere would be some kind of death sentence.
- headsupernova 7y agoIt's because the brunt of the problem doesn't affect the people who have the choice to live wherever they want.
- smudgymcscmudge 7y ago“and give up on my dream of being a tech billionaire? no thanks”. Also popular is “the bay area has one of the greatest collection of minds ever assembled in the history of the world”. If they are really that smart and money flows so freely, then they should have no problem solving this little problem.
- solveit 7y agoI understand the futility of reasoning against snark, but I still feel compelled to mention that no collection of minds in the history of anything has ever really succeeded in solving the problem of dysfunctional politics.
- smudgymcscmudge 7y agoThat’s quite true. And thank you for also recognizing that my snark can’t be reasoned with.
- wonderwonder 7y agoI think the real question is "Are the politics dysfunctional"? I would argue they are working exactly as intended. The people who already own property and who have influence are getting the exact results they desire. Good or bad depends on whether you are an owner or a renter. A very large portion of political outcomes can be traced to money and those who can apply it to get their desired outcomes. This is politics as normal for a large portion of the uS and the world.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- garmaine 7y agoI’m from the Bay Area. This is my hometown, going back 5 generations. What should I do? Move?
- egypturnash 7y agoOh man I feel so sorry for my artist friends who were forced out and can never move home again. One of them is slowly succumbing to depression due to ending up in Seattle and I really hope he can figure out how to get out of there before the winter blahs drive him to suicide.
- pram 7y agoWow, Seattle! A punishment worse than death!
- cortesoft 7y agoIt isn't about the location, it is about being away from your family, your friends, and your community. That matters to some people.
- garmaine 7y agoAlso 10 consecutive months of drab, gray skies and constant rain.
- loeg 7y agoEleven months! Don't move here.
- DonHopkins 7y agoYou'd be more convincing if you said "Don't move there."
- autokad 7y ago
- linguae 7y agoLeaving the Bay Area is an appealing prospect in order to save on housing costs, but there are two issues that some people would need to consider in order to make that move: 1. There are some specialized types of jobs in the software industry where there are only a small handful of employers and where most of those employers are located in Silicon Valley. There are some areas in the software industry, such as web development and enterprise software, where there are plenty of jobs outside Silicon Valley and similar tech hubs. Plenty of businesses need custom applications, and the Microsoft software stack of Windows Server, SQL Server, .NET, Azure, and other products is commonly used outside of Silicon Valley, which seems to be focused on Linux. But suppose you work in the area of compilers, or you're an operating systems developer. The chances of moving to a place that isn't a tech hub and finding a compiler or operating systems development job is lower than finding a web development or Microsoft enterprise app development position. My line of work is in research in systems and AI, and it would be difficult for me to me to find similar work in most American metro areas outside of the Bay Area, Seattle, Austin, and New York, all of which (except for Austin) are expensive. 2. The Bay Area is famous for its acceptance of diverse cultures, lifestyles, and worldviews. The Bay Area's cosmopolitan atmosphere is one of my favorite aspects of living in the area. However, cosmopolitan urban areas in the United States tend to be expensive. New York, Boston, Seattle, and Los Angeles are still expensive places, even if they are not as expensive as the Bay Area. An exception to the correlation between cosmopolitanism and expense is Sacramento, a very diverse place which by California standards is also still affordable despite rising housing prices. I would not mind living there, but it's a very long commute to Silicon Valley, and there are not many jobs in my subfield of systems and AI research in the Sacramento area. If I couldn't live in or near a diverse, cosmopolitan area, my next preference would be a tourist town with a nice, laid-back atmosphere, such as many of the towns on the Central Coast of California. But, once again, those areas lack the jobs I want.
- thrax 7y agoTell that to all my brilliant friends stuck in the Midwest or other countries.. that work harder than I ever have, but can't fall into a high paying job like i can simply because of geography.
- war1025 7y agoLiving in the Midwest myself, I don't think there's any shortage of work available. Doesn't pay as well as living in California, but I also paid $100k for my house.
- 13of40 7y agoCurious, but have you (or anyone else reading this) tried out working as a developer online? I've got this nagging dream of moving to Kentucky, buying 20 acres and a mansion for $250K, and finishing out my career working online in my underwear.
- mattnewport 7y agoWe have a fully remote team and all our devs live in locations cheaper than the Bay Area as does most of the rest of the team. We have more than one person living in a ski resort and some living in fairly rural areas as well as some living in cheaper cities.
- chrisco255 7y agoYes, but I typically wear pants as I frequently need to hop on video calls. I suppose they can only see the chest up, but you never know if the laptop will fall off the table.
- csense 7y agoAnecdotally, it's easier for established developers. If you've been with a company for a while, or you have in-demand skills, it's easier to find remote work.
- jjav 7y ago
- L_Rahman 7y agoI should be able to live where I want. My inability to not afford housing in the places that I want to live in are not an outcome based on “efficient markets”. The cost of housing in major American cities is largely determined by whether they can build more housing to meet demand and lower costs. The new housing is blocked most often by people who already live there. So now the question is how different groups with opposing interests might apply power to get their desired outcome.
- i_am_nomad 7y agoNo, you should not be able to live anywhere you want. That would only be true if all places were equally desirable. They aren’t. I can’t live in Monte Carlo, for example, even though it looks quite lovely. And I accept that, because that’s how reality works.
- closeparen 7y agoIn a booming city, developers with the capital and the technology should be allowed to deploy it to accomodate me, just as they have done to accomodate everyone who already lives there.
- h4waii 7y agoNo, he's right, he absolutely should be able to live anywhere he wants. He simply needs to take the personal responsibility to make it achievable vs capitulate to some strange reasoning of "it's not my fault I can't afford it, it's their fault because XYZ".
- L_Rahman 7y agoI live in Manhattan. I can afford to live literally anywhere in the world, probably more comfortably than where I am now. The question is whether the people who cook my food, do my laundry, plumb my home, deliver seltzer to my bodega, butcher chicken in my grocery store should be able to afford to live within a reasonable distance of my home. We can choose to build cities that make it nearly impossible for them to do so and for them to live in constant fear of homelessness (with many eventually sliding into it) or we can build ones where they can comfortably afford a modest home.
- closeparen 7y agoSort of like asking why were people screaming about drug prohibition in the US when they could just go to Amsterdam. "We've got ours, everyone else can bugger off" is a political position subject to debate, not a property of the universe.
- oliwarner 7y agoI've made this point several times on HN. As soon as you suggest that this is caused by the 249 NASDAQ-traded companies insisting on being within shouting distance from each other, the downvotes come. North America is vast and largely empty. This is a planning issue in that cities allow this sort of demand to grow unchecked. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20834469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20834469
- earthboundkid 7y agoNYT has an editorial up now by a woman who moved to a small town in Arkansas where the town council wouldn’t approve a $25/hour salary for a head librarian because who needs that much money, what is she greedy, fancy college graduates think they run everything ... That’s extreme, but it’s generally true that salaries are better in cities than rural areas.
- charia 7y agoI read the same article and felt that conclusion the NYT was trying to portray was off/I took away a different perspective from the article. The first point being that a small town librarian one doesn't require a master's degree in the field. (Research libraries/big city libraries might differ) On paper she's overqualified to run a small town library and just because she has a degree doesn't mean that she should get paid more. Another factor is that the average wage in the area is around 12/13 dollars. For someone to be paid twice the average private sector wage for the area is quite significant. Especially when this is a small town and money that is paid for the librarian comes out of their budget and means an reallocation of resources from elsewhere. Tl;dr I'm not saying that the librarian should not get a pay raise to 25 an hour. What I am saying is that just b/c people are skeptical about wages doesn't mean that it's a direct correlation with them hating on college graduates/ect.
- earthboundkid 7y agoWhether someone is overqualified or overpaid depends on the other people available to do the job. For librarians, MA is not overqualified. It is qualified. As for $25/hr, the point of my argument was that in most of the USA, $25/hr is not an extravagant wage. It's pretty solidly middle class. It would be a lot if you're 22 and not much if you're 55. It's weird if rural America, this is consider "too much" for a head librarian. That shows that rural wages are way out of line with urban wages.
- HillRat 7y agoOne of the people quoted in the article was incensed that a public employee would make around $41K per year. He’s a public employee making about $45K per year. There’s a definite “pull up the drawbridge” mentality in effect there.
- sterileopinions 7y ago>Hundreds of millions of other Americans do fine not living in the Bay Area. Do they though? Not sure why you singled out the bay area, but populations in less populated, non-coastal regions do pretty poor all around. * Not as well educated * Lower incomes * Less savings * Higher chance of medical issues * Drug issues * Higher suicide rates * Pockets of STD's spikes that happen every few years I'll pay the extra $1000 a month to be surrounded by good food and constructive outlets.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- runako 7y agoAre these things true of Chicago & Austin as well, or is the the common misconception that "non-coastal" regions means "rural"? In any case, you cite > * Lower incomes > * Less savings in response to an article about a person who is miserable living in a garage. Is it strange to consider that some would rather be "worse" off living in a larger purpose-built dwelling somewhere else? Perhaps they can get paid on an SF pay scale and buy housing in cheaper markets? > * Higher suicide rates SF is literally building a suicide barrier on its iconic bridge. TL;DR; It's okay that people want to live where they want to live. People thrive in different environments.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> Are these things true of Chicago & Austin as well, or is the the common misconception that "non-coastal" regions means "rural"? Chicago is on the longest contiguous coastline in the US; it isn't rural, it's also not non-coastal.
- runako 7y agoGood point! If we're stretching the definition of "coastal" to include proximity to bodies of water, we could also include cities adjacent to rivers and other lakes as "coastal." Then, we can add Austin, San Antonio, Memphis, Dallas, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, and of course Detroit to the ranks of coastal cities. (Depending on who draws the metro area, Atlanta could also be a coastal city using this definition.) But that's not the grouping of cities commonly referred to as being "coastal." I obviously know that non-coastal != rural, but that equivalence is frequently used in American discourse. See also: "flyover country", etc.
- hazza1 7y agoespecially as the author works from home so I assume could choose to live anywhere?
- dredmorbius 7y ago"Working from home" often means "meeting with people" either at your home or, more often, at their office (or home). Which means that whilst you're somewhat unmoored from the tribulations of office real estate and commutes, you're not fully divorced from spacial reality. Cities exist for reasons, and facilitating encounters and interactions between people (and organisations) is chief among these.
- dredmorbius 7y agoThe problem is less one of many people not living in the SF Bay Area than that of those who do live or work there, there simply isn't available, affordable, or adjacent housing. For some industries (viz: YCombinator, startups, and VC) there really aren't many options outside the SF-SJ corridor, NYC, Seattle, and Austin being among the few, though largely of vastly smaller scope. There's also the matter of those who've grown up or raised families in the region who find that they either can no longer live their themselves or that their children must move elsewhere. Fair or not, this destroys relationships and community cohesion.