4 ms·

Different people have different preferences, for sure. I used to feel that way when I lived in a small town with no amenities. But now I'd hate to move back to

Different people have different preferences, for sure. I used to feel that way when I lived in a small town with no amenities. But now I'd hate to move back to a major US city, for the reasons I list above. I'm not interested in raising kids, but if I was, it wouldn't be in SF, Seattle, Austin, Denver, or NYC. I'd raise kids someplace where I could let them walk around and explore in a safe way -- the situation on the street in many US cities is not that. They'd be accosted by the mentally ill or run down by giant trucks and SUVs in no time.

jimmydorry 4y ago
What job prospects would your kids have, and would it even have been possible for you to start your career if you lived in the area you are planning to move to for the critical years (high school, university, first few years entering your field, etc.)? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you have your answer to why property prices near the cities aren't ever going to match the level of rural properties.
- dont__panic 4y ago
  Depends a lot on comfort with remote work, especially when onboarding college grads. I'd say time will tell how society deals with that. I grew up in a crappy rural area with next to no opportunity, and went to college in a crappy rust belt city with very little opportunity. Moved to NYC the day after graduation to start my career. As far as I can tell, if my life was playing out today, I'd probably pick up a remote gig and move someplace cheaper than NYC where I already know some people -- I simply wouldn't bother with the expensive giant cities because they've never been a good fit for my hobbies and interests. A lack of opportunities definitely shaped my high school experience, but where I live now has a lot more going on than where I grew up, even if they're similar densities. Not all small towns are the same! And depending on what your kids are interested in, SF, NYC, etc. might lack opportunities for your kids, too -- it's not like they can explore nature, or mountain biking, or sailing, or a million other things easily in your average US city. I guess I'm just trying to say that there are tradeoffs no matter where you live, and we probably shouldn't generalize about "rural" and "urban". There's crappy unwalkable non-kid-friendly rural towns aplenty in the US. But there's also crappy unwalkable non-kid-friendly cities aplenty. The right corner of SF, or the right lively small town can both be good places to raise kids.
  - thatfrenchguy 4y ago
    > SF, NYC, etc. might lack opportunities for your kids, too -- it's not like they can explore nature, or mountain biking, or sailing, or a million other things easily in your average US city San Francisco has some the best access to nature, sailing and mountain biking anywhere in the country. I can drive for 15 minutes and be on the beach, in the mountain. And it's never too cold or too hot. > I grew up in a crappy rural area with next to no opportunity, and went to college in a crappy rust belt city with very little opportunity Don't assume the fact that you made it means that your kid would repeat that feat though.
- coding123 4y ago
  Programming jobs that are remote. I personally predict building homes will become a thing - as we reach 600k typical home sales level. We will find people building homes for 200k and selling them for 400k profit. The math is starting to make programming jobs not attractive to me at least. Do 1 per year.
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    Perhaps it will change in the future, but entering the field as a remote-only is an up-hill battle. Especially without contacts or experience. Not to mention that the bare necessity, a good and stable internet connection, is not really a thing yet. Perhaps StarLink will change that... but that's yet to be seen. If people looked at this honestly, they would have to admit that relocating from a city into a rural area for the explicit purpose of raising kids is effectively taking a gamble on what thing might look like in the future.
    - bradlys 4y ago
      I think people here have a different definitions of rural btw. Where I grew up - small town of 4000 with no major city within 3+ hours drive. Nearest “city” was 100k people about 100 miles away. Even in that - I didn’t feel it was super rural but compared to most people - that is seen as remote. May as well live in the Alaskan wilderness in their eyes. Some people consider a suburb outside of Indianapolis as “rural”.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  A huge number of tech focused jobs are remote first currently. Plus just because you grow up in the middle of no where what is preventing you from going to college somewhere else and even settling there? I see no reason why being a child in a rural area would limit you from college onwards provided you graduated highschool with a decent gpa.
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    I addressed this in the second part of my post: >If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you have your answer to why property prices near the cities aren't ever going to match the level of rural properties. If the opportunities are mostly in the city, don't expect the cost of city dwellings to approach the cost of rural dwellings.
- ghaff 4y ago
  I'd just note that there is a huge amount of territory between middle of nowhere and Manhattan. For example, I live about 50 miles west of Boston. There's lot of forest and field around me with an apple orchard and a Christmas tree farm next door. It's a small town and I think is technically classified as "exurban." No, I can't walk except to the forest paths but there's no shortage of shops, hospitals, etc. within a fairly short drive--and I can certainly drive into the city for events if I want to. I work remotely but my local office is actually nearer my house than it is to Boston and that's true of a lot of tech-adjacent companies in Massachusetts which weren't historically in the city.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think the impact of rural jobs are largely irrelevant if you think your kids will be high skill workers. I grew up in a rural community and the path is quite simple. Grow up there, leave for university, go where the jobs are or go back and work remotely. Cities will always be more expensive, but that is to be expected.

jimmydorry 4y ago

What job prospects would your kids have, and would it even have been possible for you to start your career if you lived in the area you are planning to move to for the critical years (high school, university, first few years entering your field, etc.)? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you have your answer to why property prices near the cities aren't ever going to match the level of rural properties.

dont__panic 4y ago
Depends a lot on comfort with remote work, especially when onboarding college grads. I'd say time will tell how society deals with that. I grew up in a crappy rural area with next to no opportunity, and went to college in a crappy rust belt city with very little opportunity. Moved to NYC the day after graduation to start my career. As far as I can tell, if my life was playing out today, I'd probably pick up a remote gig and move someplace cheaper than NYC where I already know some people -- I simply wouldn't bother with the expensive giant cities because they've never been a good fit for my hobbies and interests. A lack of opportunities definitely shaped my high school experience, but where I live now has a lot more going on than where I grew up, even if they're similar densities. Not all small towns are the same! And depending on what your kids are interested in, SF, NYC, etc. might lack opportunities for your kids, too -- it's not like they can explore nature, or mountain biking, or sailing, or a million other things easily in your average US city. I guess I'm just trying to say that there are tradeoffs no matter where you live, and we probably shouldn't generalize about "rural" and "urban". There's crappy unwalkable non-kid-friendly rural towns aplenty in the US. But there's also crappy unwalkable non-kid-friendly cities aplenty. The right corner of SF, or the right lively small town can both be good places to raise kids.
- thatfrenchguy 4y ago
  > SF, NYC, etc. might lack opportunities for your kids, too -- it's not like they can explore nature, or mountain biking, or sailing, or a million other things easily in your average US city San Francisco has some the best access to nature, sailing and mountain biking anywhere in the country. I can drive for 15 minutes and be on the beach, in the mountain. And it's never too cold or too hot. > I grew up in a crappy rural area with next to no opportunity, and went to college in a crappy rust belt city with very little opportunity Don't assume the fact that you made it means that your kid would repeat that feat though.
coding123 4y ago
Programming jobs that are remote. I personally predict building homes will become a thing - as we reach 600k typical home sales level. We will find people building homes for 200k and selling them for 400k profit. The math is starting to make programming jobs not attractive to me at least. Do 1 per year.
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  Perhaps it will change in the future, but entering the field as a remote-only is an up-hill battle. Especially without contacts or experience. Not to mention that the bare necessity, a good and stable internet connection, is not really a thing yet. Perhaps StarLink will change that... but that's yet to be seen. If people looked at this honestly, they would have to admit that relocating from a city into a rural area for the explicit purpose of raising kids is effectively taking a gamble on what thing might look like in the future.
  - bradlys 4y ago
    I think people here have a different definitions of rural btw. Where I grew up - small town of 4000 with no major city within 3+ hours drive. Nearest “city” was 100k people about 100 miles away. Even in that - I didn’t feel it was super rural but compared to most people - that is seen as remote. May as well live in the Alaskan wilderness in their eyes. Some people consider a suburb outside of Indianapolis as “rural”.
wonderwonder 4y ago
A huge number of tech focused jobs are remote first currently. Plus just because you grow up in the middle of no where what is preventing you from going to college somewhere else and even settling there? I see no reason why being a child in a rural area would limit you from college onwards provided you graduated highschool with a decent gpa.
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  I addressed this in the second part of my post: >If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you have your answer to why property prices near the cities aren't ever going to match the level of rural properties. If the opportunities are mostly in the city, don't expect the cost of city dwellings to approach the cost of rural dwellings.
ghaff 4y ago
I'd just note that there is a huge amount of territory between middle of nowhere and Manhattan. For example, I live about 50 miles west of Boston. There's lot of forest and field around me with an apple orchard and a Christmas tree farm next door. It's a small town and I think is technically classified as "exurban." No, I can't walk except to the forest paths but there's no shortage of shops, hospitals, etc. within a fairly short drive--and I can certainly drive into the city for events if I want to. I work remotely but my local office is actually nearer my house than it is to Boston and that's true of a lot of tech-adjacent companies in Massachusetts which weren't historically in the city.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think the impact of rural jobs are largely irrelevant if you think your kids will be high skill workers. I grew up in a rural community and the path is quite simple. Grow up there, leave for university, go where the jobs are or go back and work remotely. Cities will always be more expensive, but that is to be expected.