5 ms·

Obviously this behavior is an improvement for the individuals. I don’t see that it’s an improvement overall. Long distance commutes are in conflict to climate g

by mo_42 4y ago

Obviously this behavior is an improvement for the individuals. I don’t see that it’s an improvement overall. Long distance commutes are in conflict to climate goals (especially flights). Also, these super commuters disturb the local economy with their purchasing power (there was an article recently on HN about a US family living in Portugal because it’s so cheap there). I guess governments will have to address this somehow.

lastofthemojito 4y ago
I've been thinking more and more about this concept where people, how you put it: "disturb the local economy with their purchasing power". My grandparents lived a couple of miles from the city where Grandpa worked, but then when he retired they moved maybe 30 miles out where things were cheaper. I knew other folks whose parents or grandparents retired to Florida to take advantage of a lower cost-of-living and no income tax. That's just what people did - why pay a premium to live near the jobs if you aren't working? More recently I've read complaints about folks from richer areas (often California) moving to cheaper areas, driving up the cost of living, straining local services, etc. Some of them are retirees, although remote work has added to the issue, leading to "go back to California" sentiment in Portland, Boise, etc. I've heard similar stories about expats driving up rents in Mexico City and Portugal, making those areas unaffordable for locals. So I've got a healthy 401(k) balance and will be retiring one of these days. What are the rules for where I can retire if I want to move somewhere my dollars will go further? Is it still thought of as OK at all to exploit another area's lower cost-of-living in this way? Does it depend on the degree, like it'd be fine if I move to a nearby suburb that is 10% cheaper but not if I move to Thailand? Does it depend on economic conditions in an area, like how many existing residents are being priced out?
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  > Is it still thought of as OK at all to exploit another area's lower cost-of-living in this way I think it is only a few terminally online people that object to this. In real life locals object to people coming in and buying second homes or renting out airbnbs, not new people moving into the area permanently.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    I think the word Gentrification comes from real life.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    > I think it is only a few terminally online people that object to this. The reality of the matter is that the insane population growth of the 20th Century led to some pretty haphazard development (e.g. CDMX’s never ending sprawl). This has made areas with livability amenities (e.g., walkable safe neighborhoods) relatively rare all things considered. For various reasons, certain areas with good amenities remained isolated from broader real estate markets (e.g., living in CDMX would seem laughable to an American in the 1980s based on crime statistics alone). Because of COVID, a lot of those areas are now a part of larger real estate markets. The people who live there now realize that they can’t afford the prices that the larger market brings, so acting in self interest, they try to remain isolated from the market. (In the vein if SF experiencing the worlds problems a decade before anywhere else) This is basically the story of SF’s Mission district over the past 20 years and why you’d see ridiculous things like people protesting new development because it had floor to ceiling windows. It’s a weird phenomenon, but one that most people on this forum can’t really relate to.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    Trust me, there are plenty of places where people object to new people moving into the area permanently. If you haven't seen this you've never lived in Montana, Northern Idaho, etc. Xenophobia against out-of-staters is practically the regional religion. Which, to be honest, is not totally unjustified, these places are wonderful and people whose families have lived there for generations are finding themselves pushed out by the rising property values caused by the migration of people out of the rich cities and into their communities. It's unfortunately a feature of our system- if you don't have money you don't get to live in good places. People are just justifiably unhappy with that particular feature acting on them.
    - danielrpa 4y ago
      Property values is just one part of the problem. A lot of the xenophobia is also due these migrants bringing their political opinions (and votes) with them.
- mo_42 4y ago
  I like your point. I guess we can solve this with taxation. Maybe we want to tax frequent flights but not retirees. Depends on the goal people want to achieve. Every community has its own problems and ways to solve them.
- chowells 4y ago
  It's not about how much money you have, it's about what you do with it. Do you match your standard of living to those around you, or do you distort the environment to provide you with what you desire regardless of what those around you have? Do you isolate yourself except for your spending, or do you participate in the community in the ways expected of a local? Are you living there to live there, or are you living there for financial reasons? If your goal isn't to live like a colonial master, make sure your execution doesn't look like an attempt at colonialism. That principle should get you 99% of the way there.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    This. People don't care that you're there. They care that you are making boutique $15 sandwich shop(s) a viable business where they were not previously causing rent to go up driving the burger joint they loved out of business or whatever. Ideally you've retire to Arizona or Florida or some other traditional retirement or tourism destination with an economy has had an influx of money for a long time and reached equilibrium. In lieu of that the next best thing is assimilating and living like the locals.
    - cmh89 4y ago
      That's not really the problem. The big problem is that people who move from a HCOL to a less or low cost of living place are able to pay more for housing than people who live in the local economy. This doctor is a great example of it. He makes more than an Austin doctor, he probably is buying or renting at the top end of the market and driving up prices. I live in Portland, Oregon. Pretty much every who lives here has had a conversation with a Californian transplant who raves about how cheap the housing is, when most people will never dream of owning a home here.
      - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        The housing is just one aspect. They do this the same thing to the entire economy.
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  I would rent a house for a month in the area you're considering and ask the local people what they think. Some economies (particularly tourism-heavy ones) are better set up for integrating new rich neighbors than others. Nova Scotia's still welcoming.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  Move wherever you want lol
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- AstixAndBelix 4y ago
  Why would a rich guy moving someplace raise the prices for everyone else? Simple, because the people working there will charge the rich guy more! The only reason gentrification exists is because local businesses see the influx of rich people as an opportunity to raise prices, not to simply have more customers. A mom and pop kebab place might become fancier to serve the rich guys, even though the owner could have totally kept their original business model without pricing out the locals. In the end, it's always the same old: "for someone to buy there must be someone to sell, for someone to sell there must be someone to buy". At every step of the gebtrification process there are people who could stop it, but don't
  - roarcher 4y ago
    > the owner could have totally kept their original business model without pricing out the locals Their costs are increasing like everyone else's, especially if they're leasing the building. They may have no choice but to raise prices, even if they don't make the place fancier.

by mo_42 4y ago

lastofthemojito 4y ago

I've been thinking more and more about this concept where people, how you put it: "disturb the local economy with their purchasing power". My grandparents lived a couple of miles from the city where Grandpa worked, but then when he retired they moved maybe 30 miles out where things were cheaper. I knew other folks whose parents or grandparents retired to Florida to take advantage of a lower cost-of-living and no income tax. That's just what people did - why pay a premium to live near the jobs if you aren't working? More recently I've read complaints about folks from richer areas (often California) moving to cheaper areas, driving up the cost of living, straining local services, etc. Some of them are retirees, although remote work has added to the issue, leading to "go back to California" sentiment in Portland, Boise, etc. I've heard similar stories about expats driving up rents in Mexico City and Portugal, making those areas unaffordable for locals. So I've got a healthy 401(k) balance and will be retiring one of these days. What are the rules for where I can retire if I want to move somewhere my dollars will go further? Is it still thought of as OK at all to exploit another area's lower cost-of-living in this way? Does it depend on the degree, like it'd be fine if I move to a nearby suburb that is 10% cheaper but not if I move to Thailand? Does it depend on economic conditions in an area, like how many existing residents are being priced out?

sebzim4500 4y ago
> Is it still thought of as OK at all to exploit another area's lower cost-of-living in this way I think it is only a few terminally online people that object to this. In real life locals object to people coming in and buying second homes or renting out airbnbs, not new people moving into the area permanently.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  I think the word Gentrification comes from real life.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  > I think it is only a few terminally online people that object to this. The reality of the matter is that the insane population growth of the 20th Century led to some pretty haphazard development (e.g. CDMX’s never ending sprawl). This has made areas with livability amenities (e.g., walkable safe neighborhoods) relatively rare all things considered. For various reasons, certain areas with good amenities remained isolated from broader real estate markets (e.g., living in CDMX would seem laughable to an American in the 1980s based on crime statistics alone). Because of COVID, a lot of those areas are now a part of larger real estate markets. The people who live there now realize that they can’t afford the prices that the larger market brings, so acting in self interest, they try to remain isolated from the market. (In the vein if SF experiencing the worlds problems a decade before anywhere else) This is basically the story of SF’s Mission district over the past 20 years and why you’d see ridiculous things like people protesting new development because it had floor to ceiling windows. It’s a weird phenomenon, but one that most people on this forum can’t really relate to.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  Trust me, there are plenty of places where people object to new people moving into the area permanently. If you haven't seen this you've never lived in Montana, Northern Idaho, etc. Xenophobia against out-of-staters is practically the regional religion. Which, to be honest, is not totally unjustified, these places are wonderful and people whose families have lived there for generations are finding themselves pushed out by the rising property values caused by the migration of people out of the rich cities and into their communities. It's unfortunately a feature of our system- if you don't have money you don't get to live in good places. People are just justifiably unhappy with that particular feature acting on them.
  - danielrpa 4y ago
    Property values is just one part of the problem. A lot of the xenophobia is also due these migrants bringing their political opinions (and votes) with them.
mo_42 4y ago
I like your point. I guess we can solve this with taxation. Maybe we want to tax frequent flights but not retirees. Depends on the goal people want to achieve. Every community has its own problems and ways to solve them.
chowells 4y ago
It's not about how much money you have, it's about what you do with it. Do you match your standard of living to those around you, or do you distort the environment to provide you with what you desire regardless of what those around you have? Do you isolate yourself except for your spending, or do you participate in the community in the ways expected of a local? Are you living there to live there, or are you living there for financial reasons? If your goal isn't to live like a colonial master, make sure your execution doesn't look like an attempt at colonialism. That principle should get you 99% of the way there.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  This. People don't care that you're there. They care that you are making boutique $15 sandwich shop(s) a viable business where they were not previously causing rent to go up driving the burger joint they loved out of business or whatever. Ideally you've retire to Arizona or Florida or some other traditional retirement or tourism destination with an economy has had an influx of money for a long time and reached equilibrium. In lieu of that the next best thing is assimilating and living like the locals.
  - cmh89 4y ago
    That's not really the problem. The big problem is that people who move from a HCOL to a less or low cost of living place are able to pay more for housing than people who live in the local economy. This doctor is a great example of it. He makes more than an Austin doctor, he probably is buying or renting at the top end of the market and driving up prices. I live in Portland, Oregon. Pretty much every who lives here has had a conversation with a Californian transplant who raves about how cheap the housing is, when most people will never dream of owning a home here.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      The housing is just one aspect. They do this the same thing to the entire economy.
SuoDuanDao 4y ago
I would rent a house for a month in the area you're considering and ask the local people what they think. Some economies (particularly tourism-heavy ones) are better set up for integrating new rich neighbors than others. Nova Scotia's still welcoming.
Eumenes 4y ago
Move wherever you want lol
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AstixAndBelix 4y ago
Why would a rich guy moving someplace raise the prices for everyone else? Simple, because the people working there will charge the rich guy more! The only reason gentrification exists is because local businesses see the influx of rich people as an opportunity to raise prices, not to simply have more customers. A mom and pop kebab place might become fancier to serve the rich guys, even though the owner could have totally kept their original business model without pricing out the locals. In the end, it's always the same old: "for someone to buy there must be someone to sell, for someone to sell there must be someone to buy". At every step of the gebtrification process there are people who could stop it, but don't
- roarcher 4y ago
  > the owner could have totally kept their original business model without pricing out the locals Their costs are increasing like everyone else's, especially if they're leasing the building. They may have no choice but to raise prices, even if they don't make the place fancier.