5 ms·

Why do people still live in big, liberal cities? They're clearly trying to drive people out. Just sell up before your property values tank and move somewhere ni

Why do people still live in big, liberal cities? They're clearly trying to drive people out. Just sell up before your property values tank and move somewhere nice. Learn to entertain yourself, cook, etc. and pretty soon you won't need the amenities.

joemazerino 3y ago
ThE FoOd ChOicEs BrO!
mlrtime 3y ago
Mostly because that is where the high paying jobs are concentrated, after that I would guess family/familiarity. Politics would be lower on the list. WFH showed us that if you give people options, they will take them.
- LanzVonL 3y ago
  >get high paying job >spend all your money on housing and property taxes and etc.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    If you get a job that pays 3X but your cost of living is also 3X, just remember that your disposable income is 3X as well. You are still economically out competing your Texan or Midwest colleagues. If you can’t get that kind of job in SF, but still live in SF, things are really tough, leaving is a good option.
    - LanzVonL 3y ago
      Is this true though?
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        Not entirely. Let's say my salary is $100k/year, and my expenses are $90k/year. I have $10k/year to save (or blow). If I move to somewhere with 3x salary and 3x costs, then my salary goes to $300k/year and my expenses go to $270k/year, and so I now have $30k/year left over. But it's not that simple, because of progressive tax rates. The federal income tax on $300k/year is more than 3x the tax on $100k/year. Or, to put it a different way, you get 3x the salary, but not 3x the take home pay. Out of that less-than-3x take home pay, you now get to pay the 3x expenses. Now, it could be that when people say "3x the expenses", they're taking that into account. But I suspect they're not. I suspect they're looking at COL numbers, and I suspect that the published COL numbers are just housing, food, medical, and the like.
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Your taxes go up a bit because, yes, taxes are graduated. But it’s not as big a deal, and your SS is capped. A house hold making $450k/year in a high COL is still going to be doing much better than 200k in a low COL. Lots of costs aren’t indexed to the area you live in. Computer, phones, trips to Mexico, and to some extent cars cost similar in SF as they do in Mississippi. Food prices don’t vary as much either, their might be a 20% difference, but not 3X, same with medical (really, housing is the main thing that is very much more expensive, everything else is slightly more expensive to the same price). Your retirement savings include your house, so you have a career in SF and then retire to New Mexico, the locals will hate you and your crazy home equity you bring with you.
        steveBK123 3y ago
        Yup I saw this with a lot of friends who chose to retire in their 20s to Portland. They could live remarkably comfortably working simple hourly retail jobs while I was busting my hump at competitive big corporate jobs NYC to live in less comfortable circumstances. Their "Portland dollars" income went very far on "Portland dollars" denominated goods&services like their rent, food trucks, entertainment, etc. However our disposable income was dramatically different. So anything in "US dollars" like airplane tickets, smartphones, etc were out of reach to them.
  - efields 3y ago
    And if you are happy with the deal, what’s the problem? Enough people seem to be that it keeps going…
kypro 3y ago
The good jobs are there. And if you have a good job you can live in a nice neighbourhood that doesn't have to worry about this stuff while benefiting from all the cheap labour that comes from having lots of poor people around – cheap restaurants, affordable delivery services, cheap taxis, etc. It's win win if you avoid the bad areas and the bad areas don't grow too large. SF failed because its underclass grew too large and they stopped arresting the criminals among them. Now the people with the nice jobs in the nice houses don't want to live there because they increasingly need to live among the poor.
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
You're forgetting that the majority of the people there are voting for the issues that cause the problems - so presumably they aren't as bothered as you might be. There's a decent chunk of people living in SF that think it's the best place to live in the world BY FAR.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
elzbardico 3y ago
If you have money you can get isolated from most of those problems. You can have an almost idilic life even in third world big cities if you have money enough actually. And big liberal cities are the places where you can get money.
epistasis 3y ago
> property values tank The idea that SF property values are going to tank is, well, completely disconnected from reality. If property values did tank, there would be a far better chance of solving SF's problems, but the root problem is that about 1.5x-5x people want to live in SF than they allow for homes to be built, creating massive inequality and misery. The revulsion you feel at living in SF is quite similar to the feeling many have about not living in SF.
- LanzVonL 3y ago
  Happened in Baltimore, Detroit, formerly nice places in Minneapolis, Chicago, New Orleans... It's not "if" but "when."
francisofascii 3y ago
Cities are more nuanced. Good parts/bad parts. Pacific Heights is pretty nice. Cities are fun when you are young, but I admit get less and less fun the older you get. Also, aren't all US cities liberal?
sp332 3y ago
Most cities are not as bad at this as SF. NYC has 10x as many homeless people but they are given shelter. Also NYC can build buildings over 4 stories tall.
DudeOpotomus 3y ago
Why do people want to live in places that allow them to be free? Where freedom to live your life as you want as you choose, reigns? Instead of in places that not only attack one's rights to exist, they actively push their narrow and ignorant political and theological views onto people to control them? Gee, I wonder... Liberal literally means freedom.

joemazerino 3y ago

ThE FoOd ChOicEs BrO!

mlrtime 3y ago

Mostly because that is where the high paying jobs are concentrated, after that I would guess family/familiarity. Politics would be lower on the list. WFH showed us that if you give people options, they will take them.

LanzVonL 3y ago
>get high paying job >spend all your money on housing and property taxes and etc.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  If you get a job that pays 3X but your cost of living is also 3X, just remember that your disposable income is 3X as well. You are still economically out competing your Texan or Midwest colleagues. If you can’t get that kind of job in SF, but still live in SF, things are really tough, leaving is a good option.
  - LanzVonL 3y ago
    Is this true though?
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      Not entirely. Let's say my salary is $100k/year, and my expenses are $90k/year. I have $10k/year to save (or blow). If I move to somewhere with 3x salary and 3x costs, then my salary goes to $300k/year and my expenses go to $270k/year, and so I now have $30k/year left over. But it's not that simple, because of progressive tax rates. The federal income tax on $300k/year is more than 3x the tax on $100k/year. Or, to put it a different way, you get 3x the salary, but not 3x the take home pay. Out of that less-than-3x take home pay, you now get to pay the 3x expenses. Now, it could be that when people say "3x the expenses", they're taking that into account. But I suspect they're not. I suspect they're looking at COL numbers, and I suspect that the published COL numbers are just housing, food, medical, and the like.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Your taxes go up a bit because, yes, taxes are graduated. But it’s not as big a deal, and your SS is capped. A house hold making $450k/year in a high COL is still going to be doing much better than 200k in a low COL. Lots of costs aren’t indexed to the area you live in. Computer, phones, trips to Mexico, and to some extent cars cost similar in SF as they do in Mississippi. Food prices don’t vary as much either, their might be a 20% difference, but not 3X, same with medical (really, housing is the main thing that is very much more expensive, everything else is slightly more expensive to the same price). Your retirement savings include your house, so you have a career in SF and then retire to New Mexico, the locals will hate you and your crazy home equity you bring with you.
        steveBK123 3y ago
        Yup I saw this with a lot of friends who chose to retire in their 20s to Portland. They could live remarkably comfortably working simple hourly retail jobs while I was busting my hump at competitive big corporate jobs NYC to live in less comfortable circumstances. Their "Portland dollars" income went very far on "Portland dollars" denominated goods&services like their rent, food trucks, entertainment, etc. However our disposable income was dramatically different. So anything in "US dollars" like airplane tickets, smartphones, etc were out of reach to them.
- efields 3y ago
  And if you are happy with the deal, what’s the problem? Enough people seem to be that it keeps going…

kypro 3y ago

The good jobs are there. And if you have a good job you can live in a nice neighbourhood that doesn't have to worry about this stuff while benefiting from all the cheap labour that comes from having lots of poor people around – cheap restaurants, affordable delivery services, cheap taxis, etc. It's win win if you avoid the bad areas and the bad areas don't grow too large. SF failed because its underclass grew too large and they stopped arresting the criminals among them. Now the people with the nice jobs in the nice houses don't want to live there because they increasingly need to live among the poor.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

You're forgetting that the majority of the people there are voting for the issues that cause the problems - so presumably they aren't as bothered as you might be. There's a decent chunk of people living in SF that think it's the best place to live in the world BY FAR.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

elzbardico 3y ago

If you have money you can get isolated from most of those problems. You can have an almost idilic life even in third world big cities if you have money enough actually. And big liberal cities are the places where you can get money.

epistasis 3y ago

> property values tank The idea that SF property values are going to tank is, well, completely disconnected from reality. If property values did tank, there would be a far better chance of solving SF's problems, but the root problem is that about 1.5x-5x people want to live in SF than they allow for homes to be built, creating massive inequality and misery. The revulsion you feel at living in SF is quite similar to the feeling many have about not living in SF.

LanzVonL 3y ago
Happened in Baltimore, Detroit, formerly nice places in Minneapolis, Chicago, New Orleans... It's not "if" but "when."

francisofascii 3y ago

Cities are more nuanced. Good parts/bad parts. Pacific Heights is pretty nice. Cities are fun when you are young, but I admit get less and less fun the older you get. Also, aren't all US cities liberal?

sp332 3y ago

Most cities are not as bad at this as SF. NYC has 10x as many homeless people but they are given shelter. Also NYC can build buildings over 4 stories tall.

DudeOpotomus 3y ago

Why do people want to live in places that allow them to be free? Where freedom to live your life as you want as you choose, reigns? Instead of in places that not only attack one's rights to exist, they actively push their narrow and ignorant political and theological views onto people to control them? Gee, I wonder... Liberal literally means freedom.