4 ms·

Exactly this. We should be giving people incentives to move the Midwest where there is affordable housing. Not everyone can live on the coasts. Here in Californ

by vondur 3y ago

Exactly this. We should be giving people incentives to move the Midwest where there is affordable housing. Not everyone can live on the coasts. Here in California, the infrastructure has not kept up with the population increases. As a result, houses are being built in areas that were previously wilderness and now we have fires burning through entire towns.

admax88qqq 3y ago
Is the affordable housing that exists int he Midwest not an incentive? Or do you think we should be giving people even more?
- zdragnar 3y ago
  Many people find the Midwest winters unpleasant, and many Midwest states lack variety in outdoor terrain. On top of that, finding a job can be quite a bit more work if it is a career that can't work from home and you don't want a long commut., Many types of jobs are much easier to come by in urban areas, even in the Midwest. That said, there's plenty of great places to live here, and significantly lower costs of living too.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Or to factor it out, the incentive should be (perhaps) for businesses to allow "state agnostic" remote work, or give incentives to move to lower cost of living areas. The problem with those things is the main decision is made by people who are not affected by the high cost of living; Musk doesn't notice the difference in housing cost between Texas and California, even if his employees would.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      the problem is also that a lot of tax and insurance and whatnot are defined by the state you live in. supporting remote work means having to be compliant in every single jurisdiction an employee could possibly live in.
ihaveajob 3y ago
San Francisco, the densest city in the state, is 3/4 suburbia. There's no reason why it couldn't host 4 times the population without resorting to Hong Kong style urbanism (which would be great IMO, but that's a separate story). The infrastructure argument would make sense if homes in remote areas didn't also need that infrastructure, while suffering from lower efficiency in all measures.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  [deleted] No more fever posting
  - pchristensen 3y ago
    I’d love to hear how you came up with that.
  - danking00 3y ago
    I was surprised by the last clause in your last sentence, but you’re absolutely right. https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/ua_list_all.txt https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/ua_list_all.tx... LA edges out NYC: 7000 to 5300. Presumably in individuals per square mile.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      It all depends on where you draw the lines. When people think of LA they think of that whole sprawling metropolis between the mountains (what is technically the LA basis or the LA metro area) - but the City of Los Angeles is a smaller denser portion of that. And when people think New York City they think Manhattan, but New York City includes quite a bit more.
      - pchristensen 3y ago
        The City of Los Angeles is still over 4 million people, more than most states.
bitcurious 3y ago
During/post covid there has been a massive migration out of urban centers into rural places. Thus far the effect has been that affordable places are less affordable, while expensive places stayed expensive.

by vondur 3y ago

admax88qqq 3y ago

Is the affordable housing that exists int he Midwest not an incentive? Or do you think we should be giving people even more?

zdragnar 3y ago
Many people find the Midwest winters unpleasant, and many Midwest states lack variety in outdoor terrain. On top of that, finding a job can be quite a bit more work if it is a career that can't work from home and you don't want a long commut., Many types of jobs are much easier to come by in urban areas, even in the Midwest. That said, there's plenty of great places to live here, and significantly lower costs of living too.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Or to factor it out, the incentive should be (perhaps) for businesses to allow "state agnostic" remote work, or give incentives to move to lower cost of living areas. The problem with those things is the main decision is made by people who are not affected by the high cost of living; Musk doesn't notice the difference in housing cost between Texas and California, even if his employees would.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    the problem is also that a lot of tax and insurance and whatnot are defined by the state you live in. supporting remote work means having to be compliant in every single jurisdiction an employee could possibly live in.

ihaveajob 3y ago

San Francisco, the densest city in the state, is 3/4 suburbia. There's no reason why it couldn't host 4 times the population without resorting to Hong Kong style urbanism (which would be great IMO, but that's a separate story). The infrastructure argument would make sense if homes in remote areas didn't also need that infrastructure, while suffering from lower efficiency in all measures.

dragonwriter 3y ago
[deleted] No more fever posting
- pchristensen 3y ago
  I’d love to hear how you came up with that.
- danking00 3y ago
  I was surprised by the last clause in your last sentence, but you’re absolutely right. https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/ua_list_all.txt https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/ua_list_all.tx... LA edges out NYC: 7000 to 5300. Presumably in individuals per square mile.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It all depends on where you draw the lines. When people think of LA they think of that whole sprawling metropolis between the mountains (what is technically the LA basis or the LA metro area) - but the City of Los Angeles is a smaller denser portion of that. And when people think New York City they think Manhattan, but New York City includes quite a bit more.
    - pchristensen 3y ago
      The City of Los Angeles is still over 4 million people, more than most states.

bitcurious 3y ago

During/post covid there has been a massive migration out of urban centers into rural places. Thus far the effect has been that affordable places are less affordable, while expensive places stayed expensive.