4 ms·
It's a network effect. The jobs, dating scenes, and opportunities for career advancement are in big cities. This has always been true to some extent but the tre
by api 2y ago
It's a network effect. The jobs, dating scenes, and opportunities for career advancement are in big cities. This has always been true to some extent but the trend seems to have accelerated in the 21st century.
There is plenty of land and housing in most places outside these cities.
There are two solutions. The individual solution is to go to these cities, get what you want, then leave and settle somewhere more reasonably priced. In some cases you might be able to skip this step if you're in a field that allows telework. I would personally recommend: once you career is established enough that you can get a good job in lots of places, don't stay in these cities unless you can comfortably afford housing. Comfortably means ideally 30% of your income goes to housing. If you stretch and spend absurd percentages of your income on housing you'll be house-poor and will never be able to accumulate wealth. It's even worse if you are renting or on a variable rate mortgage.
The collective/societal solution is that we need to massively increase the density of these cities and improve their infrastructure, but that will in many places require going to war against the NIMBY obstructionists.
- PreachSoup 2y ago> The collective/societal solution is that we need to massively increase the density of these cities and improve their infrastructure, but that will in many places require going to war against the NIMBY obstructionists. The Tokyo solution which we should all follow. It's the only way out of this mess
- rickydroll 2y agoI am a steadfast exurban/ruralist at heart, but I agree that we need to increase city density and not expand the land footprint with urban sprawl. I prefer the Helsinki social housing solution. I think it is more intellectually honest to make it clear that the state takes the financial loss to bring housing costs down instead of completely forcing it onto the builder or the property owner. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but cities don't change because it is too costly to rip and replace in terms of dollars, disruption to parts of the city, transportation, etc. However, I do think that rip-and-replace is an important strategy for improving housing density in the city and correcting past mistakes. I do worry about the impact of higher-density living. I think people will lose touch with the natural world. Being outdoors in wilder spaces will become a tourist experience rather than an appreciation and understanding of the wilder parts of the world.
- ksplicer 2y agoOnly considering the cost of housing ignores how expensive transportation can be. See https://htaindex.cnt.org/compare-affordability/ https://htaindex.cnt.org/compare-affordability/ for a comparison of affordability between housing costs below 30% of median regional income and housing and transportation costs below 45% of median regional income. When I moved to New York and got rid of my car it ended up being significantly cheaper than the Bay Area overall despite the higher rent.