5 ms·

That's because most people live in cities because they prefer it, not because their office was there.

by smt88 2y ago

aprilthird2021 2y ago
I think the opposite is true. It's easier to find a job in a city other than your own with the internet, and big cities pay the most
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  That ignores that plenty of people are in cities because of the amenities that concentration allows. If you want niche/specialty restaurants, grocery options, entertainment, medical care etc. you will have to be in a large metropolitan area
  - ghaff 2y ago
    You can be in a broader metropolitan area without actually living in a city.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    That means you have to be in driving distance of a metro with several hundred thousand. That is very different than a Tier 1 city.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      The opportunities you get in a city of 3million is different from 600k is different from 250k. I've lived in all of the above over my life. You can find niches in each. However the larger the city the more options. The smallest city had great Thai food - some family from Thailand moved there and opened a restaurant, but there was no Vietnamese, the next largest city has both, and the 3 million city more options than I was ever able to check out. (there are cities > 10 million around with even more options).
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Yeah big cities provide a one stop mall like experience for 'experiences and culture' for people who need that curated for them. To me it's the most boring, non-organic, empty experience, but I've always preferred non-mainstream scenes or to hunt out my own entertainment/style/beauty. I can see the draw for people that doesn't work for though. It's funny that cities various 'interesting districts' are normally just suburbs that the city absorbed. But yeah, suburbs are just awful places without their own culture or interest (unless absorbed, then they are a distinct interesting district).
- 9rx 2y ago
  > big cities pay the most Big cities pay top performers the most, by far, but median incomes tend to be quite a bit lower than small town/rural areas. If you are a professional sports star or F500 CEO, the city is unquestionably the place to be†, but for the normal person who will end up in a drab job the money often isn't there. Many will accept the low pay due to being temporarily embarrassed CEOs, of course. † Although knowing some of these people, they tend to live rurally as well, having the means to be able to live in both settings. The rich rarely live in just one place.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Pay is lower in small/rural towns for the cheap jobs - but your cost of living is also lower. The trick is finding the best compromise for your situation - dense enough to have the higher pay of a city while not so dense that your cost of living is too high. Where I live in the Suburbs of Des Moines, McDonalds starts at $16/hour. There are rural towns not far away where they start at $14, and I know rural towns farther out where you start at $10 (McDonalds isn't in these towns so it isn't a full comparison but that is the closest I can give). Where I live apartments can be had for under $1000/month so it is feasible for someone working at McDonalds to live on that wage. In the more rural areas apartments might be $500/month but you are making less plus the local grocery stores are more expesnive than the Aldi you could walk to from the apartment (thus meaning you don't need a car though crossing the highways isn't exactly safe). Of course the real issue is people pick where to live based on factors other than cost of living. They care where their families live.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      > Pay is lower in small/rural towns for the cheap jobs I expect the median income is often higher in rural areas because, while there is little on the high end, there is more mid-tier opportunity. In the big city if you don't make it into the big leagues, only the dregs are left. Cities amplify the extremes. In rural areas, the $30 per hour jobs are willing to hire any warm body that shows up. Of course, rural is a difficult categorization as it is a catchall for everything that is left. A rural area with a strong agricultural sector, for example, is nothing like a rural area that is not much more than barren wilderness. In the former, there is a lot of money to be made, comparatively, while in the latter the McDonalds at the highway rest stop may be the only business there is for hundreds of miles. We are definitely talking about a certain kind of rural here.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think it is almost entirely job driven. Given the choice of equal pay, most people would pick a cheap suburban 2000sqft house with a garden for 10% the price of a SF condo. Of course, variation exists
- renewiltord 2y ago
  If this were true, we wouldn’t need to enforce the single family home through zoning.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    The fact that you can build 200 condos on the same acre as 1 ranch house does not negate the fact that most people would choose the ranchouse over the condo if presented a choice between the two. It is numbers game. Its not about what any single wants best, but how many times you can sell people their 2nd choice using the same land.
    - wrl 2y ago
      "most people"? Genuine question – do you have any data to back this up?
      - dagw 2y ago
        While I would much rather have a nice downtown condo in a major city over a ranch house in the sticks. I would rather have the ranch house in the sticks than a condo in the same location as that ranch house. Some dream of living in a condo in the city, some of a rural ranch house. I don't think anybody dreams of a rural condo.
        HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
        The ones that like living out in the country but don't want to/can't mow lawns and shovel snow do.
  - 2y ago
elzbardico 2y ago
People prefer cities due to access to stuff, but most people also would prefer a 3000 sqft home with a pool. During different phases of life, your ability and your relative importance given to either of those two poles will vary. As you get older, especially if you are married and have kids, usually the trade-off skews strongly towards having a big house, and then you will balance the distance side of the equation. Also, not all suburbs are created equal, and this is even more true outside the US.
- watwut 2y ago
  > most people also would prefer a 3000 sqft home with a pool If someone else does all the maintenance, dusting and vacuum cleaning, maybe. Other then that, actual swimming pool for doing laps or actual water park with slides is kind of better in most cases. There are some people who would use that large house or would be using their backyard swimming pool often ... but most just dont. > As you get older, especially if you are married and have kids, usually the trade-off skews strongly towards having a big house, and then you will balance the distance side of the equation. Someone with kids appreciates not having long drive to and from work, those take away from time with kids. And someone with kids over 7 years including kids themselves appreciates presence ability to do go to sport clubs, music clubs, libraries, school or whatever else without parent having to drive them each time. There is some advantage to big house in remote place with kids, but it also causes you and the kids to be more isolated from everything else.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Compromise is the key. You cannot have everything. There are times I wish I lived downtown. There are times I wished I lived in the mountains. There are times I wish I lived on the beach. If you live in the city that enables some lifestyles and makes some impossible. If you live on a rural area you get a different life, and suburbs again different. I know farmers who think nothing about hunting off their back porch - and why not their gun doesn't have the range to kill a neighbor so they don't have to worry about missing their shot. I know people who shoot guns in the suburbs, but they have done extra work to create a safe range in their house (and generally only safe for the lowest power rounds). The denser your living the less viable having a safe space to shoot is. There are things that are only possible in a dense city. You need a lot of people to have enough interest to support a symphony orchestra. There are a lot of niche stores that can only make it in a dense city because that is the only way to get enough people interested in that niche to support a store.

That's because most people live in cities because they prefer it, not because their office was there.

by smt88 2y ago

That's because most people live in cities because they prefer it, not because their office was there.

aprilthird2021 2y ago

I think the opposite is true. It's easier to find a job in a city other than your own with the internet, and big cities pay the most

bobthepanda 2y ago
That ignores that plenty of people are in cities because of the amenities that concentration allows. If you want niche/specialty restaurants, grocery options, entertainment, medical care etc. you will have to be in a large metropolitan area
- ghaff 2y ago
  You can be in a broader metropolitan area without actually living in a city.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  That means you have to be in driving distance of a metro with several hundred thousand. That is very different than a Tier 1 city.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    The opportunities you get in a city of 3million is different from 600k is different from 250k. I've lived in all of the above over my life. You can find niches in each. However the larger the city the more options. The smallest city had great Thai food - some family from Thailand moved there and opened a restaurant, but there was no Vietnamese, the next largest city has both, and the 3 million city more options than I was ever able to check out. (there are cities > 10 million around with even more options).
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Yeah big cities provide a one stop mall like experience for 'experiences and culture' for people who need that curated for them. To me it's the most boring, non-organic, empty experience, but I've always preferred non-mainstream scenes or to hunt out my own entertainment/style/beauty. I can see the draw for people that doesn't work for though. It's funny that cities various 'interesting districts' are normally just suburbs that the city absorbed. But yeah, suburbs are just awful places without their own culture or interest (unless absorbed, then they are a distinct interesting district).
9rx 2y ago
> big cities pay the most Big cities pay top performers the most, by far, but median incomes tend to be quite a bit lower than small town/rural areas. If you are a professional sports star or F500 CEO, the city is unquestionably the place to be†, but for the normal person who will end up in a drab job the money often isn't there. Many will accept the low pay due to being temporarily embarrassed CEOs, of course. † Although knowing some of these people, they tend to live rurally as well, having the means to be able to live in both settings. The rich rarely live in just one place.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Pay is lower in small/rural towns for the cheap jobs - but your cost of living is also lower. The trick is finding the best compromise for your situation - dense enough to have the higher pay of a city while not so dense that your cost of living is too high. Where I live in the Suburbs of Des Moines, McDonalds starts at $16/hour. There are rural towns not far away where they start at $14, and I know rural towns farther out where you start at $10 (McDonalds isn't in these towns so it isn't a full comparison but that is the closest I can give). Where I live apartments can be had for under $1000/month so it is feasible for someone working at McDonalds to live on that wage. In the more rural areas apartments might be $500/month but you are making less plus the local grocery stores are more expesnive than the Aldi you could walk to from the apartment (thus meaning you don't need a car though crossing the highways isn't exactly safe). Of course the real issue is people pick where to live based on factors other than cost of living. They care where their families live.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > Pay is lower in small/rural towns for the cheap jobs I expect the median income is often higher in rural areas because, while there is little on the high end, there is more mid-tier opportunity. In the big city if you don't make it into the big leagues, only the dregs are left. Cities amplify the extremes. In rural areas, the $30 per hour jobs are willing to hire any warm body that shows up. Of course, rural is a difficult categorization as it is a catchall for everything that is left. A rural area with a strong agricultural sector, for example, is nothing like a rural area that is not much more than barren wilderness. In the former, there is a lot of money to be made, comparatively, while in the latter the McDonalds at the highway rest stop may be the only business there is for hundreds of miles. We are definitely talking about a certain kind of rural here.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I think it is almost entirely job driven. Given the choice of equal pay, most people would pick a cheap suburban 2000sqft house with a garden for 10% the price of a SF condo. Of course, variation exists

renewiltord 2y ago
If this were true, we wouldn’t need to enforce the single family home through zoning.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  The fact that you can build 200 condos on the same acre as 1 ranch house does not negate the fact that most people would choose the ranchouse over the condo if presented a choice between the two. It is numbers game. Its not about what any single wants best, but how many times you can sell people their 2nd choice using the same land.
  - wrl 2y ago
    "most people"? Genuine question – do you have any data to back this up?
    - dagw 2y ago
      While I would much rather have a nice downtown condo in a major city over a ranch house in the sticks. I would rather have the ranch house in the sticks than a condo in the same location as that ranch house. Some dream of living in a condo in the city, some of a rural ranch house. I don't think anybody dreams of a rural condo.
      - HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
        The ones that like living out in the country but don't want to/can't mow lawns and shovel snow do.
- 2y ago

elzbardico 2y ago

People prefer cities due to access to stuff, but most people also would prefer a 3000 sqft home with a pool. During different phases of life, your ability and your relative importance given to either of those two poles will vary. As you get older, especially if you are married and have kids, usually the trade-off skews strongly towards having a big house, and then you will balance the distance side of the equation. Also, not all suburbs are created equal, and this is even more true outside the US.

watwut 2y ago
> most people also would prefer a 3000 sqft home with a pool If someone else does all the maintenance, dusting and vacuum cleaning, maybe. Other then that, actual swimming pool for doing laps or actual water park with slides is kind of better in most cases. There are some people who would use that large house or would be using their backyard swimming pool often ... but most just dont. > As you get older, especially if you are married and have kids, usually the trade-off skews strongly towards having a big house, and then you will balance the distance side of the equation. Someone with kids appreciates not having long drive to and from work, those take away from time with kids. And someone with kids over 7 years including kids themselves appreciates presence ability to do go to sport clubs, music clubs, libraries, school or whatever else without parent having to drive them each time. There is some advantage to big house in remote place with kids, but it also causes you and the kids to be more isolated from everything else.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Compromise is the key. You cannot have everything. There are times I wish I lived downtown. There are times I wished I lived in the mountains. There are times I wish I lived on the beach. If you live in the city that enables some lifestyles and makes some impossible. If you live on a rural area you get a different life, and suburbs again different. I know farmers who think nothing about hunting off their back porch - and why not their gun doesn't have the range to kill a neighbor so they don't have to worry about missing their shot. I know people who shoot guns in the suburbs, but they have done extra work to create a safe range in their house (and generally only safe for the lowest power rounds). The denser your living the less viable having a safe space to shoot is. There are things that are only possible in a dense city. You need a lot of people to have enough interest to support a symphony orchestra. There are a lot of niche stores that can only make it in a dense city because that is the only way to get enough people interested in that niche to support a store.