6 ms·

This rings true and people always seem to forget that it's much easier to innovate when the cost of living is lower. I'm currently living in Auckland, New Zeal

This rings true and people always seem to forget that it's much easier to innovate when the cost of living is lower. I'm currently living in Auckland, New Zealand, which by NZ (and world standards I think, though can't cite anything off hand) is quite expensive, but myself and my girlfriend have been contemplating moving to Sydney, Australia, a city which is one of most expensive in the world but where we would both be paid more. The cost of living there makes it a complete non-starter if you're not just wanting to work full time - and then trying to eek out a pleasurable life at the weekends. I currently contract 3 days a week to support myself while working on my startup and trying to fit in some time for music as well in the other 4 days (and try to get relaxation each week too). The money I make wouldn't last very long in Sydney or any world city for that matter, I guess that's where the VC is supposed to kick in, but if it doesn't then you're in trouble. If it's one thing I've worked out recently, full time, 40 hour week style employment is the enemy of me being able to pursue any sort of interesting side project, I'm sure it's similar for others. It's a realisation that, now I've had it, I can't imagine ever working under those conditions on anything but my own projects. High costs of living such as those in SF and Sydney (and even Auckland) can necessitate such income just to live with a modicum of dignity however, and then trap you with dining out at weekends and such, resulting in not actually achieving any progress on the projects that matter most to you. Worst of all this is the debilitating feeling that socialising and being a functional human being is preventing you from achieving your goal.

michaelochurch 14y ago
This rings true and people always seem to forget that it's much easier to innovate when the cost of living is lower. The problem, or the balance that must be struck, is that it's hard to innovate without being surrounded by other innovative people. You need a city with a critical mass of innovative, talented people and a low cost-of-living. California in the 1970s had that. I don't know what the 2013 analogue is, or if it's even in the US. The Midwest would qualify, but it's hard to raise any kind of money (VC, bank loans) out there. When real estate is expensive, money dominates peoples' lives-- even seemingly wealthy people who still don't make enough to raise a family. When it's cheap, people focus on other things and money is just one thing in it. I'm ideologically against expensive real estate. I think that the government should buy, build and own about 60% of housing and set the prevailing rent per square foot. Rich people will still have the ability to buy property and to rent or own nicer private housing, but the basic prevailing rate will be set. This actually doesn't bring along the negatives of price ceilings (shortage) because the government can also build more housing and transportation infrastructure to increase available supply. I think we should hold the government responsible for that. No one should have to pay more than 1/4 of post-tax income to live within 20 minutes of work. The reason New York is expensive is that people like me-- ambitious, hard-working, extremely capable-- are able to find jobs here. People like me make the fucking city great. For each person like me, there are 9999 who want to be around (or employ, or exploit) people like me and they drive up the fucking rent. Instead of benefitting from our contribution, however, we get charged for it when we pay these enormous housing costs. We should be rioting in the fucking streets over this.
- goldfeld 14y ago
  The implicit conclusion from both of your points is that the government should be able to select fucking great people like you over others to offer affordable housing to. Sounds like a recipe to dystopia.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  It's a lot easier to just have the government implement a land-value tax and repeal zoning laws than to actually administrate 60% of the "dwellable" land.
- bokonist 14y ago
  Expensive real estate is a deliberate policy of the government. Local government zoning laws keep the supply tight. And low interest rates and easy credit enable people to take out huge loans to bid up the prices of real estate. To get cheap housing, the government would just need to repeal zoning laws and limit all the size of all home mortgages from any government subsidized institution (FDIC insured banks, etc.) to a maximum of 3X median income with a 25% down payment. That would get housing prices down very fast. The government keeps housing expensive, because older home owners are one of the most powerful voting blocks. Your average 60 year old homeowner is much more likely to vote than your 25 year old apartment dweller. Furthermore, the homeowner is going to be irate and vote against any politician who enacts policies that make their home price go down, while the 25 year old is not really paying attention. You're committing the "deus ex machina" fallacy where by you seem to assume that the government has the incentives and institutional ability to effectively manage public housing and keep the cost of housing down. The actual experienced history of government housing in the U.S. has been positively atrocious. And in terms of cost, government housing generally costs about twice as much to build as the equivalent private sector housing. The really hard problems are: how do you wrest political power away from middle-aged home owners? How in general do you make government work for the general interest as a whole rather than work for powerful factional interests (such as homeowners, construction unions, etc.)
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Let's not use FDIC as a crowbar to micromanage consumer banking, please. There are so many better dials for the government to turn than resorting to that.
contingencies 14y ago
As an Aussie/Kiwi dual citizen in China, I wonder why you don't consider moving to Asia. Sydney, where I was born, is ridiculously pricey, and while the harbour is beautiful and the city fairly green (in parts), it's not really that international and the quality of life doesn't actually match the image once you start paying taxes and cost of living. That said, it's a safe choice.
- venus 14y ago
  Where in Asia? You might be a dual Chinese citizen, but most of us are certainly not, and the language would be another barrier. Singapore and HK have a lower language barrier but there's still the issue of visas and they are not exactly cheap. Japan is lovely but has the same issues of visa and language. You could sit on a beach in Vietnam or Thailand but if you're going to do that you may as well live in a country town here. There's not many "perfect" options.
  - contingencies 14y ago
    I'm not a Chinese citizen, I'm an anglo-Australian. I just happened to prefer living in Asia since about 12 years ago. By all means, if you don't enjoy risk taking, language learning or being in another culture, then stay in your home culture and pontificate about how great your country towns are. If you want the reward, you have to take some risk. All visas issues can be solved with persistence. Life is what you make of it.
    - venus 14y ago
      Wow, you're reading a lot into my comment that I didn't intend. I have nothing against any of those things. I am just pointing out that you don't just "move to Asia"; there are tradeoffs to be made. > then stay in your home culture and pontificate about how great your country towns are Really uncalled for IMO. I have lived and worked extensively in Japan and Thailand and visit the region multiple times a year. Like most things in life there's no such thing as a free lunch and one must weigh the pros and cons of moving. My simply mentioning that there are, in fact, cons, is no cause at all for you to go on the attack.

michaelochurch 14y ago

This rings true and people always seem to forget that it's much easier to innovate when the cost of living is lower. The problem, or the balance that must be struck, is that it's hard to innovate without being surrounded by other innovative people. You need a city with a critical mass of innovative, talented people and a low cost-of-living. California in the 1970s had that. I don't know what the 2013 analogue is, or if it's even in the US. The Midwest would qualify, but it's hard to raise any kind of money (VC, bank loans) out there. When real estate is expensive, money dominates peoples' lives-- even seemingly wealthy people who still don't make enough to raise a family. When it's cheap, people focus on other things and money is just one thing in it. I'm ideologically against expensive real estate. I think that the government should buy, build and own about 60% of housing and set the prevailing rent per square foot. Rich people will still have the ability to buy property and to rent or own nicer private housing, but the basic prevailing rate will be set. This actually doesn't bring along the negatives of price ceilings (shortage) because the government can also build more housing and transportation infrastructure to increase available supply. I think we should hold the government responsible for that. No one should have to pay more than 1/4 of post-tax income to live within 20 minutes of work. The reason New York is expensive is that people like me-- ambitious, hard-working, extremely capable-- are able to find jobs here. People like me make the fucking city great. For each person like me, there are 9999 who want to be around (or employ, or exploit) people like me and they drive up the fucking rent. Instead of benefitting from our contribution, however, we get charged for it when we pay these enormous housing costs. We should be rioting in the fucking streets over this.

goldfeld 14y ago
The implicit conclusion from both of your points is that the government should be able to select fucking great people like you over others to offer affordable housing to. Sounds like a recipe to dystopia.
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
It's a lot easier to just have the government implement a land-value tax and repeal zoning laws than to actually administrate 60% of the "dwellable" land.
bokonist 14y ago
Expensive real estate is a deliberate policy of the government. Local government zoning laws keep the supply tight. And low interest rates and easy credit enable people to take out huge loans to bid up the prices of real estate. To get cheap housing, the government would just need to repeal zoning laws and limit all the size of all home mortgages from any government subsidized institution (FDIC insured banks, etc.) to a maximum of 3X median income with a 25% down payment. That would get housing prices down very fast. The government keeps housing expensive, because older home owners are one of the most powerful voting blocks. Your average 60 year old homeowner is much more likely to vote than your 25 year old apartment dweller. Furthermore, the homeowner is going to be irate and vote against any politician who enacts policies that make their home price go down, while the 25 year old is not really paying attention. You're committing the "deus ex machina" fallacy where by you seem to assume that the government has the incentives and institutional ability to effectively manage public housing and keep the cost of housing down. The actual experienced history of government housing in the U.S. has been positively atrocious. And in terms of cost, government housing generally costs about twice as much to build as the equivalent private sector housing. The really hard problems are: how do you wrest political power away from middle-aged home owners? How in general do you make government work for the general interest as a whole rather than work for powerful factional interests (such as homeowners, construction unions, etc.)
- philwelch 14y ago
  Let's not use FDIC as a crowbar to micromanage consumer banking, please. There are so many better dials for the government to turn than resorting to that.

contingencies 14y ago

As an Aussie/Kiwi dual citizen in China, I wonder why you don't consider moving to Asia. Sydney, where I was born, is ridiculously pricey, and while the harbour is beautiful and the city fairly green (in parts), it's not really that international and the quality of life doesn't actually match the image once you start paying taxes and cost of living. That said, it's a safe choice.

venus 14y ago
Where in Asia? You might be a dual Chinese citizen, but most of us are certainly not, and the language would be another barrier. Singapore and HK have a lower language barrier but there's still the issue of visas and they are not exactly cheap. Japan is lovely but has the same issues of visa and language. You could sit on a beach in Vietnam or Thailand but if you're going to do that you may as well live in a country town here. There's not many "perfect" options.
- contingencies 14y ago
  I'm not a Chinese citizen, I'm an anglo-Australian. I just happened to prefer living in Asia since about 12 years ago. By all means, if you don't enjoy risk taking, language learning or being in another culture, then stay in your home culture and pontificate about how great your country towns are. If you want the reward, you have to take some risk. All visas issues can be solved with persistence. Life is what you make of it.
  - venus 14y ago
    Wow, you're reading a lot into my comment that I didn't intend. I have nothing against any of those things. I am just pointing out that you don't just "move to Asia"; there are tradeoffs to be made. > then stay in your home culture and pontificate about how great your country towns are Really uncalled for IMO. I have lived and worked extensively in Japan and Thailand and visit the region multiple times a year. Like most things in life there's no such thing as a free lunch and one must weigh the pros and cons of moving. My simply mentioning that there are, in fact, cons, is no cause at all for you to go on the attack.