9 ms·

Stay Put, Young Man

125 points by pg 13y ago

ggreer 13y ago
A nitpick on San Jose: The city’s tallest building, Yglesias notes, is a mere twenty-two stories high. Anyone who lives in San Jose can tell you why this is the case. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California#Arts_and_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California#Arts_and_a... Because the downtown area is in the flight path to nearby Mineta San Jose International Airport, there is a height limit for buildings in the downtown area, which is under the final approach corridor to the airport. The height limit is dictated by local ordinances, driven by the distance from the runway and a slope defined by Federal Aviation Administration regulations. Core downtown buildings are limited to approximately 300 feet (91 m) but can get taller farther from the airport.[80] The rest of the article did a good job of arguing that housing prices harm migration and contribute to income inequality. But twisting a fact like that makes me suspicious. Hopefully fault lies with Matt Yglesias, not the author.
- NoPiece 13y ago
  Lazy research - they probably googled "tallest building in San Jose", went to the first result, then forgot to sort by floors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Jose,_California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Sa...
  - twelvechairs 13y ago
    Yglesias' style is generally this kind of slapdash big-claim making sensationalism. He's basically an opinion writer who cherry picks a few facts to try to support his hypotheses. For example, see the reviews of the book mentioned in the article on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078X... To be fair to him though, its a hard line to walk when you are discussing the kind of complex open-ended issues which he does. I think his writing has done good to stir up thinking and provoke responses on some of the issues he discusses.
    - davidw 13y ago
      > For example, see the reviews of the book mentioned in the article on amazon He got lots of bad reviews because he pissed off some right-wing folks who showed up in droves to write bad reviews about the book out of spite, not because they'd actually read it or thought about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/andrew-breitbart-fans-matthew-yglesias-amazon_n_1324362.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/andrew-breitbart-fa... Discussions of the propriety of his comments are probably best left to other web sites, and kept off of this one.
      - twelvechairs 13y ago
        The subject of his competence came up (not by me) and as someone familiar with his writings I attempt to contribute both my own view (based on a good understanding of his work and not one sided) and a link to others views. I'm not sure what in this is wrong.... I can see you like the guy - perhaps you'd like to explain why?
        davidw 13y ago
        I just pointed out that the bad reviews were not there because a lot of people disliked his book after reading it and considering what he had to say, but because a lot of people were angry at him and found that writing nasty reviews was a good way of venting their rage.
  - shawabawa3 13y ago
    Actually if you sort by height, the tallest building does have 22 floors. The building with the most floors isn't the tallest
    - NoPiece 13y ago
      Ya, you are right, he was accurate in what he wrote. It just read oddly because there are buildings with more than 22 floors.
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    Why sort by floors? "Tallest" means height.
- cafard 13y ago
  I have not read the Washington Monthly much in many years. When I did, it seemed to me that they had a bad habit of picking one one aspect of a situation, explaining everything by it, and wrapping it all up with a QED at the end of five pages. It made for very satisfying reading, but eventually doubts would set in.
- jacalata 13y ago
  Can you explain how you think it is twisted? It doesn't seem to me that 'why' matters in this case - the article didn't seem to say 'San Jose has introduced zoning limits in an attempt to price out poor people', but 'San Jose has restrictive building limits that price out poor people because they are unable to meet demand'. You could perhaps add a little detail by changing it to say 'the city doesn't have any buildings with more than 27 stories' but that doesn't really feel like a big difference to me.
joyeuse6701 13y ago
I had an opportunity recently to move to the Bay for a contract position from a fulltime one in LA. Risk/benefit considerations aside, the cost of living, much of it rent, in the Bay stayed my hand from signing off and changing jobs, and I am someone who could afford to live there, I can easily see why anyone who made as much or less would never move from here to there either.
priyadarshy 13y ago
I always wonder how its feasible for people in service industry roles to work in the bay area. (Something I think about a lot when I go to work at a cafe). That being said, it would be interesting to see a graphic of commute time and wage/salary to see the tradeoffs people make.
- netcan 13y ago
  Good question. The answer I think comes from the fact that "cost of living" is a blunt measure, however it's measured. Price differences vary between by good. Rent might be more expensive, but ipods and levis cost the same. If you don't pay rent (eg you live with parents), its probably a net win. If you don't consume much housing (eg, 4 person house share), it might still be a net win. Also, some people are more flexible than other in their consumption which is influenced by relative price. So, they might consume less housing by house sharing but more iphones and clothes. Try figure out if a 22 year old barista living in a trendy city centre with 3 housemates, but a nice nice budget for gadgets and clothes is better off then one in a small town with a completely different lifestyle. Its extremely subjective.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    > If you don't pay rent (eg you live with parents), its probably a net win. If you don't consume much housing (eg, 4 person house share), it might still be a net win. The typical person in the job market has a spouse or children. Having to have multiple roommates on top of that is generally considered a nonstarter. When you say, "If you don't consume much housing...," you're saying, "If you're single and unattached..." And it's only a net win as long as you stay that way, which isn't usually the case. To connect the dots the rest of the way, when housing prices shoot through the roof, people with families and special needs get pushed out. What is left are people with fixed housing costs and single people who don't see having many roommates as being a quality of life issue.
    - netcan 13y ago
      I don't think we disagree on much. A family of four that can't comfortably cut back on housing. Their cost of living is even higher in an expensive housing town than the measure suggests because the average also takes into account the single house share people.
ninetax 13y ago
Hopefully some of this can be solved by better/faster public transportation.
akamaka 13y ago
This article had potential, but its facts are questionable. For example, it claims that "California has been losing native-born residents for two decades." See here: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-shows-increase-in-native-population-3163810.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-shows-increase...
- jdhzzz 13y ago
  I read that statement as almost guaranteed for every location on earth. The only way it is not true if no one born there leaves. For a location of any size that would be unexpected.
willvarfar 13y ago
So when do we embrace remote working? I've worked remotely for big American companies like Motorola (I live in Sweden) and continue to work from home for local Swedish companies. Almost all the people I interface with are in various offices in various timezones around the world anyway. I also do game programming jams e.g. Ludum Dare over a weekend occasionally, and these are also distributed remote efforts. Yet we manage to work at a furious pace with the same immediacy and accessibility as if we were sitting in the same room. It works well. It works well for me, and I believe it can be made to work well in general. This is not just about IT type jobs; most office-work can be done remotely. Only people actually manipulating machinery directly need to be in physical contact with their machine. But there is a definite distrust and dislike of it, especially among management types.
- MaulingMonkey 13y ago
  I have yet to crack the code in motivating myself in a remote-work setting, despite working as a programmer and despite my best intentions. For those whom it works, great, but that... let's call it skepticism instead of distrust -- that skepticism isn't wholly unfounded.
- mahyarm 13y ago
  It makes it easier for managers to work with people in open offices. They can keep a passive ear open for other people's status and possibly change design decisions as it happens. Remotely, a lot of potential communication gets dropped and you have to do a lot of active effort to get status and so on. It's basically more work to manage remote workers. Just like its more work to have your team spread throughout a building or on another floor. There is also the micro-management aspect of it, where they can shoulder surf and make sure people are only doing work activities. Some people probably get some sort of emotional satisfaction in telling people what to do in person too. Timezones can be annoying for communication. Anybody who has to do 8pm india/china meetings can tell you that.
- ggreer 13y ago
  The biggest problem is that there's no gradual migration process. The first remote worker on a team forces everyone to change how they work and communicate. Even with the whole team accommodating the remote person, they'll still miss out on a lot. It can be frustrating for both sides. Also, the software for real-time collaboration sucks. Even if you constantly screen-share and video chat, it's not as good as working in the same room. Simple things like pointing at a section of code are difficult to do, and synchronizing files can be a pain. I'm working on solving this (Floobits YC S13 yadda yadda), but there's still much to be done.
rushabh 13y ago
A construction worker can generally make more money in San Francisco than in suburban Fresno. But it won’t likely be enough more to make up the difference in the relative cost of living. Indeed, few working-class people earn enough money to live anywhere near San Francisco anymore, to the point that there is now a severe shortage of construction workers in the Bay Area. The wages for construction workers will go up and the situation should correct itself automatically. Unfortunately, it will take some time for people to adjust their cultures so that construction workers are valued more socially - like people who write term sheets.
- taurath 13y ago
  Or the construction workers wages will go down, as they have, and they won't live anywhere near where they work.
- willvarfar 13y ago
  Isn't a lot of construction work done by poor migrant workers who live in dirty dorms provided by their contracting company? I've seen this in much of the rest of the world, even in places like Sweden where the workers are often from the other side of the Baltic. I'd be surprised if the US was very different in this regard.
  - aestra 13y ago
    No... Not around here at least... (Eastern US) Construction workers don't make a lot of money, but they aren't the poor migrant workers living in dirty dorms. They are the working class. My uncle was doing construction, then just decided to start his own construction business rather than work for someone else, and makes very very good money doing that. Every year the US Dept of Labor produces the Occupational Outlook Handbook which contains information about occupations in the US. Salaries, number employees, job outlook, etc. These are median salaries. Construction Laborers and Helpers $28,410 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construction-laborers-and-helpers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construct... Now, if you get more specialized, you earn more: Roofers: $34,220 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/roofers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/roofers.h... Drywall and Ceiling Tile Installers, and Taper: $38,290 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/drywall-and-ceiling-tile-installers-and-tapers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/drywall-a... Construction Equipment Operators: $39,460 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construction-equipment-operators.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construct...
eriksank 13y ago
I work remotely from Cambodia for companies mostly based in the UK (but also in the US and elsewhere). Lots of startups do not want to hire remotely. I have heard "no" more than once from companies in the Bay Area. However, it has become less of a problem over the last few years, because with every year that goes by, it gets easier to just do your own startup without ever setting foot in the Bay Area. For example, there are amazing opportunities in the Chinese market at the moment, while it does not give any advantage whatsoever to be located in the Bay Area for those.
simonv3 13y ago
"The percentage of married households with two earners has hardly changed over the last thirty years" I wonder if the split across gender lines is still the same.
- let1tra1n 13y ago
  Across the HC a couple days or maybe even a week ago. I saw a map posted here that predicted the odds over a colorful map across north america of exactly what you are looking for. just so you know.
  - let1tra1n 13y ago
    I mean HN
qwerta 13y ago
I think major reason is housing price. If you want to leave local safety net of relatives and friends, you must be able to survive on your own. You must also have savings for first couple of months. Not possible if housing is too expensive compared to salary.
gexla 13y ago
This article seemed strange to me. It started out talking about how mobile people in the U.S. were for moving to where jobs are and then moved to making a case that people don't move to places with high housing costs. The U.S. is a big place and locations with crazy housing costs are not the norm. I would think that most people moving for a job would already have a job available. I suppose there are plenty of cases where people might move without a job offer in advance because anything would be an improvement. Maybe today people don't move as often simply because EVERYTHING is getting more expensive while the jobs people could land are staying the same or getting worse. Moving is quite expensive, especially when you don't have a job and especially when you don't have a job lined up at the place you are moving to. Gas is expensive for moving long distances. Getting into a house or an apartment is expensive. How many jobless people have the savings to withstand all this? It would also be interesting to see more statistics. For example, where were people moving to and from when the rates were the highest? What industries were supporting the places these people moved to? Maybe the decline of jobs that could take just about anyone, in large numbers and paid well (manufacturing) contributed to the decline in mobility. There really isn't anything which could take the place of engineering. Though people may be less mobile today, the options for that mobility will always be great. The U.S. is a huge nation with a lot of diversity. You can't really compare mobility in a nation like the U.S. with 50 states to a small country like that of Denmark or Sweden.
- andyking 13y ago
  But in a small country like Denmark or Sweden, citizens there are also citizens of the EU and so can freely live and work in 27 countries with minimal bureaucratic hassle. Language barriers notwithstanding, it makes the EU a lot more like the wide-open market of the USA.
  - gexla 13y ago
    Ah, that's very true. Good point!
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    Many, many people are moving from Greece, Italy and Spain to Germany for this very reason.
dalore 13y ago
If your healthcare is tied to your job in the USA, wouldn't that impede social mobility? If you can't change jobs because you would lose cover, how are you meant to move around?
- Aqua_Geek 13y ago
  Your new job usually offers healthcare to replace your old. True, the coverage can be different - sometimes greatly so. It’s one of the factors you take into account when deciding to change jobs.
  - billmalarky 13y ago
    But you still can't move without having a new job lined up in the new place then. As someone who has recently moved to a new place by getting a remote job offer first, I'll tell you that it's a heck of a lot harder than getting a job in person. Not saying it's not possible to move somewhere sight unseen and without health insurance (since that's presumably what older generations did) but it's still much higher risk than staying put.
    - Aqua_Geek 13y ago
      I’ve done the same and completely agree that it’s a lot harder than already being there. There are things like COBRA (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-consumer-cobra.html http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-consumer-cobra.html) that help to bridge the gap in coverage.
      - billmalarky 13y ago
        That's true, but isn't COBRA extremely expensive though? Of course there are ways to lower relocation risks, but many involve having a fair amount of money saved up. The people the article is talking about don't have money whatsoever (which is the point of moving to places with higher paying jobs and opportunities).
  - dalore 13y ago
jokoon 13y ago
living in france, 28 years old, I so want to go to the US
let1tra1n 13y ago
No, NO , no, NO, NO stay away. look up international "United Nations" Law before you come up to these parts. Look up all the laws and compare them to us and decide if you want all of this we have to deal with. Enjoy the dead pipeline we have and the laws being affected with your gulf. in a "Tlingit's opinion that is". If you know what that is.
- let1tra1n 13y ago
  http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002479228/obama-on-the-government-shutdown.html http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002479228/obama-on-the...
bluedino 13y ago
I've really struggled to understand why people will stay living in a certain area, unemployed, for years and years. Whether it's in a rustbelt city where the factories have shut down 20 years ago or a rural city where the only jobs are at Walmart or McDonalds, if you give people unemployment pay, they won't move. I hear all the excuses for them not moving. It's too expensive, they'll uproot their families, etc. Do you think our grandparents didn't have those problems when they moved from the south to the rust belt to take those long-gone factory jobs? It used to be people moved to where the jobs were. Now they are content to stay where the checks come.
- innino 13y ago
  Maybe now that the early phases of globalisation have settled down and all the frontiers have dried up, the global culture of movement has died down. It's a lot harder to think of moving as a possibility, let alone a good possibility, when it isn't part of the zeitgeist. People used to do it a lot in the 1800s especially, and it was something you could get swept along in - and there was an excitement of going to a fresh place where most people were new as well, economic opportunities and social relations were still up in the air. Now you can trade a grind in one settled area for a slightly more profitable grind in another. With the tradeoff of losing contact with your whole social milieu and having to start a lot of things from scratch in the new place, while you're surrounded by people who have a lot more than you because they've been grinding in that place for years. Not appealing, so it's no surprise that it's mainly the highly-educated who can a) seek high value economic opportunities and b) are guaranteed a welcoming social reception from university or work colleagues :) People like us should be more generous about the incentives governing the lives of the new post-mobility local cultures.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    If you're right, that makes the prospects of space colonization a little less optimistic.
jchrisa 13y ago
I moved from the Bay Area back to Portland to work remotely, so I fit in these statistics. I did it because Portland has a more laid-back focus on quality of life and I'm able to live without a car here.
hkarthik 13y ago
My parents and I came to the US in 1981 and landed in Philadelphia. Over the next 32 years, my parents moved roughly every 9 years across state lines. The mobility which my parents enjoyed was really tied to a reasonable cost of housing across the places they lived and a stable job market. My Dad generally could stay in one company for 9 years without moving. And he's never experienced a layoff. The one time he came close was due to an acquisition where the acquiring company offered every engineer a full relocation package to move to the midwest OR a 1 year severance to find a new job. I look at the situation today, and I find the picture to be very different. Many housing markets are largely out of reach, many hiring companies are extremely volatile, and the salary differences across state lines are modest when compared to cost of living differences. When things are like that, it's hard to justify moving and losing a social circle, uprooting kids, and being farther away from family members.
- consultant23522 13y ago
  lol, a one year severance package. That sounds like fantasy land to me.
  - hkarthik 13y ago
    I know, right? BTW this was in 1999.
100k 13y ago
Paul Krugman has commented about this phenomenon as well. Based on the literature he says it is due to lack of regional specialization. Interstate goods shipping has also declined. This is mentioned in the article but dismissed. Personally, having recently conducted an interstate move, I think it is a combination of the lack of specialization (My career as a programmer was going fine elsewhere) and cost of living as mentioned in the article. Moving is expensive, especially when you have an underwater house, and it's hard to leave your social network behind. If you're moving for a raise from $18/hour in Ohio to $25/hour in San Francisco, that's not worth it. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/america-is-flat/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/america-is-flat/ "[W]ithin the United States, at least, people are moving less — a lot less. Greg Kaplan and Sam Schulhofer-Wohl (pdf) say that interstate mobility has been cut in half over the past 20 years. And interestingly, they suggest that this is in part because regions have become more similar: increasingly, different parts of the country are producing the same kinds of things and employing the same kind of people, so that there’s less reason to move. This story actually matches up with what the new economic geography literature says, which is that regional specialization peaked around a century ago and has been declining since."
crazygringo 13y ago
> We might similarly observe, “Nobody moves to that state anymore. It offers too much economic opportunity.” This article rests on the premise that all you need for a higher salary is to live somewhere where salaries are higher. But that is highly questionable -- just because they're higher in general, doesn't mean they'll be higher for you. At no point does the author convincingly explain that American unemployment is a problem of geographical mismatch, instead of the far more likely case of skills mismatch. > If labor markets were operating efficiently, construction workers, along with electricians, plumbers... would receive enough compensation to live near the places where their work is most needed. But our labor markets are not efficient; rather, they are rigged and skewed, offering too much compensation to people with some skill sets (merging companies and writing derivatives, for example) and not enough to others whose skills are often just as hard to learn (e.g., brick laying and teaching children to read) and often more vital to society. What? How exactly does the author magically come to the conclusion? As far as I can tell, construction work and plumbing and electrical wiring is all getting done. (Never listen to businessmen complaining about a lack of workers, it's just a masked complaint that they're having to pay higher wages.) What evidence is there that our labor markets are "rigged and skewed"? By whom? It's like the author doesn't understand the basic concepts of supply and demand in a labor market. It's extremely interesting that Americans are moving less. I'd love to know more of why. But tying it into arguments about career mobility seems highly dubious, at best. It's ridiculous, and almost patronizing, to suppose that people's careers nationwide are being held back by not being able to live in downtown metro areas. It's a big country out there.
- mattsfrey 13y ago
  Yeah I think housing markets are much more the problem. I just moved from a dead end place in upstate NY to Denver, CO, seeking the better job market for software developers. I'd have loved to have gone right to the main nerve in SV but the housing prices are just so insane it was beyond my budget.
- jellicle 13y ago
  > At no point does the author convincingly explain that American unemployment is a problem of geographical mismatch, instead of the far more likely case of skills mismatch. If it were a case of either of those, it would be visible in the data. Which it isn't. American unemployment - and European unemployment, for that matter - is a result of the class warfare practiced by the rich against the poor in recent years. Paul Krugman suggests Republican policies are responsible for 2% extra unemployment, nationwide: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/the-gop-tax/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/the-gop-tax/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/what-a-drag-2/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/what-a-drag-2/ High unemployment is a result of policies that have artificially suppressed demand for goods and services by taking money out of the hands of people who will actually spend it, resulting in an overall excess supply of labor and low demand for labor and therefore, low wages.
muzz 13y ago
> "Average earnings in the valley grew by nearly 40 percent between 1997 and 2000" Taking wage data from the massive tech bubble is some serious cherry picking. Earlier in the same paragraph: > "in 2005 the [San Jose] metro area approved permits for only 5,700 new units" Again, this also cherry picking, as the area was just coming out of one of its biggest busts-- the aftermath of the tech bubble (the number of tech jobs is still not as high as it was in 2000). Although one would never know it from reading the piece.
- cafard 13y ago
  Ah, yes. Back around 1980, a piece in WM gave an number of hours flown for the USAF during the previous year or so, compared it with hours for some period about 10 years previous, and suggested that the decline was due to the Air Force's appetite for ever more complex and high maintenance airplanes. That the earlier period had been in the middle of the Vietnam War they did not mention.
the_watcher 13y ago
This was really interesting as an economic look at migration. I moved from LA to Austin because I couldn't stand the city and have loved it here, but one of the things I've loved most is starting from scratch and being forced into meeting new people and doing new things. I've loved it so much that I can't see myself staying in one place for too long until I am ready to have a family.
Glyptodon 13y ago
I know a decent number of people (often with college degrees) who've moved to Arizona because they could afford to get by working at Best Buy or Target or similar, but couldn't at their previous locations in New York, California, and similar. I think for the average person (who, let's remind, is probably part of a household making $50k or less per year) cost of living (and particularly housing) is what matters more than taxes or wages.
- muzz 13y ago
  Perhaps you may have some anecdotes; however, there has been study of this. Income in areas of high housing costs more than offsets those costs, so that the net result is ($income - $housing) is higher http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2011/12/us-cities-with-most-spend-after-paying-housing/778/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2011/12/us-cities-w...
  - Glyptodon 13y ago
    I'm sure that's true for people who for whom that's true, however, that 'study' is very anecdotal itself, and quite ridiculous. It doesn't address where people with low wages live, income distribution, and other complexities. The group I'm referring to is a group who will not have $35k+ left over for house no matter where they live, and is pretty much invisible in that study. If anything the article you linked is showing that higher incomes live in places with higher housing costs and make more after paying for housing also, which is a different conclusion than is claimed by the article.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Is that why I keep reading about the BART strike and not being able to get anything but a "nice crack den" for $3K/month in San Francisco?
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
I love a simple Gladwell-style opinion piece that actually makes me think with a few carefully revealed key facts. My big takeaway here is that America is not and never has been one country. In Europe we are wringing our hands that the Southern states are too poor and being carried by the richer North, that migration must be controlled lest we depopulate a country and why can't we be more like America who just seems to go from strength to strength yet, it's not true - all we fear in Europe apparently happens in the US anyway - different areas have different economic cycles, mass migration, vastly different state laws and yet it seems to balance out ... Oddly I guess Anerica is a small working example of Keynes' International Monetary Fund - perhaps call the Fed a Continental Monetary Reserve. It also suggests that acting more like a proper country might not be very good for you. edit: The IMF was originally conceive as a way to balance out economic cycles - countries would pay in in good times, draw down in bad times. It seems however that politicans like the spend in bad times, but happily forget the pay in in good times part.
dxbydt 13y ago
The article asserts - "So where have people been moving to...Generally to southern Sun Belt states" If you compute absolute population growth from 1969 to 2011 on a per-county basis, using publicly available demographic stats, the top-20 winners are ---- Arizona Mohave 7.38100563286945 Georgia Paulding 7.4570788900017675 Virginia Loudoun 7.954704312171496 Georgia Henry 8.023498694516972 Texas Hood 8.128975265017667 Florida Collier 8.313786154239164 Texas Denton 8.504770344932634 Georgia Fayette 8.909350004596856 Texas Montgomery 9.526487258446021 Utah Washington 10.029741513547181 Florida Hernando 10.384018414995067 Georgia Forsyth 10.637015231025215 Florida Osceola 10.880533448053345 Texas Rockwall 10.907133440749963 Georgia Gwinnett 11.063892016788289 Texas Fort Bend 11.168507788849015 Texas Williamson 11.323119312014695 Colorado Summit 11.39344262295082 Texas Collin 11.507137247655564 Florida Flagler 21.135939986360537 Colorado Douglas 36.49576488706366 ------ So Douglas county in Colorado grew the fastest, 3600% growth! Indeed, it had a population of about 8000 folks in 1969 & now averages about 300000 => thats your 3600% Generally speaking, the South is a big winner - GA, TX, FL, AZ... 3139 counties ranked by population growth in my github repo here - http://bit.ly/16RsjWa http://bit.ly/16RsjWa Here's some Scala code for crunching this data yourself : http://bit.ly/1hZDQny http://bit.ly/1hZDQny
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  Absolute population growth includes immigration, so those numbers may be skewed somewhat.
- ido 13y ago
  So what's the reason? Air-conditioning having become widespread since the 60s + low taxes & vast amounts empty(therefor cheap) land in those areas?
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Cheap cost of living? I live in Chicago, but the rest of my extended family lives in Tampa, FL. I make $120K/year in Chicago, but due to lower costs of living, only need to make $90K/year in Tampa for the same lifestyle.
anoncowherd 13y ago
That's right. You shouldn't leave California just because there's no way to make a living anymore! Verily, if you just stay put, a way to pay taxes again shall be revealed!

125 points by pg 13y ago

A nitpick on San Jose: The city’s tallest building, Yglesias notes, is a mere twenty-two stories high. Anyone who lives in San Jose can tell you why this is the case. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California#Arts_and_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California#Arts_and_a... Because the downtown area is in the flight path to nearby Mineta San Jose International Airport, there is a height limit for buildings in the downtown area, which is under the final approach corridor to the airport. The height limit is dictated by local ordinances, driven by the distance from the runway and a slope defined by Federal Aviation Administration regulations. Core downtown buildings are limited to approximately 300 feet (91 m) but can get taller farther from the airport.[80] The rest of the article did a good job of arguing that housing prices harm migration and contribute to income inequality. But twisting a fact like that makes me suspicious. Hopefully fault lies with Matt Yglesias, not the author.

NoPiece 13y ago
Lazy research - they probably googled "tallest building in San Jose", went to the first result, then forgot to sort by floors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Jose,_California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Sa...
- twelvechairs 13y ago
  Yglesias' style is generally this kind of slapdash big-claim making sensationalism. He's basically an opinion writer who cherry picks a few facts to try to support his hypotheses. For example, see the reviews of the book mentioned in the article on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078X... To be fair to him though, its a hard line to walk when you are discussing the kind of complex open-ended issues which he does. I think his writing has done good to stir up thinking and provoke responses on some of the issues he discusses.
  - davidw 13y ago
    > For example, see the reviews of the book mentioned in the article on amazon He got lots of bad reviews because he pissed off some right-wing folks who showed up in droves to write bad reviews about the book out of spite, not because they'd actually read it or thought about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/andrew-breitbart-fans-matthew-yglesias-amazon_n_1324362.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/andrew-breitbart-fa... Discussions of the propriety of his comments are probably best left to other web sites, and kept off of this one.
    - twelvechairs 13y ago
      The subject of his competence came up (not by me) and as someone familiar with his writings I attempt to contribute both my own view (based on a good understanding of his work and not one sided) and a link to others views. I'm not sure what in this is wrong.... I can see you like the guy - perhaps you'd like to explain why?
      - davidw 13y ago
        I just pointed out that the bad reviews were not there because a lot of people disliked his book after reading it and considering what he had to say, but because a lot of people were angry at him and found that writing nasty reviews was a good way of venting their rage.
- shawabawa3 13y ago
  Actually if you sort by height, the tallest building does have 22 floors. The building with the most floors isn't the tallest
  - NoPiece 13y ago
    Ya, you are right, he was accurate in what he wrote. It just read oddly because there are buildings with more than 22 floors.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Why sort by floors? "Tallest" means height.
cafard 13y ago
I have not read the Washington Monthly much in many years. When I did, it seemed to me that they had a bad habit of picking one one aspect of a situation, explaining everything by it, and wrapping it all up with a QED at the end of five pages. It made for very satisfying reading, but eventually doubts would set in.
jacalata 13y ago
Can you explain how you think it is twisted? It doesn't seem to me that 'why' matters in this case - the article didn't seem to say 'San Jose has introduced zoning limits in an attempt to price out poor people', but 'San Jose has restrictive building limits that price out poor people because they are unable to meet demand'. You could perhaps add a little detail by changing it to say 'the city doesn't have any buildings with more than 27 stories' but that doesn't really feel like a big difference to me.

joyeuse6701 13y ago

I had an opportunity recently to move to the Bay for a contract position from a fulltime one in LA. Risk/benefit considerations aside, the cost of living, much of it rent, in the Bay stayed my hand from signing off and changing jobs, and I am someone who could afford to live there, I can easily see why anyone who made as much or less would never move from here to there either.

priyadarshy 13y ago

I always wonder how its feasible for people in service industry roles to work in the bay area. (Something I think about a lot when I go to work at a cafe). That being said, it would be interesting to see a graphic of commute time and wage/salary to see the tradeoffs people make.

netcan 13y ago
Good question. The answer I think comes from the fact that "cost of living" is a blunt measure, however it's measured. Price differences vary between by good. Rent might be more expensive, but ipods and levis cost the same. If you don't pay rent (eg you live with parents), its probably a net win. If you don't consume much housing (eg, 4 person house share), it might still be a net win. Also, some people are more flexible than other in their consumption which is influenced by relative price. So, they might consume less housing by house sharing but more iphones and clothes. Try figure out if a 22 year old barista living in a trendy city centre with 3 housemates, but a nice nice budget for gadgets and clothes is better off then one in a small town with a completely different lifestyle. Its extremely subjective.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  > If you don't pay rent (eg you live with parents), its probably a net win. If you don't consume much housing (eg, 4 person house share), it might still be a net win. The typical person in the job market has a spouse or children. Having to have multiple roommates on top of that is generally considered a nonstarter. When you say, "If you don't consume much housing...," you're saying, "If you're single and unattached..." And it's only a net win as long as you stay that way, which isn't usually the case. To connect the dots the rest of the way, when housing prices shoot through the roof, people with families and special needs get pushed out. What is left are people with fixed housing costs and single people who don't see having many roommates as being a quality of life issue.
  - netcan 13y ago
    I don't think we disagree on much. A family of four that can't comfortably cut back on housing. Their cost of living is even higher in an expensive housing town than the measure suggests because the average also takes into account the single house share people.

ninetax 13y ago

Hopefully some of this can be solved by better/faster public transportation.

akamaka 13y ago

This article had potential, but its facts are questionable. For example, it claims that "California has been losing native-born residents for two decades." See here: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-shows-increase-in-native-population-3163810.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-shows-increase...

jdhzzz 13y ago
I read that statement as almost guaranteed for every location on earth. The only way it is not true if no one born there leaves. For a location of any size that would be unexpected.

willvarfar 13y ago

So when do we embrace remote working? I've worked remotely for big American companies like Motorola (I live in Sweden) and continue to work from home for local Swedish companies. Almost all the people I interface with are in various offices in various timezones around the world anyway. I also do game programming jams e.g. Ludum Dare over a weekend occasionally, and these are also distributed remote efforts. Yet we manage to work at a furious pace with the same immediacy and accessibility as if we were sitting in the same room. It works well. It works well for me, and I believe it can be made to work well in general. This is not just about IT type jobs; most office-work can be done remotely. Only people actually manipulating machinery directly need to be in physical contact with their machine. But there is a definite distrust and dislike of it, especially among management types.

MaulingMonkey 13y ago
I have yet to crack the code in motivating myself in a remote-work setting, despite working as a programmer and despite my best intentions. For those whom it works, great, but that... let's call it skepticism instead of distrust -- that skepticism isn't wholly unfounded.
mahyarm 13y ago
It makes it easier for managers to work with people in open offices. They can keep a passive ear open for other people's status and possibly change design decisions as it happens. Remotely, a lot of potential communication gets dropped and you have to do a lot of active effort to get status and so on. It's basically more work to manage remote workers. Just like its more work to have your team spread throughout a building or on another floor. There is also the micro-management aspect of it, where they can shoulder surf and make sure people are only doing work activities. Some people probably get some sort of emotional satisfaction in telling people what to do in person too. Timezones can be annoying for communication. Anybody who has to do 8pm india/china meetings can tell you that.
ggreer 13y ago
The biggest problem is that there's no gradual migration process. The first remote worker on a team forces everyone to change how they work and communicate. Even with the whole team accommodating the remote person, they'll still miss out on a lot. It can be frustrating for both sides. Also, the software for real-time collaboration sucks. Even if you constantly screen-share and video chat, it's not as good as working in the same room. Simple things like pointing at a section of code are difficult to do, and synchronizing files can be a pain. I'm working on solving this (Floobits YC S13 yadda yadda), but there's still much to be done.

rushabh 13y ago

A construction worker can generally make more money in San Francisco than in suburban Fresno. But it won’t likely be enough more to make up the difference in the relative cost of living. Indeed, few working-class people earn enough money to live anywhere near San Francisco anymore, to the point that there is now a severe shortage of construction workers in the Bay Area. The wages for construction workers will go up and the situation should correct itself automatically. Unfortunately, it will take some time for people to adjust their cultures so that construction workers are valued more socially - like people who write term sheets.

taurath 13y ago
Or the construction workers wages will go down, as they have, and they won't live anywhere near where they work.
willvarfar 13y ago
Isn't a lot of construction work done by poor migrant workers who live in dirty dorms provided by their contracting company? I've seen this in much of the rest of the world, even in places like Sweden where the workers are often from the other side of the Baltic. I'd be surprised if the US was very different in this regard.
- aestra 13y ago
  No... Not around here at least... (Eastern US) Construction workers don't make a lot of money, but they aren't the poor migrant workers living in dirty dorms. They are the working class. My uncle was doing construction, then just decided to start his own construction business rather than work for someone else, and makes very very good money doing that. Every year the US Dept of Labor produces the Occupational Outlook Handbook which contains information about occupations in the US. Salaries, number employees, job outlook, etc. These are median salaries. Construction Laborers and Helpers $28,410 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construction-laborers-and-helpers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construct... Now, if you get more specialized, you earn more: Roofers: $34,220 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/roofers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/roofers.h... Drywall and Ceiling Tile Installers, and Taper: $38,290 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/drywall-and-ceiling-tile-installers-and-tapers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/drywall-a... Construction Equipment Operators: $39,460 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construction-equipment-operators.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construct...

eriksank 13y ago

I work remotely from Cambodia for companies mostly based in the UK (but also in the US and elsewhere). Lots of startups do not want to hire remotely. I have heard "no" more than once from companies in the Bay Area. However, it has become less of a problem over the last few years, because with every year that goes by, it gets easier to just do your own startup without ever setting foot in the Bay Area. For example, there are amazing opportunities in the Chinese market at the moment, while it does not give any advantage whatsoever to be located in the Bay Area for those.

simonv3 13y ago

"The percentage of married households with two earners has hardly changed over the last thirty years" I wonder if the split across gender lines is still the same.

let1tra1n 13y ago
Across the HC a couple days or maybe even a week ago. I saw a map posted here that predicted the odds over a colorful map across north america of exactly what you are looking for. just so you know.
- let1tra1n 13y ago
  I mean HN

qwerta 13y ago

I think major reason is housing price. If you want to leave local safety net of relatives and friends, you must be able to survive on your own. You must also have savings for first couple of months. Not possible if housing is too expensive compared to salary.

gexla 13y ago

This article seemed strange to me. It started out talking about how mobile people in the U.S. were for moving to where jobs are and then moved to making a case that people don't move to places with high housing costs. The U.S. is a big place and locations with crazy housing costs are not the norm. I would think that most people moving for a job would already have a job available. I suppose there are plenty of cases where people might move without a job offer in advance because anything would be an improvement. Maybe today people don't move as often simply because EVERYTHING is getting more expensive while the jobs people could land are staying the same or getting worse. Moving is quite expensive, especially when you don't have a job and especially when you don't have a job lined up at the place you are moving to. Gas is expensive for moving long distances. Getting into a house or an apartment is expensive. How many jobless people have the savings to withstand all this? It would also be interesting to see more statistics. For example, where were people moving to and from when the rates were the highest? What industries were supporting the places these people moved to? Maybe the decline of jobs that could take just about anyone, in large numbers and paid well (manufacturing) contributed to the decline in mobility. There really isn't anything which could take the place of engineering. Though people may be less mobile today, the options for that mobility will always be great. The U.S. is a huge nation with a lot of diversity. You can't really compare mobility in a nation like the U.S. with 50 states to a small country like that of Denmark or Sweden.

andyking 13y ago
But in a small country like Denmark or Sweden, citizens there are also citizens of the EU and so can freely live and work in 27 countries with minimal bureaucratic hassle. Language barriers notwithstanding, it makes the EU a lot more like the wide-open market of the USA.
- gexla 13y ago
  Ah, that's very true. Good point!
- mattlutze 13y ago
  Many, many people are moving from Greece, Italy and Spain to Germany for this very reason.

dalore 13y ago

If your healthcare is tied to your job in the USA, wouldn't that impede social mobility? If you can't change jobs because you would lose cover, how are you meant to move around?

Aqua_Geek 13y ago
Your new job usually offers healthcare to replace your old. True, the coverage can be different - sometimes greatly so. It’s one of the factors you take into account when deciding to change jobs.
- billmalarky 13y ago
  But you still can't move without having a new job lined up in the new place then. As someone who has recently moved to a new place by getting a remote job offer first, I'll tell you that it's a heck of a lot harder than getting a job in person. Not saying it's not possible to move somewhere sight unseen and without health insurance (since that's presumably what older generations did) but it's still much higher risk than staying put.
  - Aqua_Geek 13y ago
    I’ve done the same and completely agree that it’s a lot harder than already being there. There are things like COBRA (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-consumer-cobra.html http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-consumer-cobra.html) that help to bridge the gap in coverage.
    - billmalarky 13y ago
      That's true, but isn't COBRA extremely expensive though? Of course there are ways to lower relocation risks, but many involve having a fair amount of money saved up. The people the article is talking about don't have money whatsoever (which is the point of moving to places with higher paying jobs and opportunities).
- dalore 13y ago

jokoon 13y ago

living in france, 28 years old, I so want to go to the US

let1tra1n 13y ago

No, NO , no, NO, NO stay away. look up international "United Nations" Law before you come up to these parts. Look up all the laws and compare them to us and decide if you want all of this we have to deal with. Enjoy the dead pipeline we have and the laws being affected with your gulf. in a "Tlingit's opinion that is". If you know what that is.

let1tra1n 13y ago
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002479228/obama-on-the-government-shutdown.html http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002479228/obama-on-the...

bluedino 13y ago

I've really struggled to understand why people will stay living in a certain area, unemployed, for years and years. Whether it's in a rustbelt city where the factories have shut down 20 years ago or a rural city where the only jobs are at Walmart or McDonalds, if you give people unemployment pay, they won't move. I hear all the excuses for them not moving. It's too expensive, they'll uproot their families, etc. Do you think our grandparents didn't have those problems when they moved from the south to the rust belt to take those long-gone factory jobs? It used to be people moved to where the jobs were. Now they are content to stay where the checks come.

innino 13y ago
Maybe now that the early phases of globalisation have settled down and all the frontiers have dried up, the global culture of movement has died down. It's a lot harder to think of moving as a possibility, let alone a good possibility, when it isn't part of the zeitgeist. People used to do it a lot in the 1800s especially, and it was something you could get swept along in - and there was an excitement of going to a fresh place where most people were new as well, economic opportunities and social relations were still up in the air. Now you can trade a grind in one settled area for a slightly more profitable grind in another. With the tradeoff of losing contact with your whole social milieu and having to start a lot of things from scratch in the new place, while you're surrounded by people who have a lot more than you because they've been grinding in that place for years. Not appealing, so it's no surprise that it's mainly the highly-educated who can a) seek high value economic opportunities and b) are guaranteed a welcoming social reception from university or work colleagues :) People like us should be more generous about the incentives governing the lives of the new post-mobility local cultures.
- saraid216 13y ago
  If you're right, that makes the prospects of space colonization a little less optimistic.

jchrisa 13y ago

I moved from the Bay Area back to Portland to work remotely, so I fit in these statistics. I did it because Portland has a more laid-back focus on quality of life and I'm able to live without a car here.

hkarthik 13y ago

My parents and I came to the US in 1981 and landed in Philadelphia. Over the next 32 years, my parents moved roughly every 9 years across state lines. The mobility which my parents enjoyed was really tied to a reasonable cost of housing across the places they lived and a stable job market. My Dad generally could stay in one company for 9 years without moving. And he's never experienced a layoff. The one time he came close was due to an acquisition where the acquiring company offered every engineer a full relocation package to move to the midwest OR a 1 year severance to find a new job. I look at the situation today, and I find the picture to be very different. Many housing markets are largely out of reach, many hiring companies are extremely volatile, and the salary differences across state lines are modest when compared to cost of living differences. When things are like that, it's hard to justify moving and losing a social circle, uprooting kids, and being farther away from family members.

consultant23522 13y ago
lol, a one year severance package. That sounds like fantasy land to me.
- hkarthik 13y ago
  I know, right? BTW this was in 1999.

100k 13y ago

Paul Krugman has commented about this phenomenon as well. Based on the literature he says it is due to lack of regional specialization. Interstate goods shipping has also declined. This is mentioned in the article but dismissed. Personally, having recently conducted an interstate move, I think it is a combination of the lack of specialization (My career as a programmer was going fine elsewhere) and cost of living as mentioned in the article. Moving is expensive, especially when you have an underwater house, and it's hard to leave your social network behind. If you're moving for a raise from $18/hour in Ohio to $25/hour in San Francisco, that's not worth it. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/america-is-flat/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/america-is-flat/ "[W]ithin the United States, at least, people are moving less — a lot less. Greg Kaplan and Sam Schulhofer-Wohl (pdf) say that interstate mobility has been cut in half over the past 20 years. And interestingly, they suggest that this is in part because regions have become more similar: increasingly, different parts of the country are producing the same kinds of things and employing the same kind of people, so that there’s less reason to move. This story actually matches up with what the new economic geography literature says, which is that regional specialization peaked around a century ago and has been declining since."

crazygringo 13y ago

> We might similarly observe, “Nobody moves to that state anymore. It offers too much economic opportunity.” This article rests on the premise that all you need for a higher salary is to live somewhere where salaries are higher. But that is highly questionable -- just because they're higher in general, doesn't mean they'll be higher for you. At no point does the author convincingly explain that American unemployment is a problem of geographical mismatch, instead of the far more likely case of skills mismatch. > If labor markets were operating efficiently, construction workers, along with electricians, plumbers... would receive enough compensation to live near the places where their work is most needed. But our labor markets are not efficient; rather, they are rigged and skewed, offering too much compensation to people with some skill sets (merging companies and writing derivatives, for example) and not enough to others whose skills are often just as hard to learn (e.g., brick laying and teaching children to read) and often more vital to society. What? How exactly does the author magically come to the conclusion? As far as I can tell, construction work and plumbing and electrical wiring is all getting done. (Never listen to businessmen complaining about a lack of workers, it's just a masked complaint that they're having to pay higher wages.) What evidence is there that our labor markets are "rigged and skewed"? By whom? It's like the author doesn't understand the basic concepts of supply and demand in a labor market. It's extremely interesting that Americans are moving less. I'd love to know more of why. But tying it into arguments about career mobility seems highly dubious, at best. It's ridiculous, and almost patronizing, to suppose that people's careers nationwide are being held back by not being able to live in downtown metro areas. It's a big country out there.

mattsfrey 13y ago
Yeah I think housing markets are much more the problem. I just moved from a dead end place in upstate NY to Denver, CO, seeking the better job market for software developers. I'd have loved to have gone right to the main nerve in SV but the housing prices are just so insane it was beyond my budget.
jellicle 13y ago
> At no point does the author convincingly explain that American unemployment is a problem of geographical mismatch, instead of the far more likely case of skills mismatch. If it were a case of either of those, it would be visible in the data. Which it isn't. American unemployment - and European unemployment, for that matter - is a result of the class warfare practiced by the rich against the poor in recent years. Paul Krugman suggests Republican policies are responsible for 2% extra unemployment, nationwide: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/the-gop-tax/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/the-gop-tax/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/what-a-drag-2/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/what-a-drag-2/ High unemployment is a result of policies that have artificially suppressed demand for goods and services by taking money out of the hands of people who will actually spend it, resulting in an overall excess supply of labor and low demand for labor and therefore, low wages.

muzz 13y ago

> "Average earnings in the valley grew by nearly 40 percent between 1997 and 2000" Taking wage data from the massive tech bubble is some serious cherry picking. Earlier in the same paragraph: > "in 2005 the [San Jose] metro area approved permits for only 5,700 new units" Again, this also cherry picking, as the area was just coming out of one of its biggest busts-- the aftermath of the tech bubble (the number of tech jobs is still not as high as it was in 2000). Although one would never know it from reading the piece.

cafard 13y ago
Ah, yes. Back around 1980, a piece in WM gave an number of hours flown for the USAF during the previous year or so, compared it with hours for some period about 10 years previous, and suggested that the decline was due to the Air Force's appetite for ever more complex and high maintenance airplanes. That the earlier period had been in the middle of the Vietnam War they did not mention.

the_watcher 13y ago

This was really interesting as an economic look at migration. I moved from LA to Austin because I couldn't stand the city and have loved it here, but one of the things I've loved most is starting from scratch and being forced into meeting new people and doing new things. I've loved it so much that I can't see myself staying in one place for too long until I am ready to have a family.

Glyptodon 13y ago

I know a decent number of people (often with college degrees) who've moved to Arizona because they could afford to get by working at Best Buy or Target or similar, but couldn't at their previous locations in New York, California, and similar. I think for the average person (who, let's remind, is probably part of a household making $50k or less per year) cost of living (and particularly housing) is what matters more than taxes or wages.

muzz 13y ago
Perhaps you may have some anecdotes; however, there has been study of this. Income in areas of high housing costs more than offsets those costs, so that the net result is ($income - $housing) is higher http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2011/12/us-cities-with-most-spend-after-paying-housing/778/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2011/12/us-cities-w...
- Glyptodon 13y ago
  I'm sure that's true for people who for whom that's true, however, that 'study' is very anecdotal itself, and quite ridiculous. It doesn't address where people with low wages live, income distribution, and other complexities. The group I'm referring to is a group who will not have $35k+ left over for house no matter where they live, and is pretty much invisible in that study. If anything the article you linked is showing that higher incomes live in places with higher housing costs and make more after paying for housing also, which is a different conclusion than is claimed by the article.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Is that why I keep reading about the BART strike and not being able to get anything but a "nice crack den" for $3K/month in San Francisco?

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

I love a simple Gladwell-style opinion piece that actually makes me think with a few carefully revealed key facts. My big takeaway here is that America is not and never has been one country. In Europe we are wringing our hands that the Southern states are too poor and being carried by the richer North, that migration must be controlled lest we depopulate a country and why can't we be more like America who just seems to go from strength to strength yet, it's not true - all we fear in Europe apparently happens in the US anyway - different areas have different economic cycles, mass migration, vastly different state laws and yet it seems to balance out ... Oddly I guess Anerica is a small working example of Keynes' International Monetary Fund - perhaps call the Fed a Continental Monetary Reserve. It also suggests that acting more like a proper country might not be very good for you. edit: The IMF was originally conceive as a way to balance out economic cycles - countries would pay in in good times, draw down in bad times. It seems however that politicans like the spend in bad times, but happily forget the pay in in good times part.

dxbydt 13y ago

The article asserts - "So where have people been moving to...Generally to southern Sun Belt states" If you compute absolute population growth from 1969 to 2011 on a per-county basis, using publicly available demographic stats, the top-20 winners are ---- Arizona Mohave 7.38100563286945 Georgia Paulding 7.4570788900017675 Virginia Loudoun 7.954704312171496 Georgia Henry 8.023498694516972 Texas Hood 8.128975265017667 Florida Collier 8.313786154239164 Texas Denton 8.504770344932634 Georgia Fayette 8.909350004596856 Texas Montgomery 9.526487258446021 Utah Washington 10.029741513547181 Florida Hernando 10.384018414995067 Georgia Forsyth 10.637015231025215 Florida Osceola 10.880533448053345 Texas Rockwall 10.907133440749963 Georgia Gwinnett 11.063892016788289 Texas Fort Bend 11.168507788849015 Texas Williamson 11.323119312014695 Colorado Summit 11.39344262295082 Texas Collin 11.507137247655564 Florida Flagler 21.135939986360537 Colorado Douglas 36.49576488706366 ------ So Douglas county in Colorado grew the fastest, 3600% growth! Indeed, it had a population of about 8000 folks in 1969 & now averages about 300000 => thats your 3600% Generally speaking, the South is a big winner - GA, TX, FL, AZ... 3139 counties ranked by population growth in my github repo here - http://bit.ly/16RsjWa http://bit.ly/16RsjWa Here's some Scala code for crunching this data yourself : http://bit.ly/1hZDQny http://bit.ly/1hZDQny

sillysaurus2 13y ago
Absolute population growth includes immigration, so those numbers may be skewed somewhat.
ido 13y ago
So what's the reason? Air-conditioning having become widespread since the 60s + low taxes & vast amounts empty(therefor cheap) land in those areas?
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Cheap cost of living? I live in Chicago, but the rest of my extended family lives in Tampa, FL. I make $120K/year in Chicago, but due to lower costs of living, only need to make $90K/year in Tampa for the same lifestyle.

anoncowherd 13y ago

That's right. You shouldn't leave California just because there's no way to make a living anymore! Verily, if you just stay put, a way to pay taxes again shall be revealed!