Live data from Hacker News

The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

wired.com

161–170 of 363 posts

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#161
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. There's also plenty of affordable housing stock in Chicago and LA, as long as you don't expect to live on the lake/ocean, don't expect a big suburban house, etc. That's the thing about big cities, there's usually a huge variety of housing at all price points - with a variety of pros and cons for sure, but the lack of housing at a variety of prices is typically not an issue.

> There's also plenty of affordable housing stock in LA... Hahaha, I suppose if you're willing to live in near skid-row conditions.

That's entirely untrue - you can find plenty of decent affordable neighborhoods in LA that have nothing in common with skid row. What you have to compromise on is traffic/long commute.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#162

I live in SF, and am flabbergasted at the number of 1- or 2- floor single-family homes. A city the size of SF (46 sq mi) and population (850K+ and growing) simply can't afford so many SFHs. I was in Barcelona recently (yay NIPS!) and Barcelona is smaller than SF (36 sq mi) and has nearly twice the population! Everywhere you see are 6-floor buildings, with the bottom reserved for shops and people living above them. It…

> why can't SF be more like BCN?

1. Earthquakes.

2. City planning policies over the years (or lack thereof).

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#163
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our rent went up 7% this year in LA, but our income didn't. The writing is on the wall I think.

In what part of LA? What part of LA would you move to if your rent/income became untenable?

Near Hollywood. Have no idea where I'd move, we are already in the cheapest area I consider tolerable with a family.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#164

I live in SF, and am flabbergasted at the number of 1- or 2- floor single-family homes. A city the size of SF (46 sq mi) and population (850K+ and growing) simply can't afford so many SFHs. I was in Barcelona recently (yay NIPS!) and Barcelona is smaller than SF (36 sq mi) and has nearly twice the population! Everywhere you see are 6-floor buildings, with the bottom reserved for shops and people living above them. It…

> We kept thinking: why can't SF be more like BCN?

Because 'Murrica. As a native Russian, this has always puzzled and bewildered me, too.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the moment, though, we are probably better off shrinking our numbers.

Not in the US. We're facing a huge impending labor shortage. (And immigration just externalizes the problem of accommodating raising children from US policy to India or China policy.)

We're facing a huge impending labor shortage.

The trend in US wages/employment for youths doesn't seem to signal that. The trend in wages/employment for youths in nations with even lower fertility rates (Spain, Italy, Portugal...) doesn't seem to signal that. Even Japan, where absolute population decline is already underway, has good-but-not-amazing trends in wages and unemployment for youths. Where's the race to bid up the prices for young workers, and buy all their labor that's for sale, if an aging work force really is leading to crisis-level worker shortages? If the market expects a huge impending shortage of (e.g.) coking coal, you don't see the same lackluster demand for the output that's currently available.

Maybe you meant that the shortage isn't coming in the next couple of months or years, but in a generation or so, so the market reaction isn't there yet. The view that I subscribe to, which seems common here on HN, is that technological change is going to significantly reduce the market demand for human labor in a generation or so. I expect that automation will generally deflate the market price of human labor faster than an aging work force can inflate it.

Social Security solvency currently depends on lots of middle class workers earning wages, because its funding is structured that way. But that's a policy choice that is more easily reversed than fertility rates or technical progress in automation. If the problem is more about paying for retirees than lacking warm bodies to do work, higher fertility just makes government funding problems more severe: you end up with more people who need non-market support mechanisms if the market demand for additional human labor isn't there.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's also plenty of affordable housing stock in LA... Hahaha, I suppose if you're willing to live in near skid-row conditions.

That's entirely untrue - you can find plenty of decent affordable neighborhoods in LA that have nothing in common with skid row. What you have to compromise on is traffic/long commute.

You'll have to be a lot more specific, and I currently work from home. We also have a school-aged child.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LA is a MUCH bigger city than San Francisco, especially in terms of geography. I'm not sure an meaningful comparison can be made as a result. There are certainly areas of LA at least as big as the total area of SF where middle class families can not afford to live. There are also areas at least as big as the total area of SF where lower-middle class families are the vast majority of residents. The cities are just too…

Right, I get that too. But then: is the article correct? Are middle class families being priced out of LA?

It's just a pointless question to ask if middle class families can live in the city limits (an arbitrary border) in my opinion.

The better question is do middle class families have to live as far away from their jobs in LA as they do in SF, and the answer to that question is increasingly "yes."

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#168

I live in SF, and am flabbergasted at the number of 1- or 2- floor single-family homes. A city the size of SF (46 sq mi) and population (850K+ and growing) simply can't afford so many SFHs. I was in Barcelona recently (yay NIPS!) and Barcelona is smaller than SF (36 sq mi) and has nearly twice the population! Everywhere you see are 6-floor buildings, with the bottom reserved for shops and people living above them. It…

Oddly enough, SF is among the best cities in America for density.

I wish more of America were like Barcelona, including SF. Regulations tend to prohibit dense walkable construction though. I don't mean NIMBY protests per se. Existing city regulations tend to require more parking spaces and setbacks than old cities provided.

Not to mention prohibitions on having shops and housing in the same zones that most modern cities now have.

This shows that a good chunk of Manhattan couldn't be built today: http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.c...

The North American status quo is weird: it is illegal to build dense, walkable, aesthetically pleasing neighbourhoods.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#169
post #155

I have 2 questions: (1) Do not such articles sound like "not everyone can afford a holiday in Hawai"? Or "all my friends have a Mercedes AMG but I don't"? What is the difference? * (2) In Bay Area, the daily commute itself is an obvious sign of overpopulation. How does more housing not make it even worse? * I exclude the gentrification problem which is really affecting the lives of poor and old people as their mobili…

Cities are expensive for a reason - they are not just a Veblen good like a Mercedes AMG, mainly valuable due to scarcity. Cities are more like doctors - they are extremely useful, and we would all be better off if there were enough to go around.

Throughout US history there have been economically booming areas where people could move to become more prosperous. The majority of good new jobs are in cities. The fact that we are not building enough housing and transit infrastructure so people can actually live somewhere while working those jobs is a problem for national employment and economic growth. The landlords end up taking home a great share of the economic benefit instead of the workers as the price for scarce housing is bid up. This is also the root cause of gentrification.

This leads to megacommutes as people occupy housing further and further from the booming economy. That's clearly the case in the Bay Area, where many cities have built more units of office space than housing, guaranteeing a rough commute for the people who work in those buildings.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#170
>In Fort Hill in 2016, meanwhile, initiatives to build new affordable housing to keep those long-time residents in the neighborhood were met with resistance by some homeowners fearing an influx of low-cost housing would negatively affect their home values.

Someone enlighten me, why does the government have to listen to the wealthy NIMBY's over the longtime residents? Are certain voices more important than others? We live in a egalitarian democracy, no?

Post reply on HN