Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 363 posts

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

#351

Post by closeparen »

tptacek wrote: post #331
closeparen wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that mean, huge impending rise in real wages? Because if so, sign me up!

Does it? Your real wage is your wage adjusted for purchasing power. A labor shortage drives up the cost of production and of services, which increases prices for everything, and also makes it uneconomical for people to hire others for services (like taking care of elderly parents), then the math teachers and so on in that fashion until everyone is eaten.

That was slightly tounge-in-cheek :). I suppose it would be bad for most people. Personally, I spend:

- 15% on "luxury" goods and services such as travel, coffee shops, restaurants, event tickets, and my car, all of which I can do without at slight to moderate annoyance.

- 5% on necessary goods and services such as groceries, household supplies, and transit across the Bay.

- 80% on rent, including parking.

The cost of production isn't entirely absent from my true expenses; I do need groceries, and some tiny proportion of my rent pays for the actual materials, construction, and maintenance on the structure and associated infrastructure. But my dirt parking space next to BART certainly didn't need producing (the most produced thing in that lot is the fee collection machine), and I spend as much on that as I do on food.

So, I would not mind even a massive increase in the cost of goods and services, if it came with more money overall (which I can also use for space) and/or a decrease in the cost of space (i.e. fewer people contending for it).

OTOH, all Bay Area tech jobs ultimately rely on consumer spending, so if there is not enough of that going around, probably no paycheck.

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

#352

Post by sobani »

mhneu wrote: post #227
kansface wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ultimately however the main problem is wealth inequality. If median income had increased with GDP since 1980, instead of all gains going to the 0.01%, you would be able to afford to live in the suburbs of San Diego. The problem of income inequality is one and the same as the housing crisis - ie, the wealth gap is nearly entirely explained by real estate.

No, the wealth gap is not explained by real estate. The problem is that the 0.01% -- households worth more than ~$100M -- have received almost all the wealth gains since 1980. That's not just real estate -- it has to do with globalization as well as tax and policy decision. So the very rich have gotten much richer, while median incomes (I.e. middle class incomes) have not increased. See Fig 1 of this paper: https://g…

According to [1] the return from 1980 to now is 57.5 fold. So anyone who started with 'just' 2M would have ended up with more than 100M.

It's not surprising that those who started with the most, also got the most gains.

[1] http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm

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

#353

Post by jamespitts »

ghaff wrote: post #111
jamespitts wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think that big city life should be a luxury, any more than the internet or computing should be a luxuries. While it is beneficial to improve districts, the migratory upgrading of urban areas is an economic model that may be problematic for the population. People need to get work done and take care of their families, not constantly deal with a series of dismal choices and life-uprooting changes. Instead of wa…

>I argue that generating NYC conditions for the general population is one of them. OMG, I certainly hope not. They'd certainly better not try to generate NYC conditions for me.

Yeah that isn't for everyone!

Whatever the category of neighborhood -- big city or small town or even country -- there are minimum requirements for a decent life that IMO the community is morally obligated to create.

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

#354

Post by jamespitts »

paulddraper wrote: post #119
jamespitts wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think that big city life should be a luxury, any more than the internet or computing should be a luxuries. While it is beneficial to improve districts, the migratory upgrading of urban areas is an economic model that may be problematic for the population. People need to get work done and take care of their families, not constantly deal with a series of dismal choices and life-uprooting changes. Instead of wa…

> I do not think that big city life should be a luxury, any more than the internet or computing should be a luxuries. The difference is scarcity. Computers and internet are can be produced at very cheap costs. Whereas, almost by definition, urban real estate is scare and in high demand. If it weren't, it wouldn't be crowded.

Agreed that the core issue is scarcity.

Often scarcity can be addressed if the community decides that it is harmful or not necessary.

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

#355

Post by jamespitts »

muninn_ wrote: post #147
jamespitts wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true that people can squeeze by in a place like NYC with the right moves (as you have), but a configuration like this one may not be sustainable for those who want to raise a family.

New York City is not a place to raise a family. Move somewhere else. Period. You can raise a family and go to some of the best schools in the country in places like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, etc....

You are describing the condition but not addressing why it should be that way. IMO it is a basic human right to be able to live and thrive in our community. Of course I am not suggesting we all go live in the Hamptons and live it up.

But it seems to me that each of us is born in a place, and that place, having a government and resources, is obligated to foster a decent and productive existence for that person as they pass through life.

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

#356

Post by tobylane »

vidoc wrote: post #303
crdoconnor wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's partly because the underground is 154 years old, which carries with it its own set of maintenance headaches, partly because of the "public private partnership" programs from 2000s onwards that were set up as a means to extract money from the system and partly because they pay reasonably good wages.

Do most londonese share this feeling of mine that it's kinda expensive or this is just me being a bit dumb? :)

The parts run by the local government (Transport for London) are cheaper than or required to be the same as the private franchises organised by the national government. The TfL parts are far better, I think that even if they were the same price the vast majority would say TfL do better.

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

#357

Post by kafkaesq »

sangnoir wrote: post #319
kafkaesq wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We kept thinking: why can't SF be more like BCN? Because you'd have to demolish acres and acres of 100+ year-old architecture (generally considered to be among the planet's most distinctive) to make it that way. And even if we did -- it wouldn't look anything like Barcelona (and its fabulously integrated 100 year-old architecture and street grid), either. Most likely, I betcha, it would end up looking like a pepped u…

> Which I'm sure would suit many of the "Who cares about historic architecture, as long as I can get a shot at a $2400 studio!" advocates here just fine. As opposed to the status quo, which suits many of the "Who cares about the middle class, as long as we can preserve all of the 100+ year old architecture" advocates just fine.

As long as we can preserve all of the 100+ year old architecture"

"all of" being a straw man, of course.

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

#358

Post by [deleted] »

Camillo wrote: post #345
melq wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't touch such historic buildings, that house is 100 years old! We have to preserve the character of our city! I've lived here 3 years and really treasure it. Let's just continue the wholesale replacement of the people and culture that gave rise to it in the first place.

The people and culture that gave rise to it have already been replaced, actually. Did you know that the Mission used to be an Irish neighborhood, for instance?

[deleted]

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

#359

Post by kafkaesq »

Camillo wrote: post #345
melq wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't touch such historic buildings, that house is 100 years old! We have to preserve the character of our city! I've lived here 3 years and really treasure it. Let's just continue the wholesale replacement of the people and culture that gave rise to it in the first place.

The people and culture that gave rise to it have already been replaced, actually. Did you know that the Mission used to be an Irish neighborhood, for instance?

Did you know that the Mission used to be an Irish neighborhood, for instance?

The point is that it used to be an affordable neighborhood. And the city in general used to be more or less affordable for the middle class, also -- independent of the ethnic background of its inhabitants. And that changes (including full-scale transformations of neighborhoods) which used to take generations to transpire now happen in the course of 10 years or so.

Just because change has happened before doesn't mean that all "change" is equivalent (or even "natural").

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

#360

Post by mixmastamyk »

sologoub wrote: post #318
mixmastamyk wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Neighborhoods in LA vary greatly and depend on what you value. For example, if you want good schools, yard and say house under 700k, and want to commute to Santa Monica. Your best bet is West San Fernando Valley, such as Woodland Hills and parts of Calabasas. Thousand Oaks would reduce house costs to 400-600k, but add 20-30 mins to an already hour-long drive. Forget public transit. If you don't need to go to SM/Venic…

Hmm, a few of these are not even in the same county, 700k too rich. Middle-class is more like 300k. Most choices around say, 300k are around Downtown or South Central and have bars on the windows, which is what I was slightly exaggerating by calling them "near skid-row." I'm guessing nearby schools are in similar condition.

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Los-Angeles... https://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/house-affordabili...

There's also has been a homeless explosion in the last three years. http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/us/los-angeles-homelessness/

As mentioned, our rent went up by 7% this year, and has gone up in the area 30-40% in the last 4 years.

Post reply on HN