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

Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 564 posts

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#351

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

quantumofalpha wrote: post #184
nivenkos wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, it's bullshit. The author must be conflating staff positions with "senior". I was paid 75k as an L5 engineer at Amazon, that's like intermediate senior (two levels down from Staff). So maybe one level up you'd get 100-110k? I've never seen salaries anywhere close to that article. Even contractors might pay $150k (and then you have to pay your own taxes, insurance, etc. out of that).

The author is spot on. You just happened to be working for the scrappiest/shittiest faang that's all. Shop around, there is decent money to be made in Europe - but of course it's not as easy to walk into it as in the US today. Oh and don't forget that it's TC that matters in big public tech, not salary.

>You just happened to be working for the scrappiest/shittiest faang that's all.

You know, with this statement you've just proved his point, that good tech wages in Europe are super scarce when you need to be very picky with wich FAANG you join for good compensation. That's basically skimming the cream off the cream you just skimmed. How much are you left with now, ~1% of the total tech jobs?

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#352

Post by xyzelement »

wayoutthere wrote: post #337
xyzelement wrote: post #310

Really enjoyable article. There's a thread that's running through it - that places that are rare and desireable are expensive. While this article talks about a specific kind of place, the pattern is true on general. It's another way to say "supply and demand" Whenever we talk on HN about high rents or house prices, we need to keep this in mind - what makes a place "affordable" is that either not that many other peopl…

Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes. When you have more options and less of a perception of scarcity, prices adjust. We really erred in allowing homes to become a vehicle of generational wealth. It creates perverse incentives that prevent cities from growing in ways that serve their populations, and instead only serve people wealthy enough to own property…

> Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes.

Well - what does that actually mean? I own a home, and I am not interested in a huge apartment building going up next door (for reasons that aren't property values) but I have no objection to the boundary of my town expanding, or a new town being established a little bit down the road. Yes sure those things will create competition for my home and lower my values in some way but it's just not something I or any other sane homeowner go around thinking about.

Nor frankly do I have any influence over that.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#353

Post by jseban »

vidarh wrote: post #338
jseban wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah same in other big cities, it just shows how incredibly impractical it is to do grocery shopping without a car, and what big demand there is to get rid of this annoying chore. I think it's great! The solution is not walking and cycling, that's for sure.

For me it's not been that it's inconvenient to do it without a car, but that it's inconvenient to do it at all . I used to do my shopping on the way home from work, and the stores were on my way so they added nothing to my travel time, yet they added time spent in shops , and I had no desire to keep doing that when delivery options appeared. I'm in London, and use Ocado, which means if I can't even be bothered to ope…

> I can't possibly imagine going back to doing grocery shopping

I know, same here, it's so great. I used to have an annoying 30min detour 3 times per week, and now I do my grocery shopping on the phone for 5mins while I'm commuting. The time I save has gone into more cooking, and healthier meals. Delivery is definitely better than using a car. Nobody that already has a full time job should have to put up with such annoying chores.

But delivery services, and services related to house work has a big stigma in northern Europe, people think it's really important that "everyone cleans up their own mess" and you should not be able to "buy your way out". You see CEO:s in companies having kitchen duty doing dishes to get brownie points and you often get very negative reactions to using such services.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#354

Post by pietrovismara »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #131
the__alchemist wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related: Most European cities are comparably beautiful compared to North American ones. Pick a random European city, and it's probably more aesthetically interesting than any in NA. I'm curious why this is the case (Older / less centrally-planned? A subjective difference in tastes?)

Well, the USA is only ~250 years old and most of its planning was done in the past ~150 years, whereas most European cities date back to the middle ages or even before that, growing much more organically, often around a castle, wall, church, or all of the above. It's only in the past 100 years or so that cars are a thing. But the other is just different approach to planning. I live in a relatively new, so-called "vin…

There are currently 720k unsold houses in the US alone[0]. How is building 100k more going to help anyone but builders?

There are probably other factors in play here rather than simple availability. Perhaps we should stop treating housing as an investiment?

Edit: not sure if I misunderstood your comment to mean that 100k more houses should be built in the US or elsewhere. My point still stands I believe.

- [0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ESALEUSQ176N

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#355

Post by maxsilver »

neutronicus wrote: post #302
jelly wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Companies providing and selling food, energy, and consumer staples are investment materials. >companies that grow or sell food. House builders would be the analogous party to that. The parent comment is describing landlords, specifically part-time landlords who buy up family homes and turn them into rental properties. Your analogy doesn't apply to those landlords.

The main service landlords provide is maintenance. There's no direct food analogy but I don't think it's too stretched

> The main service landlords provide is maintenance.

Is that how it works in Europe? In Michigan, landlords mostly exist to prevent maintenance, and extract money.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#357

Post by ip26 »

YmiYugy wrote: post #3

I don’t get why there are so few walkable places. The demand is there and willing to pay a premium, and the small lots and narrow streets should make it fairly inexpensive to build.

Aside from zoning, there's also wealth disparity. What do I mean? My local historic neighborhoods are beautiful, walkable, with modest houses, and the most expensive place in town by a long sight. People are buying up adjacent properties, knocking everything down, and building big, fancy houses on the merged plots. Essentially, thanks to tremendous wealth, people are inserting suburban houses & attempting to have it all - large modern house in cute old walkable neighborhood. The end game, unfortunately, is obvious.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#358

Post by Workaccount2 »

bjornsing wrote: post #249
sokoloff wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basic needs really shouldn't be investment material. Companies providing and selling food, energy, and consumer staples are investment materials. I don’t get why housing should be a special carve-out and don’t see a workable answer to how to provide food for everyone while banning all investment in companies that grow or sell food. These companies are invested in precisely because these are basic needs. The company…

> banning all investment in companies that grow or sell food Nobody wants to ban companies from building and selling houses. Buying them and keeping them as investment vehicles is something else entirely.

Nobody wants to ban them, but also NIMBY.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#359

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

zachrip wrote: post #194
CalRobert wrote: post #21

The planet boils because Americans are afraid of living in places as beautiful as the ones they vacation in. If you're an American who'd like to escape, check out the Dutch American Friendship Treaty, or Portugal's new visa for remote work. PT's NHR tax program makes it very popular for FIRE too. It's not Amsterdam but moving to Dublin from LA did wonders for my happiness. The next goal is living somewhere my kid can…

I'm in the process of DAFT right now. I got lucky and found a decent place at a decent rate in the center of Amsterdam (this rate is only really affordable because I work in tech, though). I've taken exactly one taxi ride so far (airport to airbnb with lots of luggage). Every other time I've walked, cycled, or taken public transit (OV Chipkaart is really great). It feels great to just...be around people.

> I got lucky and found a decent place at a decent rate in the center of Amsterdam

The 2021 US ver of Finding A Place To Live is likely to mean you paid all cash+above listed price or you beat out hundreds of other applicants for one of the few rentals.

From what I'm reading, much of Europe is in a similar state.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#360

Post by metalliqaz »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #349
542354234235 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So any characterization of USA vs Europe positing Europe as some sort of walkable-heaven is really just idealized bullshit. Or that is just a strawman of what is clearly true, but not literally universal in every single individual location. Biking/walking is utilized at least twice as much in Western European countries as in the US, and often 3 times or more [1]. European cities are, in general , more walkable and…

>Biking/walking is utilized at least twice as much in Western European countries as in the US, What's it look like when you include eastern Europe in that comparison? I'm sure the rich half of the US bikes a heck of a lot more than the poor half too.

only for recreation, not for getting around... at least that is my anecdotal experience.
Post reply on HN