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

Americans are rethinking where they want to live

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 645 posts

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#441

Post by CountDrewku »

asimpletune wrote: post #381
CountDrewku wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the other options? After seeing how Europe and other western nations have responded to COVID in the last 2 years I'm less likely to consider moving there. It was actually something I'd considered before all of this.

It’s a little hard to go you a specific answer as it’s highly personal but the pandemic is also highly local. Europe is hard with the pandemic because it’s crowded in the main towns and cities, and a little colder than the USA. In smaller places the virus is much much less severe than you think. That being said, I think the impact of the virus will diminish with the combination of vaccines as well as the virus contin…

>Anyway, speculation aside, there’s also quality of life to consider. A lot of other places in the world really emphasize this.

Ok feel free to give me some. I'd like to know the COL in these places as well.

A lot people here tend to complain about the US but are living in ridiculous high cost coastal areas and are unaware of more affordable options. Most of them are willingly sacrificing QOL because they refuse to change their attitudes.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#443

Post by CountDrewku »

diveanon wrote: post #424
CountDrewku wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you ought to pay more attention to what it actually says instead of getting upset at what is obviously a generalization about the overreaction to COVID when it comes to young children- >A smaller subset of states reported on hospitalizations and mortality by age; the available data indicate that COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death is uncommon in children. Here's a more accurate representation - https:…

Children are a vector for spreading the virus, this really isn’t complicated. The psychological “trauma” of wearing a mask is nothing compared to what these kids will feel when they give grandma covid over Christmas. It’s not about them.

[flagged]

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#444

Post by AnimalMuppet »

diveanon wrote: post #442
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't sound like you're doing great yourself at "being a civil member of society". On that front, heal thyself...

[flagged]

Sadly, the time for name-calling those who disagree with you has not yet passed, nor has the time of civility arrived.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#445

Post by nradov »

milkytron wrote: post #383
nradov wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

StrongTowns isn't entirely wrong, but they exaggerate problems in suburbs to advance a political narrative. In reality large, dense cities are more likely to have problems funding infrastructure maintenance and government services due to persistent corruption, mismanagement, and the pernicious influence of public employee unions. Just look at the ongoing fiscal crisis in Chicago.

> persistent corruption, mismanagement, and the pernicious influence of public employee unions Is this less likely to happen in smaller towns?

Generally yes. Those problems can occur anywhere but the financial incentives for malfeasance are lower in smaller cities. Plus the officials in smaller cities usually focus their budgets on a limited set of core services rather than funding progressive social experiments.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#446

Post by opportune »

treis wrote: post #408
opportune wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they choose suburbs because it’s preferred or because it’s cheaper? If the urban areas have more expensive housing for a given unit size, that would imply it is actually preferred. It’s like saying nobody drives because there is too much traffic. Or sporting events always sell out so nobody goes.

You can't separate preference from cost. Or, in other words, they prefer it because it's cheaper.

Cost (more accurately price) indicates what is called a revealed preference. Actually a revealed preference is precisely what I am trying to point out here. There is a revealed preference for urban homes which is indicated by the higher price.

The broader point I am trying to make is that if the main appeal of suburban living is lower cost (rather than the actual suburban lifestyle) this is addressable not necessarily by expanding suburbs but by addressing the costs of urban living. In fact that would be better if it were really true that urban living is preferred.

In practice though I am sure many people would choose suburban living even if costs were equal to an urban environment. But the price difference does indicate that one (urban environments) is in higher demand than the other (suburban environments)

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#447

Post by malermeister »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #267
malermeister wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothes.

That is a fun saying, but I have been to Montreal in February and I would give myself much better odds of surviving outdoors in Seattle than Montreal.

I come from a place that gets colder than Montreal, but I see your point.

Temperature is very subjective and Montreal might be very harsh to someone that grew up some place warmer.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#448

Post by ceras »

temp8964 wrote: post #182
larrymyers wrote: post #10

My family and I decided to stay on the north side of Chicago, a very high cost of living location, despite no longer needing to head downtown every day for work. Why not move outside of Chicago where our cost living would be substantially lower? * We wanted to keep our kids in the same school, which is walking distance. * We like being walking distance to the grocery store, doctor's offices, etc. * Our kids can walk…

> Moving to the suburbs would find us losing much of that freedom that comes with living in a dense neighborhood. This does not make sense. Yes, moving to the suburbs and not using a car would lose much of freedom, but it is not how you live in the suburbs... When you live the suburbs (with a car or multiple cars), you have way more choices to grocery stores, doctor's offices, friends' houses, public parks, lakes, et…

> When you live the suburbs (with a car or multiple cars), you have way more choices to grocery stores, doctor's offices, friends' houses, public parks, lakes, etc. Walkability means limiting choices, not expanding choices.

Walkability doesn't strictly limit choices, especially if you consider walking+biking+transit since they go hand-in-hand. E.g. compared to a car-oriented suburb, personally I certainly have more food options within an X-minute accessible radius, but I don't have as many nature options. It's a tradeoff.

I also don't need to drive, which is probably the freedom OP was talking about, and one that both of us value even if some others like yourself don't. I like that having a no-car option means it's easier to be healthy and active when walking and biking are practical choices for day-to-day errands, that I don't have to think about parking or traffic for popular events, that I'm more likely to bump into friends on the street, and that I don't have to think about designed drivers when alcohol is involved. You may not value any of that, but some people do, and so they prefer living somewhere with that choice.

It's fine if you prefer living with a car, but it's rather silly to say it "does not make sense" to consider it freeing to live in a place that doesn't require one given that many people make that choice.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#449

Post by erehweb »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #437
erehweb wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you factoring medical insurance into consideration? Can be c. $3K / month for a family.

If > 50% of the country is living off less money - then it is obviously possible. Additionally - due to our tax code being based solely on income and not wealth - you might be able to qualify for a lot of government benefits.

Second point is good. For first point, they might be getting their healthcare included via work, so their hidden compensation is higher. Or perhaps they're taking a risk, which is certainly possible, but not a great way to have a stress-free retirement.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#450

Post by lotsofpulp »

malermeister wrote: post #447
lotsofpulp wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a fun saying, but I have been to Montreal in February and I would give myself much better odds of surviving outdoors in Seattle than Montreal.

I come from a place that gets colder than Montreal, but I see your point. Temperature is very subjective and Montreal might be very harsh to someone that grew up some place warmer.

It is not that subjective. It is simply more probable to survive as a homeless person (not a person prepared to camp, a person without means to properly clothe themselves or a drug addict or otherwise mentally unwell) outside in Seattle than Montreal. It barely ever snows in Seattle, the temperatures do not go below freezing, and there is low humidity so there is less heat loss hence it feels much warmer than the same temperature in Montreal.
Post reply on HN