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

451–460 of 645 posts

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#451

Post by [deleted] »

jedberg wrote: post #419
TurkishPoptart wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your district is going to remove the mandates when pigs fly, I'm sorry to say. The "nightmare" is really about continually-shifting goalposts and the false promises of administrators. The funny thing is that those figures won't be reached, thanks to parents with enough common sense not to inoculate their kids with something they don't need. If the parents are vaccinated, let the kids alone. If the parents aren't vacc…

> continually-shifting goalposts and the false promises of administrators Ever since the vaccine came out our county has said that mandates will go away as soon as we hit 80% vaxxed and community transmission is low, as defined by the CDC. The goalposts haven't moved. We're almost there too -- we have 79.4% of all residents vaxxed, but transmission is still "substantial". > thanks to parents with enough common sense…

[deleted]

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#452

Post by temp8964 »

ceras wrote: post #448
temp8964 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 f…

Did you see my last sentence? If you chose to not using a car, it's a different topic. But not using a car does not give you more freedom.

Also, your thinking reflects a typical young person live alone on this forum. Not much need to be said.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#453

Post by TurkishPoptart »

jedberg wrote: post #419
TurkishPoptart wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your district is going to remove the mandates when pigs fly, I'm sorry to say. The "nightmare" is really about continually-shifting goalposts and the false promises of administrators. The funny thing is that those figures won't be reached, thanks to parents with enough common sense not to inoculate their kids with something they don't need. If the parents are vaccinated, let the kids alone. If the parents aren't vacc…

> continually-shifting goalposts and the false promises of administrators Ever since the vaccine came out our county has said that mandates will go away as soon as we hit 80% vaxxed and community transmission is low, as defined by the CDC. The goalposts haven't moved. We're almost there too -- we have 79.4% of all residents vaxxed, but transmission is still "substantial". > thanks to parents with enough common sense…

The polio vaccine is a traditional vaccine that provides _immunity_. The mRNA shots are called "vaccines" by the medical establishment, but they only (and they are clear about this) provide _protection_. This is why the very definition of "vaccine" had to be changed: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126.... The new variant has been contracted by people who've received triple shots. That getting the prophylactic shots protects others is simply not true; it's a tagline being repeated on the news to convince people otherwise.

Also, I did receive my shots, and I "believe in science" (whatever that means) by actually reading the studies (such as those listed under the parent comment) showing that children have a greater chance of being stuck by lightning than becoming seriously ill from this virus. Believing in science... that doesn't mean anything.

I hope no one in your county's kids get any heart problems as a result of this decision. After two of my friends' kids had to go to the hospital due to chest pain, with no history of cardiac issues, and with Twitter actively suppressing stories highlighting "myocarditis", my bullshit detector, developed from long years of life under the Iron Curtain, simply went ballistic.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#454

Post by gnicholas »

dmode wrote: post #431
gnicholas wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like FL and TX each had ~130k net migrants per the last reported data. [1] Washington had ~40k in the same year. There's a reason journalists talk more about migration to FL/TX, and it's because there are way more people moving there. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

Texas has 4x the population of Washington state, has more urban centers and a much larger state. As a % of population, looks like WA has more migration compared to Texas given your numbers

Sure, and that would make it a very important story for WA residents. There have been stories that emphasize the impact on local communities, like those in ID and MT, that were sparsely populated and are experiencing an influx. But most of the nationwide stories are about the net flows in absolute terms, not considering the percentage of the local population.

Also, as others have pointed out, most of the TX influx has been in/around Austin, so it's not like people are moving from SF to the middle of nowhere in TX, and having no impact on the local communities. Real estate prices in Austin are skyrocketing, as would be expected, in the few areas where people are moving to.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#455

Post by ceras »

temp8964 wrote: post #452
ceras wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 f…

Did you see my last sentence? If you chose to not using a car, it's a different topic. But not using a car does not give you more freedom. Also, your thinking reflects a typical young person live alone on this forum. Not much need to be said.

> Did you see my last sentence? If you chose to not using a car, it's a different topic. But not using a car does not give you more freedom.

Yes I did, but if that's your counter-point, then I fear you've misunderstood this thread: it was about how where you live, not whether to have a car. Buying a car when you don't have one clearly adds options, and avoiding having a car when you need one clearly restricts your options. But that's obvious, and nobody was claiming otherwise. The point is you can't live without a car anywhere, and there exist people who are not you who prefer the freedom of living in places where they don't need a car (even if do have a car!).

> Also, your thinking reflects a typical young person live alone on this forum. Not much need to be said.

Yikes, "I suspect you belong to a specific demographic" should never be a reason to dismiss someone's opinion out of hand. I hope you see how disrespectful that is, and how it closes the door on mutual understanding. (Your assumption isn't even right, BTW.) Otherwise, I suppose our discussion ends here.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#456

Post by hagbard_c »

vineyardmike wrote: post #422
hagbard_c wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did not move because of "inhumane and not well thought out" policies, they moved because there was no employment to be had - Bruce Springsteen touched this in "The River", Chris Rea in "Steel River". Industry closed down, production moved overseas, people moved to what they hoped were greener pastures but found them to be gray and inhospitable. Now that employment can be had through a network connection people a…

> there was no employment to be had Employment is a policy failure. Likely "not well thought out" if it didn't work as intended :) California and its policies have created an ton of jobs. So many jobs that theres not enough space to put the people who work those jobs. Much of Silicon Valley in the 50s was farmland. Why hasn't every other rural town transformed into the economic powerhouse of the 21st century? Could i…

Employment is a policy failure on a much larger scale than that of the small towns which lost the factories which moved overseas - whether that be in the USA or in Europe, doesn't matter. Do you think those small towns could have kept the rust belt alive if only they had some of those ex-Californians around to teach them those "well thought out and humane" policies? Would Appalachia have been a thriving centre of development had only the majors of Bumfuck and Podunk gotten their acts together?

Of course not. The policies which gave California those jobs you mentioned are not the policies enacted by the current crop of Californian politicos. This can be seen by the population stats for the state which for the first time ever (?) see a downward trend [1] due to the number of people fleeing the place. Where California used to enact policies which made people flock to the place they now do the opposite. Maybe California was not the best example to give, seeing as how it is currently melting down in more than one way? Power failures, skyrocketing crime, rampant homelessness, tell me something which they're doing right...

As to Springsteen not being "the authority" on "human migratory patterns"... really? Why does it take an "authority" to see jobs disappearing from your town/county/state? You forgot to mention Chris Rea, is he more of "an authority"? Of course he isn't and of course he is since this whole "authority" spiel is just that. Both Springsteen and Rea made songs about things they saw happening around them, both of them involve rivers, both saw the jobs disappearing. Rea noticed that there are salmon swimming in Steel River, Springsteen thinks back to better times. They're artists, not "authorities".

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/californias-population-f...

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#457

Post by diveanon »

CountDrewku wrote: post #443
diveanon wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

[flagged]

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#459

Post by superfamicom »

I have a home in Nashville, Tennessee but chose to move to Seattle, Washington for work (software engineering), but stay here for the access to everyday life improvements- restaurant variety, activities, etc. Nashville has grown a lot, but you are still car dependent and the Conservative values run deep there, though those folks are being displaced as the housing market continues to boom which makes them more hostile to outsiders than they already were.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#460

Post by ben-schaaf »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #161
ben-schaaf wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always crazy to hear that suburbs are cheaper. Dense living inherently requires less infrastructure and less transportation, so it should be considerably cheaper. It's only through the subsidisation of suburbia and the low supply/high demand of high density urban areas that this is the case. Car centric suburbs aren't just terrible for the environment, terrible for safety and terrible for transportation; they're…

maybe. There are very few city centres compared to city-not-centres by definition, but even so there is not much stopping us making a suburb the density of Chinatown. I wonder why we don't?

> but even so there is not much stopping us making a suburb the density of Chinatown. I wonder why we don't?

It's often illegal, through zoning or otherwise, to build those kinds of places.

Post reply on HN