Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

Post by Judgmentality » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 1:49 AM UTC

lotharbot wrote: post #83

Judgmentality wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> someone making 140k in SF might make 110k-120k in places like Boise or Denver As someone who moved from Pittsburgh to San Francisco and had my compensation quadruple, I call bullshit.

As someone who was looking at the data on glassdoor while writing my comment, and who has dealt with offers from recruiters, and who has an extensive network of friends who are open about their earnings, I call bullshit on your calling of bullshit. There are certainly outliers. There are certainly people with excellent skills who are being underutilized, and who will get paid a lot more if they find the exact right f…

Post by Naritai » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 1:50 AM UTC

throwawayjava wrote: post #66

StudentStuff wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? A plumber or electrician can earn more than that even in rural areas, I wouldn't consider $60k to be upper middle class.

Some definitions of upper middle class start as low as "$62k per earner AND a household income above $100,000". So a huasband and wife who each make $62k would be "upper middle class". Of course, these definitions are silly and depend on tons of things. A teacher making $60k with difficult-to-lose jobs and a great pension might be better off than a construction worker making $80k. The latter will have a shorter caree…

Post by leetcrew » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 2:03 AM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #35

Why is this a bad thing? I live in a midsize city. High quality housing is $110/sqft. I can walk to my kids school, shopping, library and dining. My kid can take a bus to malls and parks, and my commute is approximately 7-10m, and few commutes around here would exceed 20-30. I can be in NYC or Boston in Why would you want to move from such a place to NYC or SFO?

Post by jimrandomh » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 2:16 AM UTC

stonogo wrote: post #126

dmode wrote: post #105

The fundamental problem with American cities is that Americans failed to recognize them the core engine of growth and prosperity as they are. Instead cities are viewed through a political lens. This NYC's problems are to be solved by the city/county and San Francisco's are to be solved by their local city/county politicians. The Federal government, which takes in 30% of income, chips in a very limited manner. Investi…

This is not just an oversimplification, it is also incorrect. Military installations are put in rural areas because nobody wants artillery practice to happen near their houses. That money comes from the DoD, not generally classed as 'infrastructure spending.' Futhermore, all interstate freeways are built with federal investment, and HUD is heavily involved in funding development of low-income housing nationwide -- th…

Post by closeparen » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 2:19 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #36

mysterypie wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You won't be compensated at the same rates that you would be in California, but the cost of living would make up for it. No, it generally doesn't. It depends on the specific numbers of course (how much of a salary cut, how much cheaper is the housing costs), but a lot of people make that blanket statement because of a mathematical fallacy: The fallacy is if I make half as much, but my expenses are half as much, the…

Plus, cost of living doesn't account for everything. Most consumer products, e.g. cars, computers, shoes, and clothing, cost about the same everywhere. Living in San Francisco with a higher salary and paying a high rent, your spending on such products will be a smaller percentage of your income than if you lived somewhere with cheaper housing and made less money.