Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#171

Post by CydeWeys » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 3:09 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #110

CydeWeys wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about to rent? Still 10X? A lot more people are looking to rent than to buy (at least straight off anyway).

Looks like around 3-4x. RentCafe gives average SF prices of: studio $2.5k, 1bd $3.2k, 2bd $4.3k. Versus Boise: studio $0.7k, 1bd $0.9k, 2bd $1k. https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/sa... https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/id/ad...

So you need to clear roughly $40K more in pre-tax salary to make up the difference between SF and Boise (accounting for both tax and rent on a studio). That seems doable.

Note that the difference is less if you didn't have a car in SF (or NYC) but need one in Boise.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#172

Post by lotharbot » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 3:22 AM UTC

Judgmentality wrote: post #151

lotharbot wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My point is most engineers in Boise are not making 6 digits. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/boise-software-engineer-s...

"software engineers" in SF aren't making 140k either.

If you look across several software-related job titles that are around 140k in SF (you may have to include terms like "lead" or "senior") you'll find Boise salaries to be closer to 3/4 than 1/2. Some are a little lower, some a little higher. Denver tends to be a little higher than Boise but still well below SF. Housing costs in Denver are also considerably higher than Boise and considerably lower than SF.

Which goes back to my original point: that it's particularly important for people in that approximate salary range to run the numbers for themselves and their own situations. While for people making a lot more the higher salary easily dwarfs the CoL and for people making a lot less the CoL easily dwarfs the salary, for people making not-particularly-exceptional salaries within the general software field, the numbers are similar enough that the specific offer + your specific housing need + other personal details can make the difference.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#173

Post by troupe » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 3:26 AM UTC

niftich wrote: post #111

closeparen wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh sure, there are plenty of objections to the process of change. I'm more interested in why Manhattan is a boogeyman for the end result.

Manhattan is a byword for the unhappy worst-of-both-worlds situation where you have premium luxury housing no one can afford or run-down walk-ups where you're paying thousands a month for a hole-in-the-wall; pedestrians overrun the sidewalks and gridlock continues late into the night; there's technically trains but sometimes it's faster to walk; people are on top of each other and you can't find anywhere quiet. Parts…

Having extensively used the public transportation system in a number of US cities, NYC has been by far the best place to try to get around by subway. Is there another US city where you think the subway works much better?

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#174

Post by adventured » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 3:28 AM UTC

toomanybeersies wrote: post #161

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…

I think part of the difference is that the USA has a lot more "Tier 1" cities than other countries would have for their size. Australia really has 2 major cities (Sydney and Melbourne), and two second tier cities (Perth and Brisbane). I think it's also in part to how separated the federal government is from local governments. In Australia, tax money is collected by the federal government and then disbursed to the sta…

It is slightly unusual. Germany is somewhat similar, as is China (scaled to their population).

The Tokyo metro is famously 30% of the population of Japan.

It'd be like LA having nearly 100 million people.

The Moscow metro is 11% of Russia. The NYC metro is 6% of the US by comparison.

Germany's two largest metro areas - Berlin and Ruhrgebiet - have a comparable share of its population to NYC at around 6%-7%.

Stockholm is 23% of Sweden. London is nearly 21% of the UK. Paris is 18% of France. Toronto is 16% of Canada. Mexico City is 16% of Mexico. Madrid is 14% of Spain. Amsterdam is 13% of the Netherlands. Bucharest is 12% of Romania. Rome is 12% of Italy. Jakarta is around 11% of Indonesia. Lagos is 11% of Nigeria. São Paulo is 10% of Brazil.

Amazingly, the Shanghai and Beijing metro areas are close to or sub 2% of China.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#175

Post by ausjke » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 3:37 AM UTC

The sad part is that, after so many California exodus arrived, they will turn Boise to yet another CA city that they just left, as seen in other cities, by then they will move elsewhere I guess.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#176

Post by ajcodez » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:06 AM UTC

It’s easy to say “just move somewhere cheaper” but how do you put together a list of places? How many people who can’t afford rent can afford flying around the country trying out new cities? How do you find a new job if you don’t know anybody?

What companies are working on economic relocation? It sounds like something difficult and valuable.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#177

Post by jonas21 » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:17 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #113

cko wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t be NJ, it’s 1 hr from NY and 6 hours from Boston. Maybe near Hartford?

Hartford can have some bad traffic, so few commutes being over 30min seems unlikely. New London is another possibility--it's the largest city on the Amtrak line between Providence and New Haven.

If "NYC by train is an option," but Boston is not, I'd guess upstate NY, maybe Albany.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#178

Post by freddie_mercury » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:24 AM UTC

toomanybeersies wrote: post #161

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…

I think part of the difference is that the USA has a lot more "Tier 1" cities than other countries would have for their size. Australia really has 2 major cities (Sydney and Melbourne), and two second tier cities (Perth and Brisbane). I think it's also in part to how separated the federal government is from local governments. In Australia, tax money is collected by the federal government and then disbursed to the sta…

Without adjusting this for population I don't know what it really tells us. Yes, Australia with a population of 24 million has fewer "Tier 1" population centers than a country with 325 million.

Just going by ratios I would expect the US to have 26 Tier 1 cities.

I would also expect the US and Europe to have roughly the same number of Tier 1 cities, since they have roughly the same population.

I agree that the federal model of the US (which cascades down and has similar boundaries at the county & city level) is probably one of the root causes. Having "NSW Police" versus 482 city police departments in California is just one of many examples.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#179

Post by freddie_mercury » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:27 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #174

toomanybeersies wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the difference is that the USA has a lot more "Tier 1" cities than other countries would have for their size. Australia really has 2 major cities (Sydney and Melbourne), and two second tier cities (Perth and Brisbane). I think it's also in part to how separated the federal government is from local governments. In Australia, tax money is collected by the federal government and then disbursed to the sta…

It is slightly unusual. Germany is somewhat similar, as is China (scaled to their population). The Tokyo metro is famously 30% of the population of Japan. It'd be like LA having nearly 100 million people. The Moscow metro is 11% of Russia. The NYC metro is 6% of the US by comparison. Germany's two largest metro areas - Berlin and Ruhrgebiet - have a comparable share of its population to NYC at around 6%-7%. Stockholm…

> Stockholm is 23% of Sweden

But this is like saying "Phoenix is 23% of Arizona", which is also true. (Arizona and Sweden have roughly comparable populations, though Sweden is a bit larger.)

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#180

Post by CaptainZapp » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 5:12 AM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #138

elefanten wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen these clips before and always wonder where these examples are on the scale of "average experience". Is this the worst of the worst? ie- only the few most congested stations experience this during peak hours on a particularly bad day? Or is it relatively expected? ie- most major stations will experience this during peak hours on an average day?

Station attendants pushing people in isn't that common, most lines in Tokyo have a train coming every minute or two during the morning and that would just make everyone late. However can't move your arms crowded is the morning commute everyday unless you live far from work at the end of the line and can snake a seat. Even then it's not guaranteed (another compounding addition to your stress) and often times you'll be…

I usually spring for a hotel in Narita for the last night in Japan. While probably not the most charming place, it's a town in its own right and good food can be had so you're not dependent on the hotel restaurant.

Going to Tokyo for the evening is mostly out, since the train connections at night are terrible and a taxi will hit you with 200 - 250$.

Nevertheless it definitely beats the Shinjuku early morning rush hour with heavy luggage experience, which really is pretty fucking dreadful.