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

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

#21

Post by StudentStuff » Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 9:34 PM UTC

_virtu wrote: post #15

StudentStuff wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Financially speaking, what good paying jobs are in Boise? I have cousins out there who both graduated with solid degrees, yet can't find work outside retail, and have learned the hard way that becoming management in retail has massive downsides (esp. on one's family).

Mainly tech. I work in tech and have had no issue looking for work. > 7,000 science, technology, engineering and math jobs went unfilled in Idaho in 2017, double the number from the year before. Sources: [1]: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state...

What companies are creating these positions? What is considered a "high" wage? In my eyes, that could be $58k a year or maybe a touch less depending on the authors perspective, which is a far cry from what similar talent would make in Portland or Seattle, let alone SoCal.

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

#22

Post by opportune » Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 9:36 PM UTC

_virtu wrote: post #10

diminoten wrote: post #4

From a logistical standpoint, does Boise have a glut of available jobs for these migrants, or are they taking their jobs with them? That's the first thing I think about when considering a move; can I work there?

If you're in tech, yes. There are a lot of tech related jobs that Boise has a huge deficit for. 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.

Would it? From my experience, if you’re coming from a place like Google/FB/well paid smaller companies it’s still not worth it. You have to be making on the mid/lower end for the COL changes to account for the reduction in salary - in part because places like Boise simply don’t have jobs that are comparable to some of the better ones in the Bay, Seattle, and NYC

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

#23

Post by StudentStuff » Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

connorl33t wrote: post #18

StudentStuff wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Financially speaking, what good paying jobs are in Boise? I have cousins out there who both graduated with solid degrees, yet can't find work outside retail, and have learned the hard way that becoming management in retail has massive downsides (esp. on one's family).

There's a surprisingly large tech scene in Boise, quiet, but there.

What companies are there, and with what kind of pay range/job roles?

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

#24

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 9:40 PM UTC

_virtu wrote: post #9

As someone who's currently looking to purchase a first home in Boise after living here for the last 9 years, all I can say is "meep". There's nothing like the crazy stupid money that Californians are brining in to the housing market to make we wish articles like this would stop shining the spotlight on Boise. The housing market has been nuts this season and I can't help but think that it's all the Californians coming…

Your response sounds like an exact echo of Austin's gripes from 5-10 years ago, and thus I think highlight the point of the article.

Sorry, but it's a losing battle. While some of us still like to say we are trying to "Keep Austin Weird", the fact is it's not really possible to keep it that weird when bare lot values for anything remotely central in Austin now go for over $500k.

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

#25

Post by StudentStuff » Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 9:40 PM UTC

ebikelaw wrote: post #20

Semirhage wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is massive, and it isn’t all SF and LA. You’d think that electing Schwarzenegger governor would have been a hint as to some political leanings! California has a sizeable rural community, which is typical Right wing. http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kfsn/images/cms/automatio...

Acres don't vote, thankfully :-) 74% of California's delegation - 39 of 53 - are Democrats.

Those angry rural people do leave California in droves though, to Oregon and Washington in the past. They've dealt significant damage to our local politics in the past, the fear of Californians is well founded.

Those that like California are less apt to leave in large numbers, as compared to those on the margins of politics/the economy (eg: in stable or shrinking industries, with different political beliefs).

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

#26

Post by whack » Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 9:42 PM UTC

ebikelaw wrote: post #17

taurath wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve heard a lot of things about California transplants (being one myself), but being far right is one I haven’t yet heard.

California is diverse and populous. There are enough far right voters in California that if they were to migrate en masse they would totally overwhelm their destination. They're also more likely to migrate, being the most irked by California's current one-party government. As a personal anecdote I happen to know a small businessman who moved from Fremont, California, to Oregon because those gosh darn overbearing regu…

> there are more Trump voters in New York City than there are total voters in Alabama.

I agree with your general point, but the above seems grossly inaccurate.

NYC had ~500k Trump voters, whereas Alabama had 1.3M Trump voters and ~2M voters in total.

https://www.amny.com/news/elections/nyc-voter-turnout-was-55...

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/numbers/clinton-trump-presi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

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

#27

Post by cylinder » Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 9:42 PM UTC

My general view after travelling to Denver is that one of America's biggest issues is underpopulation. There is so much land in these areas and actually lots of infrastructure relative to population.

It all stood out to me how white these areas remain. I saw a handful of non whites and no Asians the entire time. Shocking how the whitest areas are the most anti immigrant. What are they so angry about?!

Bringing in migrants and capital to these areas could really set the US economy on fire. But since the country turned away from openness in the 1920s economically it's been declining on the growth side (carried by the productivity economy which is tech).

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

#28

Post by mysterypie » Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

_virtu wrote: post #10

diminoten wrote: post #4

From a logistical standpoint, does Boise have a glut of available jobs for these migrants, or are they taking their jobs with them? That's the first thing I think about when considering a move; can I work there?

If you're in tech, yes. There are a lot of tech related jobs that Boise has a huge deficit for. 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.

> 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, then I'm just as well off. That statement is mathematically false.

Here's a made up example: San Francisco salary is $140K (or $84K after 40% taxes deducted) and rent or mortgage is $3000/month ($36K/year). Boise salary is half as much at $70K (or $42K after 40% taxes deducted) and rent or mortgage are also half as much at $1500/month ($18K/year). Now calculate disposable income after taxes and housing costs: In San Francisco it's $48K (i.e., $84K - $36K) and in Boise it would be $24K (i.e., $42K - $18K). Clearly, in this example, you'd still be $24K better off in San Francisco.

I know that I made many assumptions above. I'm just illustrating the fallacy that people often make. Halving your income and halving your expenses is not neutral -- it is worse.

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

#29

Post by WillPostForFood » Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 9:46 PM UTC

cylinder wrote: post #27

My general view after travelling to Denver is that one of America's biggest issues is underpopulation. There is so much land in these areas and actually lots of infrastructure relative to population. It all stood out to me how white these areas remain. I saw a handful of non whites and no Asians the entire time. Shocking how the whitest areas are the most anti immigrant. What are they so angry about?! Bringing in mig…

Denver is 30% Latino, 11% Black, 5% Asian. Not sure how you only saw a handful of non-whites.

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

#30

Post by twblalock » Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

_virtu wrote: post #9

As someone who's currently looking to purchase a first home in Boise after living here for the last 9 years, all I can say is "meep". There's nothing like the crazy stupid money that Californians are brining in to the housing market to make we wish articles like this would stop shining the spotlight on Boise. The housing market has been nuts this season and I can't help but think that it's all the Californians coming…

You can't have a large influx of people from anywhere without the culture changing. You're going to get higher home prices and/or more sprawl, and more traffic either way. But you're also going to get more investment in the area, more skilled workers, and more consumers spending money.

To give an example from California: San Francisco started as a Spanish mission town. Then it was a gold rush town, and then a major port and military base with a predominantly working-class population. Then it became a center of counterculture and gay culture, and then a tech hub with a very high cost of living.

Every time the city changed, there were people who didn't want it to change -- but the people who resisted change were themselves responsible for changing the city when they arrived. Similar things could be said about cities everywhere.

This is the lifecycle of cities. It's what happens in a free country where people can live and work where they want to. Unless you were one of the people who showed up on a wagon train and built Boise out of nothing, you aren't any different than today's newcomers.