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

Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 264 posts

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

#231

Post by privong »

_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…

> 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 in and buying houses off of the market in cash.

This has been happening in Boise for a long time. "Keep California out of Idaho" has been a meme since at least the late 90s, and probably earlier.

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

#232

Post by snuxoll »

Naritai wrote: post #211
snuxoll wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As somebody who literally lives in Boise I think my city is a shining example of poor urban planning, our public transit system is ill equipped to properly service our population which is spread out far too thin making it economically challenging to do so; at the same time we live in a fish bowl of a valley and nasty inversions are becoming more frequent as more cars get on the road every year due to our growing popu…

It's too bad, really, because as you say Boise is quite beautiful. But yeah, there was no plan for handling population growth. Too many people wanted to leave out by Eagle / Nampa, but work in downtown or at Micron. And of course there is absolutely no way to get anywhere except by car.

It is indeed beautiful, which makes it terribly difficult for me to even consider leaving - especially having a five year old daughter to whom Boise is all she's ever known as home. I wish I could stay, but between the increasing pollution, lack of transit options (I don't drive, so this is huge to me), lack of jobs I'd actually want should I need new employment (ClearWater, HP, T-Sheets, Kount, etc. all suck in some way) combined with the political nightmare that Idaho has become have all but pushed me away. Heck, I can't even enjoy the beauty of the area half the time because there's so much litter everywhere these days -_-

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

#233

Post by wemdyjreichert »

chrischen wrote: post #141
stonogo wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’m not sure you can bundle India with the likes of Japan. Two totally different levels of development.

For what it's worth, Japan is hardly a model. Huge suicide rates and elderly so lonely they turn to petty crime just so the can go to prison, along with a rapidly aging and shrinking population. A lesson, yes; a model, no.

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

#234

Post by eecsninja »

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…

The irony in all this is that NYC is actually more affordable than SF now.

I live in midtown Manhattan in a renovated studio on the 30th floor. I pay less than my coworker who is renting a 1bed apartment in Mountain View on a job rotation there.

Bay Area cities may have avoided turning into Manhattan but they have Manhattan-level rent prices. Congratulations people.

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

#235

Post by eecsninja »

wemdyjreichert wrote: post #233
chrischen wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure you can bundle India with the likes of Japan. Two totally different levels of development.

For what it's worth, Japan is hardly a model. Huge suicide rates and elderly so lonely they turn to petty crime just so the can go to prison, along with a rapidly aging and shrinking population. A lesson, yes; a model, no.

I wish people would stop spreading these half truths about Japan.

Japan's suicide rate is not significantly higher than that of Finland, Argentina, and the USA. South Korea is the one developed Asian country that has a notably high suicide rate.[1]

And yes Japan's population is shrinking and aging, but that is mostly a rural/inaka phenomenon. Tokyo is actually growing in population and manages to have lower rents than SF, NYC, London, and HK. Not to mention a meticulously run rail system that puts the NYC MTA to shame.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide...

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

#236

Post by moorhosj »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #221
tptacek wrote: post #123

What I don't get about this is: why Boise? Are people just moving there for the scenery? There are major US metros with affordable housing and much better job markets. There's a sort of implied dichotomy in this article: major metros are too expensive, so people will move into a succession of mid-sized towns. But, no: a couple major metros are too expensive. Others, like Miami, Chicago, Cleveland, Atlanta, DFW, and H…

Weather is a big factor. Personally, if I'm going to live somewhere cold, there better be some nice skiing options, and there are none in the eastern or middle states. Also looking to minimize humidity. Government finances are also a concern, many of the east and middle cities are also loaded up with tons of debt from years ago. I also think being outdoors-y is in vogue with tech and other high earners, which is also…

==Government finances are also a concern, many of the east and middle cities are also loaded up with tons of debt from years ago.==

Can you explain this line of thinking? Is the assumption that taxes will have to increase to pay these liabilities? If so, I would argue that faster growing suburbs and cities out west and in the sun belt are also going to need more tax dollars to build infrastructure (roads, schools, utilities, etc.).

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

#237

Post by lambdadmitry »

gambiting wrote: post #218
AlphaSite wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then live in a modern building with real sound proofing, not something built 60 years ago, when it was t even on people’s minds.

Maybe it's reversed in US, but I find the exact opposite here in UK - a house from 1930s will offer much better sound insulation that any new build with its cardboard-thin walls separating properties.

It depends heavily on a property. I rented a room in a fancy new build flat for a while and the only way I knew the neighbors existed was when I met them in an elevator.

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

#238

Post by lotsofpulp »

moorhosj wrote: post #236
lotsofpulp wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weather is a big factor. Personally, if I'm going to live somewhere cold, there better be some nice skiing options, and there are none in the eastern or middle states. Also looking to minimize humidity. Government finances are also a concern, many of the east and middle cities are also loaded up with tons of debt from years ago. I also think being outdoors-y is in vogue with tech and other high earners, which is also…

==Government finances are also a concern, many of the east and middle cities are also loaded up with tons of debt from years ago.== Can you explain this line of thinking? Is the assumption that taxes will have to increase to pay these liabilities? If so, I would argue that faster growing suburbs and cities out west and in the sun belt are also going to need more tax dollars to build infrastructure (roads, schools, ut…

Taxes will have to increase, and already have been quite a bit, to pay for underfunded pensions. If you have the ability to move, then it would behoove you to go somewhere your tax dollars are improving your quality of life rather than paying for promises from the past.

Even though California is deep in the red, it can get away with more than IL/NJ/CT/KY/PA/etc since it's weather and geography make it a highly desirable place to live.

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

#239

Post by pm90 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #170
pm90 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely happy to hear that it worked so well for you. I think what you may be overlooking is that the vast majority of SEs don’t have the experience or talent to be at your technical proficiency ( trying not to sound classist here, just stating facts).

The way income/CoL works, though, the majority of SWEs will still do better in a tech hub where the highest salaries can be found, for SWEs of all skill levels. There's plenty of "mediocre" SWEs (I hate writing this, it feels judgmental) still pulling six figures in the Bay Area; in Boise they might only be making half of that. As long as you're good enough to be employed, it makes sense to go to one of the tech hubs…

This is absolutely true. Working in good teams has the great benefit that even a mediocre person's productivity and skills go up if they're curious and open-minded enough to learn. And working in SV means that hopefully you have a better chance of working with high-performance and highly-functional teams.

I guess what I wonder is that even after getting all the benefits of working in the bay, whether everyone can reach the productivity/skill level that commands compensation that makes up for living in a high CoL Metro area. I do not believe that is the case, but I may be wrong.

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

#240

Post by Judgmentality »

lotharbot wrote: post #172
Judgmentality wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your own data contradicts your argument. Assuming you're using Glassdoor as a reference like you mentioned, than Boise engineers make $85k and SF engineers make $145k - I am not filtering by title for either of those.

My anecdotal experience is engineers in SF make more than $140k, and engineers in Pittsburgh make less than $85k (although this is probably no longer true with all of the self-driving startups there now). I would suspect engineers in Boise make less than Pittsburgh, but I've never talked to anyone there.

Post reply on HN