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

241–250 of 264 posts

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

#241

Post by sudosteph »

snuxoll wrote: post #232
Naritai wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That really stinks. It's amazing how many otherwise modern US cities let transit infrastructure linger in limbo. That was my experience in Charlotte too, though at least they've finally rolled out another leg of light rail to help somewhat. Seattle is the only place where I've had the option of living very comfortably without driving, and man its a game changer. Though I don't know if it's my long term pick due to costs of housing. What kind of alternatives to Boise are you looking at?

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

#242

Post by [deleted] »

hycaria wrote: post #208
DannyBee wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, part of the underlying problem here is a strong view that anyone who likes low-density must be NIMBY or just trying to protect their property value. It's the typical "no one who knows what i know could possibly have a different perspective and value system than me" attitude.

Or just doesn't care about the wellbeing of the majority and prefers pollution with cars, sprawled cities, pushing people with low incomes always further from the center (where they might still work), yada yada. It's a terrible stance for both ecological and social matters.

[deleted]

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

#243

Post by leetcrew »

humanrebar wrote: post #227
leetcrew wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mid-size coastal cities are severely underrated imo. sure you miss out on some of the glamour, but you can get a pretty nice urban lifestyle and your tech salary goes way further. personally, i love being able to drive anywhere within the city limits in under 30 mins and being able to find parking when i get there.

> ...your tech salary goes way further... Does it? When you are a saver, not a spender, you're better off with a higher gross salary and higher disposable income, since you're saving it anyway. It's a faster way to a nest egg, a down payment, or financial independence. Lifestyle-wise, I'd be happier in a smaller city, but so far the tech salaries aren't even in the same league.

im on the entry level side of things. im making ~$80k and paying $950 in rent, and i pay moderate taxes. i would be much worse off making $104k at google.

you're right of course. any blanket statement will likely be wrong.

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

#244

Post by DannyBee »

hycaria wrote: post #208
DannyBee wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, part of the underlying problem here is a strong view that anyone who likes low-density must be NIMBY or just trying to protect their property value. It's the typical "no one who knows what i know could possibly have a different perspective and value system than me" attitude.

Or just doesn't care about the wellbeing of the majority and prefers pollution with cars, sprawled cities, pushing people with low incomes always further from the center (where they might still work), yada yada. It's a terrible stance for both ecological and social matters.

You demonstrate a perfect example of that self-sure self-righteousness. I'd strongly suggest you maybe try to understand the perspective of other people more, instead of trying to paint it into a story that you can oppose.

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

#245

Post by cgy1 »

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.

Definitely my experience in the U.S. also. Buildings are built to meet minimum code, including the amount of sound allowed to pass through walls between units. Minimum code is nowhere near good enough to block any amplified music/sound, much less if you're unfortunate enough to share a wall/floor/ceiling with a neighbor with a powerful subwoofer.

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

#246

Post by lotharbot »

Judgmentality wrote: post #240
lotharbot wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> "Boise engineers make $85k and SF engineers make $145k"

if you click on the Boise link you provided and change the city to SF without making any other changes, it shows about $125k, not $145k. 145 is if you add "senior" to the title.

I haven't checked Pittsburgh, and I'm not trying to make an exhaustive list. Just making a more general point -- run the numbers for yourself, based on your specific offers and your specific needs. Because you might find that you personally can make >140k in SF and <85k in Pittsburgh and won't come close to making that up from taxes and CoL. Someone else might find they can make 140k in SF and 120k in some other city and easily make up the difference through taxes and CoL.

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

#247

Post by snuxoll »

sudosteph wrote: post #241
snuxoll wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That really stinks. It's amazing how many otherwise modern US cities let transit infrastructure linger in limbo. That was my experience in Charlotte too, though at least they've finally rolled out another leg of light rail to help somewhat. Seattle is the only place where I've had the option of living very comfortably without driving, and man its a game changer. Though I don't know if it's my long term pick due to co…

Portland is my top option, keeps me in the PNW close to family, nature is still close by, housing is within my means and TriMet is fantastic (I used it every day when I was visiting for PuppetConf 2015, by far my favorite out of the major cities I have visited). Seattle is a another option, but I'm really not a fan of WA's regressive tax structure and it's not very close to outdoor activities.

If it didn't put me so far away from my family I'd consider Boston since my brother-in-law + niece/nephew live there, but my daughter is much less attached to them than my mother and grandparents so it makes sense to stay close (at least PDX and SEA both have nonstop flights available to BOS, makes it much less painful to visit than the BOI-DEN-BOS legs with Southwest).

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

#248

Post by moorhosj »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #238
moorhosj wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

==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 desira…

Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut all have pretty good schools. They are all in the top 15 for Pre-K through 12th grade. I'm not sure I would argue that your property tax dollars are going farther in Texas (ranked #33 in public schools) versus New Jersey (ranked #3).[1]

Oddly, almost all of the bottom 10 ranked states for public schools are "low tax" havens. It's almost like the two things are connected. Funny enough, the outlier is California, which has the 44th ranked Pre-K through 12th grade public education, but has nice weather.

[1]https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education

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

#249

Post by Spooky23 »

lmm wrote: post #55
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?

World-class theatre/opera, bands make a stop here on their tours, wide variety of restaurants, communities for some of my more specialised hobbies and interests. There are certainly costs, but big cities can offer a depth and variety of experiences that smaller ones can't.

In the Bay Area?

I don’t live there but have visited. It’s pretty vanilla suburbia. You’ll definitely miss communities of interest, but it’s not too different.

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

#250

Post by chrischen »

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.

They do not have significantly higher suicide rates. Please provide evidence.

While I’m sure you can find anecdotes about elders turning to petty crime, I can find anecdotes of people not doing that in Japan. It’d be pointless. What I can do however is provide a chart of crime in the US vs crime in Japan, but then you may as well look at just a US crime chart since Japan’s line would be imperceptible.

Post reply on HN