331–340 of 391 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I pretty much think the expansion of drugs and crime due to boredom in rural America proves you wrong. On top of the fact that many people are different than you (in fact the 100s of millions who live in cities) are not satisfied just playing video games all day long.
Or maybe logistics are so much better now that even illegal drugs are more accessible and cheaper than before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe logistics are so much better now that even illegal drugs are more accessible and cheaper than before.
That's probably true; but rural areas had alcohol problems before they had drug ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly it's probably that half decade or so making the switch. Different strokes for different folks for sure; but Im fairly sure the cities you describe don't exist in the US anymore, at least on the east coast. You're more likely to die in a car accident than be killed by a stranger in nyc (and the heart disease brought on by the sedentary car shaped life is a far bigger risk factor). Live fast, die young, make b…
While this study was conducted with Canadians in mind, everything about it resonates with that I've seen from American Millennials as well: https://www.wgsn.com/blogs/canadian-millennials-meet-the-6-k... "Bros & Brittanys" is, at 32%, by far and above the largest group and described as "enthusiastic consumers". I'd imagine many other "Lone Wolves" (a group I consider myself part of) enjoy the peace and quiet of a sub…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The price of gold has risen considerably over the years. There's no particular reason to suspect that this trend will stop, since it is tied in with rising levels of production. It is quite possible to create an artificial scarcity of gold, and thus gold would be higher than it should be. But it would be ridiculous to claim "gold can't go up forever" and that to achieve affordable gold we only need to remove the arti…
> "It may be desirable that we remove the artificial scarcity, but it is also a distraction from the core question at hand." I respectfully disagree and so does Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser who has written extensively about this as does FT columnist and economist Tim Harford (as explained in his book, "The Undercover Economist" as does Steve Beyer who has written about this in the NYT and Forbes as well as other…
Especially for information technology, I don't understand the rationale why it has to be concentrated at certain places. As long as there is a good net connection, it could be anywhere in the world. Let's concentrate on the US for a moment. Why can't a successful startup not be in Dallas, Amarillo, Miami or Des Moines? Talented people already move from one coast to the other, so they could as well move to any other p…
SV companies are not price sensitive. They'll pay alot, even just for the benefit of having them in the office. Software companies either win big or lose big. If they win big, they can easily cover whatever cost of salary in SV and there's still a plethora of talent out here in the bay area, for a well funded company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean sure, if you want to build a lifestyle company, and by the way there's no shame in that. But the dream, and the reason all the coastal co's are in it, is to be the next Google or Facebook, or Twitter or Snapchat. You could say an app to get people to come over to your house won't change the world, but people think hey maybe it will grow, or we'll just pivot, and wind up with the next Flickr or Slack, and that'…
Why does every company in this industry need to be either a "lifestyle business" or a Google wannabe? What ever happened to growing a business organically over time, or with non-VC investments?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard this pitch for Chicago many times, and it seems reasonable if you are in the one of the industries, Tyler mentions, that are more diffuse. The main problem with Chicago is it lacks an anchor industry. Is it the best place to be for finance? No, that's NYC. Is it healthcare? Boston, Baltimore, Cleveland or Rochester. Energy? Houston. Technology? SF. Entertainment? LA or NYC. Politics? DC. What exactly is Ch…
Chicago is the center for futures and options trading, especially commodities. Proprietary trading is generally based in Chicago, while banks and hedge funds are usually in NYC. There are a massive number of other companies headquartered here, like Boening, CNA, Kraft Foods, Walgreens, State Farm. While NYC might be known for its comedy, it recruits directly from Second City in Chicago, and the numerous small comedy…
I grew up and lived in Chicago for most of my adult life. I moved to the Bay Area in 2013. My main reasons were weather, crime, and jobs.
For some people, living with gray skies half the year with not-infrequent temperatures below zero or above 100 takes its toll. Also, the violent crime rate has gone through the roof in recent years, even in generally good neighborhoods.
On the jobs front, I'm in marketing and a more technical marketer at that. The job options in Chicago were largely unappealing, but more importantly was the major difference in culture. There are obviously exceptions, but Chicago seems to have a much more "conservative" corporate culture on the average. This means less competitive pay, 2 weeks of PTO, 2 weeks paternity (if that), stricter 8 or 9am start times, less free on-premise food, fewer perks overall, less competitive benefits, etc. Again, you can find exceptions, and large tech companies tend to have offices there as it is a hub (particularly for media companies like Google). But on the balance, due to the extreme concentration out here, it seems many Bay Area companies are forced to up their game and be much more in favor of the employee with regards to comp, perks, culture and benefits if they want to be competitive with the local giants.
I get very sad when I think about the cost of housing out here, but TBH, I'm not sure I could go back. Whenever I get off the return flight from a trip home and step out the doors at SFO, all of the color, sunshine etc. makes things look like technicolor compared to the ugly red brick, gray skies and black slush of Chicago.
Don't get me wrong--it will always have a place in my heart and I dearly love many things there. But depending on your priorities, in some cases there is no competition if you can afford enough to make it manageable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Culture" means "culture", not just "whatever the local savages are doing" People are "savage" because they like different things to you such as country music? If so, you're an incredibly narrow minded and shitty person. If not, please elaborate.
Culture in Matthew Arnold's definition is the pursuit of human perfection. Different cultures have different norms of human perfection, and pursue different things; this fits Spengler's (the real one's) idea that a culture has a core proposition. Within a civilization, high culture is a culture's full expression of itself; it seeks out and engages with the contradictory or self-defeating parts of its values, and trie…
That whole discourse assumes things about actualized humanity that cannot be taken as granted. Who's to say that earning a simple living, caring for a family well, and being virtuous isn't perfect in itself? Who's to say that seeking pleasure and avoiding pain isn't a form of perfection? Who's to say that the human perfection isn't a distraction from the commands of a perfect deity?
> The catch is that you can't engage in high culture without access to high culture
That presumes that "high culture" can't be simple, commonly available, or digitally transmitted. It also presumes a one-size-fits-everyone kind of culture and not a more atomized, long-tail description of how cultures are formed, evolved, and maintained.
In more concrete terminology, why should large orchestral pieces be high musical culture? Maybe perfection is really about inclusion, peace, and affection. In that case, a receptive crowd, a guy with a guitar, and some lively tunes is all you need. Or even just a good playlist.
And that's why I push back against all the "life is clearly better in mega-cities" attitude. It's a zero-sum game to only evaluate culture in relative terms. I don't think we're doomed to live in a world the poorest and least connected wallow in cultural poverty and the wealthiest and best connected are privileged with cultural riches. I think life is simpler and better than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Especially for information technology, I don't understand the rationale why it has to be concentrated at certain places. Startups are built on young talent. Young people are obsessed with living in "the big city" and to hear them tell it, living in a suburb and driving a car is about the worst thing imaginable. So if you want young talent, you better set up shop in SF.
As a young person that grew up in the suburbs and deeply influenced by the "automobile life"; can confirm you'd have to quadruple my salary before I even considered moving back to the suburbs and sitting through a driving commute. The false American dream of the oversized house, piles of kids, and picket fence just isn't appealing anymore to a growing population of young people. Life is too short to spend your prime…
A lot may also be attributed to getting older and wanting to slow down, start a family, etc. Just ask any parent how much they enjoy SF's school lottery, or inability to let their kids play unsupervised outside for safety reasons, or lack of a back yard.
Having lived in a city most of my life, lived somewhere in walking distance of Mountain View, and now live somewhere in the Peninsula that I need to drive from if I want to get anywhere of note, there are definitely tradeoffs. It isn't always black and white. I miss the walkability, but I also love some of the other features of being more removed from the congestion and city centers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We had two children and the cost isn't remotely an issue. However, we're a dual-income dual-engineer family who moved to Austin and bought in 2012. Our house value has doubled in price since we bought it though. It's very possible with perfect decisions, lots of sacrifices, and freakishly good luck.
You are missing the point. The problem is prices have doubled since 2012. People who didn't time it right are hosed. And there was no obvious reason why prices should go up so much so fast.
The question is how well they will sustain, and whether a future market shake up (quite possibly Trump-related) would reset things to more sane levels, and for how long.