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

61–70 of 264 posts

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

#61

Post by throwawayjava »

StudentStuff wrote: post #21
_virtu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IDK about Boise, but the few mid-sized cities I'm familiar with are bemoaning a tech talent crisis and citing huge numbers of unfilled positions.

But when I shop around for jobs in those areas, two things stick out:

1. While they'll generally do better than 58k for non-entry-level positions, midwestern employers won't touch 1/3rd of my coastal salary. Housing doesn't even come close to compensating. Even if someone straight up gifted me a house in the midwest, I'd still net close to 6 figures better on the coast.

2. More importantly, and 100% related to #1, midwestern employers have no idea how to leverage my skills. Therefore, the work is generally less interesting (lots of not-so-challenging implementation roles and a lot of that is web stuff; very little industrial R&D) with no room for growth (except perhaps into vaguely technical mid-level management at a particular type of company, which I'm not interested in).

3 (This one is admittedly purely about personal taste). The local support for public schooling k-12+ is spotty. Some of the best schools in the country, but also some of the worst. And you basically have to live in sprawlville to use the good schools. Meanwhile, the interesting jobs are still mostly where you'd expect and the bike/transit infrastructure connecting wealthy suburbs to downtown areas with interesting jobs just doesn't exist... so, better buy a comfortable car.

IMO this won't change for at least one more decade. The tech talent for one type of computer science will begin to fill in just as demand shifts to a different type of computer science. I'd be unsurprised if that continues indefinitely. The only way out is for these communities to build out their own talent pipelines a la Pittsburgh or Chicago. But Chicago is Chicago, and Pittsburgh can pull on its rich institutions from a glorious past. So, IDK how you bootstrap that sort of thing.

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

#62

Post by Rapzid »

niftich wrote: post #46

The article's point is that the churn of spillover-boomtowns will continue: once the current crop of towns starts getting built out and accumulating problems like unaffordable housing, nightmarish traffic, lack of easy greenfield land to develop with cookie-cutter houses on tiny lots and giant office parks, the developers will find the next wave of towns to exploit, probably long before most of the human misery mater…

It's interesting how much blame you attribute to the developers. I would lay this squarely at the feet of city planners and voters; they hold all the keys.

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

#63

Post by scruple »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #24
_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.

Or Portland in the 80s and 90s.

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

#64

Post by pm90 »

aclimatt wrote: post #32

Not the crux of the article, but: > This doesn't mean that they, or the even higher-cost, more congested coastal metros, will adopt Manhattan or Tokyo-style density and transit patterns. Instead, Austin and San Antonio might be the new Houston and Dallas. My goodness, can we /please/ stop this false dichotomy that a city either has to be a Tokyo megalopolis or a suburban sprawlfest? I don't think any reasonable perso…

I don't see what stops cities from planning keeping some kind of growth in mind though. Rail, Bus systems are expensive but how about changing building codes to make it easier to build higher density near the downtown areas of these cities? And then maybe acquire land (at least) for a future mass transit option (monorail, subway etc.).

For Gods sake don't be like Austin, which totally ignored the problem and is now scrambling to get it together with some very very expensive options (likely to be even more expensive in the future).

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

#65

Post by lotharbot »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #29
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.

Overall Denver is less white than the US as a whole, but has some neighborhoods that are almost entirely white (take a look on https://demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/index.html ). You can hang out in, say, Cherry Creek or Wash Park and see almost entirely white people. Go to Park Hill or south Feds and you see very few white people.

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

#66

Post by throwawayjava »

StudentStuff wrote: post #53
Naritai wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience 60-70k is considered to be a 'high' salary in Boise. Like, someone outside of tech who is making is 60k considers themselves to be upper middle class. I know people who relocated from Boise to Bay area, and were given 30-40% salary boosts for cost of living. Of course, at the time real estate was so cheap in Boise, it was commonly noted that it actually costs much more than 30-40% more to live in the…

Huh? A plumber or electrician can earn more than that even in rural areas, I wouldn't consider $60k to be upper middle class.

Some definitions of upper middle class start as low as "$62k per earner AND a household income above $100,000". So a huasband and wife who each make $62k would be "upper middle class".

Of course, these definitions are silly and depend on tons of things. A teacher making $60k with difficult-to-lose jobs and a great pension might be better off than a construction worker making $80k. The latter will have a shorter career at that salary, is more exposed to cycles, and will have a tougher time planning for retirement (assuming, of course, the teacher's pension is well-run).

A teacher making $40k with no dependents and no desire to reproduce is practically upper middle class compared to a software engineer making twice that but who's a single mother with 4 kids.

And a teacher making $60k in rural midwest is basically in a different economic class than a teacher making $60k in a coastal city...

> plumber or electrician can earn more than that even in rural areas

Sure. Class isn't just about income; it's also about value systems and educational attainment. Which is definitely classist! But then, we are literally discussing class...

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

#67

Post by pm90 »

This article misses an option I've seen used by the city which I live in: Austin, TX.

Instead of building a serious mass transit system, the city encouraged the greenfield development of high density urban clusters outside the downtown region. So the companies moving in now have option to be located in the Downtown or the "New Downtown" (called the Domain).

I think this has been a very successful strategy. But it depends on whether you can convince enough people/companies to move to the alternate high density development.

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

#69

Post by golemiprague »

indemnity wrote: post #54
rayiner wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tokyo is also not particularly congested.

Nor is it particularly high rise outside of the center, it’s surprisingly sprawl-like as well.

The good thing about Tokyo is that they let people build whatever they want and somehow it works, there are congested areas and not so congested areas and in between areas and non consistent areas, they just have it all and people can choose where they want to live.

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

#70

Post by CydeWeys »

StudentStuff wrote: post #53
Naritai wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience 60-70k is considered to be a 'high' salary in Boise. Like, someone outside of tech who is making is 60k considers themselves to be upper middle class. I know people who relocated from Boise to Bay area, and were given 30-40% salary boosts for cost of living. Of course, at the time real estate was so cheap in Boise, it was commonly noted that it actually costs much more than 30-40% more to live in the…

Huh? A plumber or electrician can earn more than that even in rural areas, I wouldn't consider $60k to be upper middle class.

Huh? Why do you define upper middle class so as to exclude the trades? Trades are frequently lucrative enough to place tradespeople in the income percentile required to reach upper middle class, especially if you own your own business, as many tradespeople do.
Post reply on HN