Comment by CrocODundee | Hacker News Reader

Comment by CrocODundee | Hacker News Reader

And home prices are, what, 8x to 15x US average?

You can buy a great house in Omaha for $150,000, a comparable home in the valley would run $2,500,000 or more. And yes, you can get a job in Omaha that pays well!

Unfortunately, many people now have to treat the valley as a stepping stone, it's a gauntlet to endure long enough to make substantial money and then they have to get out. Get rich from options or some other liquidation event, then pack up and move to a place where cost of living is vaguely reasonable. For many people, the only way to stay in the valley longterm, establish a household, maybe have a family with kids, and comfortably afford a generic "middle class" standard of life, is with a truly significant payout, the type of payout that would define someone as "rich" elsewhere in the USA.

I know this is uncomfortable and unpopular to discuss, and we're all very fortunate to even entertain such discussions especially compared to the hardships of most Americans and global citizens, but who in tech has not experienced this? Whether it's the enticement to go work in the valley for some theoretical payday, or the feeling you must leave once you reach X net worth otherwise you'll never be able to actually afford it?

Omaha has no homes that are comparable to Bay Area homes, because all the homes in Omaha are in Omaha.

Some people like Omaha. That's fine. But if you want a mix of city culture, a range of excellent restaurants, bars, a reasonable public transit system, and the particular outdoor options that the Bay Area has, then Omaha isn't an option.

Maube this sounds facile, but it's important. It's not like San Francisco is expensive purely because of the economy or the government or whatever. It's expensive because lots of people want the things it has to offer.

It is facile. You can insert any 2 areas for "Omaha" and "Bay Area" and much if not all of what you says remains true. Denver is also known for nearly everything you mention except valley companies. Our housing is a fraction of bay area prices. Heck, even places like Portland, ME offer all but similar ethnic diversity and their home costs are a small fraction bay area prices.

The difference at play is not culture. The difference is housing market restrictions, median wages and company + worker density. Every city has cultural, food and geographic advantages. To word it that the Bay Area is nearly strictly superior is to frankly confuse the issue entirely.

I didn't say it was strictly superior.

Denver has snow. It doesn't have a comparable food scene.

Portland, ME is small and has cold winters. Did you mean Portland, OR? Again, big climate difference.

Again, it's not whether one is better or not. That's personal preference. But the Bay Area has excellent cultural amenities and a pleasant climate. There are many people for whom that is important. There's a reason so many people say that they'd love to live in Chicago if it weren't for the winters.

If that doesn't apply to you, congratulations! You can save money! Personally, I like being in the Bay Area, and the things I like about it aren't available in Omaha or Denver.

"and the things I like about it aren't available in Omaha or Denver" Like $4 gas and $6 bagels?

Or is the the ability to belong to a group of people that can afford $4 gas and $6 bagels that's notably missing from other places?

You don't have to pay for $4 gas (because public transit in the Bay Area is generally pretty good by American standards, or you can easily bike year-round due to the mild climate), nor do you need to pay $6 for a bagel, there are lots of more reasonable options.

But the high housing prices are hard to escape if you don't want to live far from work.

It's the height of irony that your post (which seems to be suggesting that the only reason I prefer San Francisco is snobbishness) is fundamentally predicated on a disbelief that anyone could reasonably have preferences different from your own.

If you don't think the Bay Area has amenities worth paying for, that's ok. I do. Many other people do too. Different people like different things. That's ok.

This is obviously besides the point that I've never paid $4 for gas or $6 for a bagel in San Francisco.

Don't discount the hype/brand. The Bay Area isn't the only place with great restaurants and ethnic diversity, but it gets all the attention.

I want to live in a place where I can ride my bicycle year round in dry weather, where I don't have to drive to get to work or do stuff, where there's a vibrant cultural life, and where there's a wide range of excellent restaurants (with a sufficiently lively scene that there are often new things to try). I'd also like to be able to easily go skiing in the winter.

Would genuinely love to hear your suggestions on where else I can get all that.

This is exactly right, but the conclusion to draw is that a lot of regular people would be better off leaving San Francisco for the same reason that they should drive a Honda and not a Tesla.

And yet they don't. Revealed preference?

I wouldn't be so sure. The reverse migration of blacks may be a harbinger. I get why young, single programmers still think it's worth it to pursue a life in San Francisco, but the pressure on regular families has to break at some point.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/02/census-...

I hope there were a list of alternatives compared to the Bay Area, can't really think of many that have tech jobs.

As a former SF resident, SF isn't that great and there are plenty of areas that offer a lot more for a lot less.

I gotta be honest: I don't see how your point adds anything. You didn't think San Francisco was worth paying a premium for you, so you left. That was sensible. My post is purely making the point that there are combinations of things that this area offers that you don't get elsewhere, and for some people that's a compelling reason to stay. If you don't want those things, you shouldn't. My belief is that the fact that so many people do say despite the cost reveals that said combination is important to many people.

There's nothing wrong with Omaha per se, but some of the most cutting edge technology work is truly happening in, Bay Area, Boston, Seattle, and secondarily, NYC, Dallas, Austin, DC (defense).

Given this, while Omaha, Nashville, Oklahoma City, St. Louis, may, to varying extents, be great cities with good schools cheap housing, etc. they don't necessarily have the best technology companies.

The key to this problem is really held by cities like Twin Cities, Dallas, Research Triangle NC, and Atlanta, which have great infrastructure, industrial cultures, cheap housing. It would be nice if tech companies open substantial outposts there or if new companies are founded there that become Amazon-level successful. Whether this will actually happen is another thing altogether. These cities haven't spawned super-successful tech companies in the last 30 years, but have older "tech"/industrial companies that continue to thrive.

Counter point to your first sentence: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/that-physicist-in-omaha-is-...

Some people are trying to fix it: http://www.sfyimby.org/

They are well-intentioned but misguided about the true causes of housing shortage, which are more related to statewide factors like Prop 13 than local ones.

No, pretty much all of them know prop 13's a serious problem. You can't repeal prop 13 except at the ballot, which would be pretty hard.

I just came to the bay because it's nice. I have no allusions that it'll be permanent or I'll find a huge payday. It's just really nice.

I know this might sound like a broken record, but a lot of people don't want to live in Omaha: it is a right-valued sprawling city with very four season weather.

Compare SF to other west coast cities, and maybe even to a few east coast ones...but those more central midwest and mountain west cities have a very different lifestyle to consider.

I second this. It's hard to find a city comparable to SF in terms of what the city has to offer (tech, weather, outdoor activities, picturesque terrain, food). That said, many cities are beginning to improve significantly. In the last four years, the area where I live has seen a drop in the number of fast food chain restaurants and an increase in family owned restaurants with locally sourced foods that are unique to the region. The newest generation seems to want less suburban sprawl and more of a soft-urban lifestyle — instead of a big house, a car, and nothing to do, it seems people are trending toward smaller homes with more interesting nearby activities. The previously dead downtown areas are beginning to revitalize (at least in the southern US).

Those same people probably prefer to drive a Lamborghini, too, but so what? A Honda is a fine car for normal folks. And Omaha is a fine city.

Omaha is more like a Chevy, very American. It isn't going to have the international draw of a coastal city, and someone moving there has to be ok with that.

I don't know much about Omaha, so I won't comment on it, specifically. But I do know a fair amount about St. Louis, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and a couple other Midwestern cities.

They're all pretty reliably liberal. And they've each got their vegan restaurants, dive bars, comedy troupes, public transit, art museums, symphonies, Magic: The Gathering Meetup groups, Black Repertory Theaters, major national sports teams, gay bars, Strava cycling groups, hipster neighborhoods, and so on and so on and so on.

I know what people in San Francisco picture when they think of the Midwest and there's no other way to say it: they're wrong.

None of which is to say that any of those cities are quite what San Francisco is. Of course not! But people seem to think that Midwestern cities have all the cultural diversity of an anti-abortion rally. And that's really nothing more than ignorance.

I recently got into a pretty silly spat with someone on Twitter who thought it was quite the dagger to point out that I lived in the Midwest. Don't be that guy. Again, not because it's mean, or whatever -- because it's uninformed.

But are they hubs for international travel and immigration from abroad? I've lived in Toledo, I've visited Chicago and St. Louis, only one of those cities is a hub, and is still limited at that. The last time I was in St. Louis, I was a bit amazed at how sprawled out and...dead it was even in downtown.

So I'm sure places like that appeal to people, I can see the charm, but you gotta be ok with that kind of Americana, because if you aren't, you simply won't be happy. I'm sure there are plenty of people from STL who wouldn't be happy with SF either (not enough parking, too much traffc...). I'm not sure I would be happy with SF, I'm much more partial to Seattle even if I'm in LA now (which isn't bad either). I also hate humidity which rules out most of the Midwest, even if the fireflies are pretty.

> But I do know a fair amount (snip) Midwestern cities. I know what people in San Francisco picture when they think of the Midwest and there's no other way to say it: they're wrong. And they've each got their (stuff)

This is the common cargo-cult "me too" Midwest line of thinking.

Unfortunatly, two half-functional "rapid" bus lines does not mean a city has "public transit". One or two neighborhoods with a vegan restaurant and some Bernie yard signs does not make a city "pretty liberal". A VC fund with a few hundred thousand dollars does not mean a city has a "startup ecosystem".

I'm not knocking the Midwest -- I live here too, and the Midwest is trying really hard to pretend they have this stuff. But the size and scale doesn't even remotely compare. "City living" in the Midwest is a facade. Locals often can't tell the difference, because they've never experienced anything different.

You might as well be telling Seattle folks, "Milwaukee has mountains too, just check out Mount Telemark!". Or listening to people try to pass off the Great Lakes as "third coast cities". There aren't enough eyerolls GIF's on the internet to cover the level of disconnect Midwesterners have between what were doing here, and what world-class cities are like.

----

The Midwest would do better to emphasis solutions they actually can achieve now, rather than constantly self-highlight the areas they are sorely lacking. These cities could try building dense urban affordable housing, or invest in better urban schools, or help care for and reduce their homeless populations -- things they could actually and easily beat SF on right now.

----

> I do know a fair amount about Indianapolis. (snip) people seem to think that Midwestern cities have all the cultural diversity of an anti-abortion rally. And that's really nothing more than ignorance.

That is not a comparison in your favor, all things considered. https://www.google.com/search?q=mike+pence+abortion

Let me quote myself:

"This is true in public policy, too. I live in St. Louis, where we're constantly chasing the tails of bigger cities and their neat, new bike-share-startup-trolley-incubator-green-space whatevers. And it'll never work. For St. Louis to ever have any hope of being cool, it needs to focus on the things that make St. Louis cool and give up on trying to be Chicago."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10583393

Which is to say that I think maybe you've misunderstood my point.

Why does everyone forget Chicago exists. It's a world class city with affordable housing compared to other major metropolitan regions.

I didn't forget. I just get tired of writing "except Chicago" on every single mention of the Midwest.

Just a note: the size of the urban population of Chicago is to St. Louis as the size of the urban population of St. Louis is to Grand Rapids [0]. Which is to say that the quantitative and qualitative differences between each are enormous.

You can't really talk about "The Midwest" as a monolith.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_ar...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com