Comment by jamespitts | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamespitts | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is a view that will lead to a highly dysfunctional society.

First off, you are dismissive of the issue with that bit of exaggeration. It is not as if this group wants all the good things in life that only a tech salary afford. Perhaps a dignified life would be sufficient.

You also place NYC, SF, Boston, DC, etc. into a category of city that is naturally not available to the middle class. Is NYC a luxury like a 3500 sq ft house and boat? Housing scarcity and the resulting price inflation is actually a situation that residents of cities accidentally created, something highly unnatural.

Working class and middle class people are critical to the economy and wider culture of cities. Teachers. Police officers. Artists. The guy who makes your coffee. The gal not from a wealthy family who wants to start a business.

It is not enough that a certain group can just live somewhere in America. Critical workers must live within a reasonable commute to their jobs.

There should be plenty of places in each city for them to live in, and there should plenty of infrastructure in place to move them about.

Is NYC a luxury? Absolutely. The access to institutions, the culture, the people, the shops, the history... all of that is a luxury. That's why people want to live there versus somewhere like Cleveland I guess.

Once those cities are unaffordable for the very people you mention, they will just move to more affordable places where they have a better cost of living, and then they will bring ideas, creativity, and resurgence to these areas and make them better.

If you're a critical worker, then surely you can demand a pay raise. If not, move. If somebody can replace you, you're not critical. If somebody can't replace you, they'll have to pay more.

I'm not dismissive of the cost of these cities at all, nor the plight of those living there, but you get what you pay for. If you're a teacher in New York and you can't afford rent, move somewhere else instead. What else are you going to do? Rent control? Then you just have people who can never afford to build lasting wealth because they will just rent for life.

There isn't a 'solution' to this 'problem' because it's just a basic fact of human organization. I'd love to live in Colorado, maybe Breckinridge, but I can't afford that. So I live somewhere else and visit. Does that suck? Yeah sure, it also sucks I can't buy a Ferrari.

Ideally we want mixed-use development neighborhoods with differently priced homes for people with different income levels to live in. But it looks like without the government enforcing it, that isn't going to happen.

I do not think that big city life should be a luxury, any more than the internet or computing should be a luxuries.

While it is beneficial to improve districts, the migratory upgrading of urban areas is an economic model that may be problematic for the population. People need to get work done and take care of their families, not constantly deal with a series of dismal choices and life-uprooting changes.

Instead of waiting for price bubbles, wage bubbles, hostile populations causing problems due to inadequate conditions, perhaps cities should work on the infrastructure of growth.

There are many necessary conditions for civilization that governments enforce or produce. I argue that generating NYC conditions for the general population is one of them.

>I argue that generating NYC conditions for the general population is one of them.

OMG, I certainly hope not. They'd certainly better not try to generate NYC conditions for me.

Yeah that isn't for everyone!

Whatever the category of neighborhood -- big city or small town or even country -- there are minimum requirements for a decent life that IMO the community is morally obligated to create.

> I do not think that big city life should be a luxury, any more than the internet or computing should be a luxuries.

The difference is scarcity.

Computers and internet are can be produced at very cheap costs. Whereas, almost by definition, urban real estate is scare and in high demand. If it weren't, it wouldn't be crowded.

Agreed that the core issue is scarcity.

Often scarcity can be addressed if the community decides that it is harmful or not necessary.

Well, big cities (using this term very generally) don't have to be. All you have to do, as you pointed out, is to improve the infrastructure of growth. Oh and recreate the unique cultural and economic conditions. Oh and you also have to do that for every city in the world.

It's just unrealistic. The pragmatic thing to do is just make one move and move out of the big city. You can lead a nice life in many places. Move to Alabama or something.

I can't afford a big city and I have a great life where I live. I visit those big cities when I want instead of dealing with the hour commute and sky-high prices.

> Is NYC a luxury? Absolutely. The access to institutions, the culture, the people, the shops, the history... all of that is a luxury. That's why people want to live there versus somewhere like Cleveland I guess.

That's what I keep saying about Paris. One should put down the Eiffel Tower, it will make rent and buying cheaper for everyone. Don't care about that big building.

Didn't choose the shop, the people, the luxury... Just forced to be in the capital to have a job.

I live in NYC. I live a reasonably fancy pants lifestyle—have an apartment in a nice neighborhood with a doorman, eat out a few times a week, go to bars a few times a month, etc. I spent under $34,000 in 2016. $24,000 of that was for my rent, which is admittedly ridiculous. But I think with a little financial awareness, NYC can be affordable to the middle class.

It is true that people can squeeze by in a place like NYC with the right moves (as you have), but a configuration like this one may not be sustainable for those who want to raise a family.

New York City is not a place to raise a family. Move somewhere else. Period. You can raise a family and go to some of the best schools in the country in places like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, etc....

This isn't remotely true. The NYC metro area is massive, with plenty of family friendly neighborhoods with good commute times to midtown. Plenty of places in northern NJ and elsewhere with good schools.

There you go then. You can raise a family in NYC.

I am doing just that? Apparently others are as well since school enrollment keeps growing.

So is it not sustainable for a family then?

You are describing the condition but not addressing why it should be that way. IMO it is a basic human right to be able to live and thrive in our community. Of course I am not suggesting we all go live in the Hamptons and live it up.

But it seems to me that each of us is born in a place, and that place, having a government and resources, is obligated to foster a decent and productive existence for that person as they pass through life.

I don't think I'm "squeezing by". There's a lot of fat I'd need to trim for there to be any "squeezing".

A family is definitely more costly than a single person, and may be more difficult. But the article defines middle class as $50-$125k / year. With a $125k salary, you could afford 3 people living like me (including each having their own apartment). So I think the article is a bit extreme. On $50k, it'd be harder, but definitely do-able with some effort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com