Comment by sitkack | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sitkack | Hacker News Reader

Distasteful group think, change is the only constant. How predictably cliche.

I moved to Seattle in 1995 from 90 miles away. Let me tell you about Seattle then vs Seattle now.

1. It had neighborhoods that were distinct and varied. 2. Street life was more vibrant 3. You could have a part time job and still live.

Some of these things change because they changed for everyone, everywhere and not Seattle specific, but also not good. Now, Seattle is the same everywhere and more of the people moving here are moving for the job. Not for the place, or the people or the culture, if we can call it that. The job, they are interested in the career, in the money, in buying into a hot housing market, etc.

Listening to tech people talk about their 2 and 3rd Seattle house (concurrent, not serial) sickens me. The poorly run record shops, lazy tea joints and bookstores with esoteric books are gone. Now it is Gucci and 200$ t-shirts. Seattle is LAME now man. Not only does it cost upwards of 3k to rent a house, everyone is burnt chasing pointers and promos. There is no slack, nothing that exists between the places. Tech people use a city, they don't make on.

"Not only does it cost upwards of 3k to rent a house"

The majority of tech workers who recently moved to Seattle rent their homes. I can't imagine they're happy about high rents either. Certainly less happy than a third-generation homeowner who's made $300K by doing nothing but watch prices inflate.

"Tech people use a city, they don't make on."

Isn't that what natives have said about immigrants since the beginning of time? They're uncultured, they're greedy, they crowd out the natives, they're only here for money, they ruin the neighborhood, etc.

You are putting words in my mouth. Not that they are untrue about tech fueled influx, or the displaced from SF. If you want to turn me into a paper bigot, go somewhere else.

What Seattle would be well served with is the most draconian rent control that a region has ever seen. You own the place you live in, period. Owning a second home and renting it out should be legislated into oblivion.

Ah yes, the age old dream of a house for every community college student.

So the only people that can live in the city are ones that can afford buying a home? No youth, no elderly, no low-income people, etc.? Doesn't sound like an well thought-through idea.

> Listening to tech people talk about their 2 and 3rd Seattle house (concurrent, not serial) sickens me.

As a tech person in Seattle, could you please tell me where all these fantastically megarich Seattle tech people are? I'd like them to take a look at my resume.

Maybe you could Google it.

Believe me, I've tried.

I know some of them. They moved here in the early 90s to work at Microsoft, or they made a ton of money when their parents and grandparents all died and left them a couple houses in places like Queen Anne and Ballard. I don't think they have any good advice on how to replicate it.

Your sample might be a bit skewed. I've been working in US high-tech for a decade and most people haven't inherited couple of houses, own another one and look for buying yet another one. Surely, there might be, but not typically. Typically what I see people that either renting or finally could afford a new house. Sure, some people get super-rich on huge IPOs etc. - but not the most typical case.

We're not talking about the whole group of tech people, we're specifically talking about the ones who own several houses. I agree that it is laughably atypical and the commenter who brought it up as a problem is overstating the frequency.

I'm a little amazed that someone would honestly get that impression from living in Seattle. It's not at all representative from what I have seen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com