Besides, if you're going to do software dev you typically need to be in a city to have options, so the squeeze factor is still there. I can attest to this as well; I'd much rather take the lower rent and live further out. I never even do anything in the city.
In SLC it's easy for a software engineer to make 100K and support a family in a large home on a single income. We moved out here from California for this very reason.
Maybe you don't consider SLC to be a 'major city', but you will probably find similar lifestyles for engineers outside of California, Boston, and New York.
There are SO many cities with environments that this is possible, you just have to do a little cursory research. Businesses in these cities are hiring all the time because no one thinks about them. They don't have enough Starbucks or bike lanes. So we get articles talking about "can't" when it's really "won't."
Austin, Dallas, Kansas City, Des Moines, Detroit, Tampa, Miami...
The list goes on and on of medium sized cities starving for dev talent without enough coworking spaces or incubators.
It's more that the rest of the country isn't comparable to Berlin. The cities that you listed are a great example of this.
> Austin, Dallas, Kansas City, Des Moines, Detroit, Tampa, Miami...
None of those are nice, dense urban cities in the way that Berlin is.
The real issue here is that quality urban environments in America are becoming increasingly expensive to live in. If you can't afford it, but refuse to try and work to turn a medium-sized city into the city you desire, maybe you should tone down your "why our families can't afford X" rhetoric, because it's disingenuous.
If a software developer likes Berlin and wants to live in a city that provides a similar lifestyle then how do you propose that they turn Des Moines into something that provides a similar lifestyle to Berlin?
If there is any disingenuity in this discussion it's in equating Berlin to Austin or Dallas or Kansas City or Des Moines or Detroit or Tampa or Miami.
Those are perfectly reasonable places to live, but they are not substitutes for Berlin if you want to live in that kind of place.
I'm going to repeat myself one more time because you seem to be missing my point: I am saying the premise is flawed. I am not comparing Miami to Berlin, I am saying that the author is insisting on certain prerequisites and then saying that his family can't afford to live in AMERICA at all.
If you can't agree that this is disingenuous then we are going to have to agree to disagree.
In contrast, the place that I actually want to live, Seattle, has everything that I need in a layout I like except that I can only afford to live on the outskirts in a crappy neighborhood. If they would let people build 6-story buildings in better neighborhoods then it would be perfect.
I grew up in the Bay Area. I see the same thread talking to people who still live there.
I think that's generally the conclusion that I come to: I'm very happy being realistically rich in America, but I'd much rather be in Europe if my financial situation were average for a software developer.
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
I am not arguing that this is or isn't a lot of money. For the record, I think that it is a lot of money. It's just not enough money to live OP's lifestyle in the US.
It is disingenuous to equate the two.
Usually 'lifestyle' in the context of affordability is used to describe a set of activities that cost a certain amount. Like eating out, going to the movies, having multiple cars, etc.