Hacker News Reader

Comment by SolaceQuantum | Hacker News Reader

This is an interesting statistical breakdown essentially saying that moving to the cities for opportunity used to hold true but likely no longer does for those without college degrees. Therefore it makes more economical sense for people without college degrees to move out of high COL areas, as there is no longer an income gain worth it anymore for them (broadly).

I fear this is a worrying sign that cities will eventually begin to lack necessary labor to keep running.

View on HN

One must wonder why the income doesn't rise to match. My guess is that technology allows cities to buy such labor from low-COL areas. Improved communications, of course, but there's less obvious stuff like food conservation[1] or precision manufacturing that allows for standard, easy-to-assemble housing parts.

[1] For example, in a recent discussion about Seattle raising the minimum wage, a restaurant association exec said they had ways of reducing the needed labor, like buying pre-chopped vegetables.

>My guess is that technology allows cities to buy such labor from low-COL areas. Improved communications (...)

The very reason for the persistent, vocal push for mass transportation. This allows centrally-planned, carefully routed influx of cheap labor, while at the same time keeping the low earning families out of sight & out of mind. The upmarket city districts won't be defiled by the sight of a 10 year old sedan, or, heavens forbid, an unmowed lawn.

Social stratification follows & "us vs them" perceptions rise.

Anyone who has a lawn in San Francisco is doing pretty damn well for themselves.

I’m confused by what claim you’re trying to make here. Are you suggesting that low income people are going to move into rich neighborhoods to be closer to work if we eliminate public transit? Public transit enables higher density, which increases the visibility of low income folk by pushing rich and poor people closer together. It has the exact opposite effect you are suggesting.

>Public transit enables higher density, (...) pushing rich and poor people closer together.

The later doesn't follow from the former - there's nothing about public transport that inherently clusters the affluent around it. Good schools & "nice" neighborhoods would be an overriding concern.

Private transport enables[1] mixing and matching, by the virtue of being rather flexible and quick to react to changes in supply & demand. There's nothing inherent in private transport that would cause self-segregation, nor that would allow planned segregation. Your point about density holds true, but it's still a low-density somewhat homogeneous society.

Public transport, by the vice of being mostly fixed in place and centrally managed, is how one channels people into pre-defined paths and spaces. Sure, higher density is possible, but enclaves of the reliant are created around the transportation hubs, while the affluent can settle anywhere - presumably with no unseemly bus stops & metro rails in view.

Build a bus or metro rail stop, who do you think will tend to settle around it?

[1] does not force, but enables none the less.

Have you ever been to a an actual city in your life? The most affluent neighborhoods are the ones with excellent transit. Look at downtown and midtown Manhattan.

I think folks in the trades probably still do well. But the low end has definitely become unaffordable. The housing situation in these cities in untenable so now second tier cities will experience major growth. The Twin Cities metro is one area which I think can sustain a differentiated jobs economy and you can still find reasonable housing... that may not hold long term though.. still there is a lot of land to develop.

Shhh don’t tell anybody about the Twin Cities!

We used to say that in Seattle.

We used to just tell people it rained here 400 days/year. And even then, it was mostly to keep the Californians away.

Doesn’t the twin cities have snow and cold winters? They could use that to similar effect.

That's just the entire Midwest :) It's a great place.

I've lived in Toledo, and I've heard the Twin Cities get colder than Fairbanks in the winter. They have frozen lakes, the only thing they don't have is polar bears.

I grew up in northern Iowa, so the Twin Cities were our closes major metropolitan area. My mom's family is from 2 hours north of them. My wife's parents both grew up even further north. It gets cold, but once it gets below 0F it all feels roughly the same. At that point there is no humidity in the air, which is what really makes you cold to your bones.

I think the biggest thing people have to get used to is that there is roughly a 120F temperature swing from January to August.

One winter I was vacationing in Beijing, Changchun, and Haerbin. Beijing was about -10C, cold I guess. Changchun was about -20C . I took a bus to Haerbin and saw the mercury fall to -40C (they have digital thermometers at the front on the long distance buses in NE China!). Anyways, there is a huge difference between -10C and -40C, when I got back to Beijing, it felt fairly balmy.

Yea I wouldn't recommend doing anything other than hopping between buildings or vehicles when it gets down to -40 (same in both C and F, which I think is neat)

-10C is 14F, which I agree is a pretty nice day if you're properly outfitted.

You can actually do stuff in -40C, just wear a lot of clothes and don't expect your digital camera to last very long when you are trying to take picture of carved ice sculptures and ice bars, etc...

Honestly, the coldest winters I spent were in Southern China, even though it was 5 to 10C out, no indoor heating really sucks and will beat you down quickly.

A very large portion of tradesmen have associates degrees. In fact, I often wonder if the tradesmen are artificially boosting the income statistics of degree holders in general.

That seems unlikely. If there's not enough people to work at minimum wage then they'll have to pay more.

I'm actually wondering why it's not already happening.

I think it's good because it means cities will have to pay more for labor and deliberately consider housing issues. Either that or magical AI comes.

At some point either the services people want are worth it, or they're not.

Cities will adapt by widening roads to attempt to handle all the commuters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com