Do they though? Not sure why you singled out the bay area, but populations in less populated, non-coastal regions do pretty poor all around.
* Not as well educated
* Lower incomes
* Less savings
* Higher chance of medical issues
* Drug issues
* Higher suicide rates
* Pockets of STD's spikes that happen every few years
I'll pay the extra $1000 a month to be surrounded by good food and constructive outlets.
In fact, if you pull up the 25 best places to live list that US news does, you’ll find that other than Santa Rosa and San Jose, nothing else in the Bay Area makes the list.
I hate being pedantic, but the US doesn't have 100 cities with 100k+ people, but I do get your overall point
edit: oops was wrong, somehow I was thinking 300 even though I read and typed 100. My mistake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
>>>* Pockets of STD's spikes that happen every few years
These seem like "those who live in glass houses should not throw bricks" positions to me. [1][2][3] And if you look at the STI maps by region, it's the poor Southeast states with the highest disease rates, not the Flyover Country interior (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Missouri, etc...)
[1]https://alt1053.radio.com/blogs/kcbs-radio/san-francisco-has...
[2]https://www.sfaf.org/resource-library/hiv-hep-c-statistics/
[3]https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/San-F...
It's actually kind of funny you devoted that much effort into making yourself feel right, while not even being able to negate what was said with any kind of substantial source.
This was so so easy to find, yet you somehow managed to accomplish not finding it. You then went through the effort of creating a post on HN pretending that this information didn't exist. Just to make some point because you got insufferably offended about data.
https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/nchhstpatlas/maps.html
>These seem like "those who live in glass houses should not throw bricks" positions to me.
The level of disingenuous discourse allowed on this forum is silly.
In any case, you cite
> * Lower incomes
> * Less savings
in response to an article about a person who is miserable living in a garage. Is it strange to consider that some would rather be "worse" off living in a larger purpose-built dwelling somewhere else? Perhaps they can get paid on an SF pay scale and buy housing in cheaper markets?
> * Higher suicide rates
SF is literally building a suicide barrier on its iconic bridge.
TL;DR; It's okay that people want to live where they want to live. People thrive in different environments.
Chicago is on the longest contiguous coastline in the US; it isn't rural, it's also not non-coastal.
But that's not the grouping of cities commonly referred to as being "coastal." I obviously know that non-coastal != rural, but that equivalence is frequently used in American discourse. See also: "flyover country", etc.
Those are populous cities.
>in response to an article about a person who is miserable living in a garage.
Something something anecdotes.
HN is complete garbage holy shit.