Hacker News Reader

Comment by s1t5 | Hacker News Reader

Not moving at all because I'm remote temporarily and I'll likely have to move back to a big city in a few months.

Another thing to consider is that if you're young and don't have a family yet, moving to a remote location where you'll be completely alone just so you can pay less for rent seems kind of dumb.

Yet another thing - nobody's job is all that secure right now. Even if attitudes towards remote work have changed, a big city is still your best chance of finding work. So if you're laid off in near the future, living in the middle of nowhere will only make things worse.

View on HN

> moving to a remote location where you'll be completely alone just so you can pay less for rent seems kind of dumb.

I’m sorry but this just strikes me as an extremely black-and-white view of the world. I for one moved to a village after college, work remotely for about 10y, and couldn’t be happier. I have a decent sized house, my backyard is the start of a small forest, and I’m in a city in about 1h of traveling.

To each their own, I guess, but I can equally make a case why moving to a city to pay high rent prices seems kind of dumb.

> but I can equally make a case why moving to a city to pay high rent prices seems kind of dumb.

No one moves to a city to pay high rent prices. The higher rent is a tradeoff that you make for certain benefits of living in a big city (which may or may not be worth it for each individual). My point was that when you move to a remote location purely for the lower cost (which people do), you're making another set of tradeoffs that are often ignored.

It seems the people making out most are the ones moving back in with their parents. Rent free and social interaction.

I don’t think social interaction with parents is what young people are after.

Social interaction outside one’s household is banned and will remain banned for a long time. You could meet people illicitly but I’d expect a selection bias against conscientiousness in the pool of people up for meeting strangers right now. That doesn’t bode well for stable relationships.

What area are you in where you're not allowed to meet your friends? It's not banned where I am. You're just supposed to wear a mask and maintain distance.

San Francisco. Some outdoors activities are permitted if you wear a mask and maintain distance from other groups, but within your group it's only supposed to be members of your own household.

Obviously no one is going to check whether a couple is actually cohabitating or whether a group of friends are actually roommates. Compliance is low. But that's why this mess is dragging on forever.

There are health officials (I don't know what to call them) going around Mission Dolores Park handing out masks to groups sitting together that don't cohabitate. Banned implies they would have park rangers instead going around issuing tickets like they do for having glass, etc.

While I agree that lackadaisical response is making this drag on, I don't think San Francisco contributes much to that.

The public health order says "recreating only with people in the same household" [0]. I have seen similar signage for outdoor dining

Prioritizing harm reduction interventions (e.g. handing out masks) over punitive enforcement (e.g. tickets) is more of a general San Francisco policy. Still illegal.

[0] http://sfrecpark.org/AlertCenter.aspx?AID=June-1-Health-Orde...

Depends entirely on where you live.

In Denmark, private meeting has never been banned, and public meeting was limited to 10 at the strictest point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com