Hacker News Reader

Comment by scottmcleod | Hacker News Reader

Remote is not the end all, hybrid is likely here to stay. And NYC is best place to live/work as a young person...At home all day on the computer? Sure rather have thousands of options for the evening instead of a dozen..

View on HN

Agreed. NYC is still a desirable place to live, maybe even more so with Open Streets and expanded outdoor dining. I suspect that what will happen is people who only lived in NYC for work will be able to move where they want, and will be replaced by people who had previously been priced out. Both groups (and the city) will be better off for it. Tax revenues worry me, though.

> And NYC is best place to live/work as a young person

NYC is the best place to live/work if you don't plan on having children, which is the ultimate arbiter of whether a given environment is indeed "good for young people" or not. If it wasn't for the flood of people moving into NYC from regions where people still have kids at higher rates, the entire city's population would quickly collapse. It's a genetic graveyard.

Ah, completely false. NYC is a great place to raise kids and many more are born here than move in- obviously because of cost structure. It is expensive. But the resources available to and in the public school system dwarf those in any other system anywhere else in the world. And kids being able to be mobile without cars is...huge.

If you ran a Zoo and the population of your lions kept collapsing so that you must constantly important new lions from elsewhere in order to stabilize the population, you would not conclude "my zoo is a great place for lions". And when someone pointed out that perhaps your zoo isn't a good place to send lions, you would not reply with "completely false!". Someone who cares about lions and their well-being would try recognize that there is something very unhealthy about that zoo.

That New York's fertility rate is abysmal is not "completely false", it is an objective fact.

Whether you think New York is a "great place to have kids" is completely beside the point. What matters is whether the people in NYC actually have those kids, and at what rate. In New York, not enough of them are born to make the city a viable concern if it were not for massive population infusions from elsewhere. NYC is a population sink.

Nope, sorry, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Larger cities in general- and wealthy societies in general- see lower number of births per mother. That's how things go. But NYC birth rates are higher than the national average (13.6/1000 vs 11.6/1000) and fertility rate roughly on par (58/1000 vs 59/1000) and is higher than many other US cities. NYC does see population influx- more of adults than children. It has ALWAYS been a city of immigrants. That's a good thing. Keeps it interesting.

Best wishes to you.

Normal place has like 3 indian restaurants to choose from. In NYC there are hundreds of indian restaurants to choose from, amazing ;)

Maybe if NYC builds artifical skiing slope, or nice sandy beach..

NYC doesn't have an artificial skiing slope, but it does have beaches. Coney Island is wonderful, and I know a lot of people swear by Rockaway.

> Maybe if NYC builds artifical skiing slope

Is Meadowlands too far away ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com