Hacker News Reader

Comment by jvanderbot | Hacker News Reader

Any discussion of staying near family and friends on a forum predominated by startups out of the bay area is completely disingenuous.

But that aside, I suggest this is front page and meaningful not because it brings up a third option (to stay home, move to a city, or move to rural NY), but instead because it advocates accidentally for just staying home. Your family probably already lives in an area that is more affordable than SF/NYC/Paris, and they are there waiting. It's entertaining as an extreme data point but motivating for other reasons

This article is most interesting to me because I tried moving to the big city to be a big shot techie, and have been substantially happier living outside a major city in Minnesota.

Absolutely nobody that I knew in those cities lived near their family, absolutely all of them moved away to chase fortune and fame.

View on HN

Not everyone has a home to go to. Broken families, dead families, there may no longer be room at a home, etc. Everyone's circumstances are different.

And honestly, based on some cultures, home isn't free either. The moment I got back home, I was given a few months to find work, but had to pay rent in 3 months no matter what. I was doing temp work for one month while interviews finished

Of course you are right, not everyone has the option to move back in either their parents, and of course that option (when available) is often not rent free (nor should it be.)

However I don't think that's what the parent poster meant. I think he meant "home" is the "home town" sense.

There's a perception that young people (for probably 60 years now) see "getting out of this town" as a major life goal. Small towns find it hard to hold on to folk in their 20s as they head off into the world seeking the excitement of a bigger city, industry location, or indeed just the option of choosing from a list of more than 2 places to eat.

The parent poster is suggesting that after experiencing that, and discovering the negatives (high housing cost being one), if you have a job which can be done remotely, then Starlink allows you to do that from your home town.

Of course this is a viable option for some, and likely not for most.

>There's a perception that young people (for probably 60 years now) see "getting out of this town" as a major life goal.

It sort of is. Opportunities in the small towns is limited compared to urban areas. As well as other social aspects like night life, entertainment, the culture of the residents, etc. The people argument of being irreplaceable works both ways; you're simply going to get more options when you're around more people.

> if you have a job which can be done remotely, then Starlink allows you to do that from your home town.

Perhaps. Both Starlink and jobs in general really don't want us to have such options, as seen in the last few years of layoffs and crashouts. Add in the cable monopolies and you see how WFH really isn't stable right now without a good connection.

Does anyone actually like nightlife though? Same for local entertainments, sure they're a nice extra sometimes but nothing worth sacrificing for.

It's all some variation of "crowded into a dark room with hundreds of strangers with deafening music, can't see anything, can't hear anything".

Nightlife isn't limited to the traditional "fun party" activities. As some examples, I love going to various tech Meetups, but it being a 20 mile drive does mean I sometimes miss some of them compared to if I actually lived downtown.

Whether thars worth wanting to move closer is a personal opinion. But a notable one in my eyes.

"nobody wants to go there anymore, it's too crowded"

There are many parents who allow their kids to live rent free. First job can then DCA the near entire salary and what you save early on compounds like crazy for life.

Parents telling kids in this world to "go work 24/7 on the treadmill without being able to save" should wonder if having kids wasn't something selfish they did like having a pet.

I was always welcome at my mother's home and she told me there would always be shelter and food for me, whenever I'd come.

The selfish people who kick their kids out of their home at 18 y/o are people best let out of my life.

If a kid is working, I see no reason why parents shouldn't let them

>Parents telling kids in this world to "go work 24/7 on the treadmill without being able to save" should wonder if having kids wasn't something selfish they did like having a pet.

Like I said, it's cultural. Some parents literally need extra income just to keep the roof over their heads, and having an adult dependent at home is still an expense. . Some parents simply don't want to facilitate a full on NEET lifestyle and want to encourage a proper work ethic.

I agree that a kid won't just figure everything out the moment they turn 18, but I can empathize with a child also needed to leave their nest one day. Uniersity was the perfect environment for that transition, but we decided to cut funding for decades and move the costs to the 18YO's with no financial sense. A "party school" just doesn't make sense anymmore so if we don't treat it as a vocational school, you may as well have saved money and let them be a NEET for 4 years.

I've no objection to my kids living at home, and there'll always be a place for them here.

I charge them rent though - 33% of their gross pay. Not cause I need the money but because it allows them to afford to move out one day. In other words their lifestyle has "rent" built into it.

In other words I'm happy to offer a backstop. I'm less happy for them to simply ignore "becoming self sufficient adults" just because it's cheaper to live at home.

How about the "rent" going into a savings pot which they can use for a downpayment or otherwise reclaim (maybe partially) when they move out?

Good point. IME it is quite common all over the world for grownups to chip in towards family expense if they are staying more than a few weeks back home. If not cash it could be some other way.

I am substantially happier that I moved into the big city because I built social connections and I don't want to live with my parents anymore. Driving down there is insane and I wish there was decent transportation option.

I can use electric scooter to move around most days. It's a lot more fun than driving my car.

Really, what these places really need is major policy reform to make them more livable. There's a reason why these places are where people want to live after all.

To help make this happen, I donate to two non-profit that works to improve transportation and housing accessibility respectively.

> donate to two non-profit that works to improve transportation

Unless those nonprofits work with local government to improve transportation, you're donating to scammers

[flagged]

> You seem young and naive.

Please edit swipes out of comments. It's one of the first and most important things we ask for in the Comments section of the guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Wow! Name-calling. Baseless accusations. Whataboutism. You're really going for it, huh?

Yes, if you plan to have kids having parents or other family near is a big help. Big cities are fine when you are 18-25 and want to have fun. Near 30 and older you are just tired by the noise and other people being around ;)

Disagree. The older I get, the more I love living in the city.

I dislike having to drive long distances to do anything. In a city, my block alone has tons of stores I can go to.

Anywhere else I want to visit is just a subway ride away.

I do agree it's good to have parents and family around to help take care of your kids. That's even better in the city since the kids can just walk to there themselves once they're old enough.

I know some older seniors who can't drive anymore and it doesn't affect them at all because they can either take the bus or subway.

Eh, perhaps a curious administrator can share the data but I really suspect just through sheer numbers most people on this forum do not live in the bay area.

The NYC metro area is 23 million [1] which is about 7% of the country (23/300). There's a good chance somebody who works in NYC grew up nearby.

That said, if you chase fortune and fame for a decade and then retire to Minnesota you still come out ahead... Even if rent is twice as expensive in SF, if your salary is twice that then your savings are also twice as much which will go a longer way anywhere but SF.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area

A lot of people in this forum don't even live in the US (if not most).

People aren’t simply moving into the city locally the numbers just don’t work.

The demographics of NYC require and support the idea of a huge and constant flux of people from distant areas moving into and out of the city which matches people’s observations. Even the gender divide is abnormal, the largest age group is 25-29 for women and 30-34 for men despite more men being born vs women living longer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City

The metro area, not the city. That extends into New Jersey and Connecticut.

I’m saying the “local metro area” just doesn’t have the population to support that kind of migration pattern on its own.

Sure plenty of locals move into the city just as with any city, what sets NYC apart is it draws in people from much longer distances before most of them leave. The elderly population in NYC being relatively tiny.

>> if you chase fortune and fame for a decade and then retire to Minnesota you still come out ahead

And the locals start to hate you for buying up land and generally raising prices enough that working folk are squeezed out of the market. Some areas are starting to enact laws to prevent productive farmland becoming condos and hobby farms for retiring city people.

For a while we were looking to move out to a more rural State and work remotely. More than one realtor let us know that the seller’s price was ~10-20% more for us than the advertised list price because we are from California. I guess we have a reputation or something. Or it’s just plain old price discrimination. Ok. I won’t make an offer and buy your house that you are trying to sell, then. Is that what you want, smart guy?

Not in MN. Nobody is moving here to retire. And there’s plenty of rural land to go around.

The land is part of the equation, but more so the impact on government services. More retirees is more burden on local healthcare and emergency response. They may contribute to the local tax base, but the turnaround between increased population and new hospitals/firehalls is often measured in decades. Have a look at how long it takes to get a new firetruck these days, let alone the people to run it.

Yeah, Minnesota is awesome, particularly near the Twin Cities.

"Disingenuous" is a bridge too far (and worth mentioning because it impugns intent.) It's easy to get drawn to the cities with friends and high pay, then feel like path dependency precludes one from returning to the lower COL hometown. You tell your story in the third and fourth paragraphs because you find it worthy of mention.

You're right, bad word choice.

But yeah, this lifestyle is mostly madness. I watched others stay at home and they have decades of memories, families, and paid off houses. Grass is greener.

A real issue until recently, with remote work as an option, was the lack of opportunity to pursue more intellectual forms of work in a small rural area. I grew up raising cattle and a number of my extended family members were loggers. However, I had an aptitude for science and math and was bitten by the programming bug when I was a teenager. I didn't leave my rural community for fame and fortune but for work that was more interesting to me.

That said, now that I'm near the end of my career I've taken full advantage of remote work by moving to a rural area while maintaining similar pay. Honestly I don't know why more people haven't taken advantage of this significant arbitrage opportunity. To each his own.

I was born in the suburbs, of a moderately large city (think low millions) and have lived here all my life. We often spend weekends out in the countryside in the quiet rural towns.

These towns are somewhat popular with retirees, rural and quiet enough but within 2 to 3 hours of the city, international Airport, and so on.

Getting closer to my own retirement, discussions about "where" have occurred.

Thing is, I actively don't want to retire there. Frankly because there's nothing to do.

As I'm slowly gaining more free time, I want to learn new things (music, ceramics, etc) go out more, play more golf etc. Small towns with their small shops are lovely to unwind in, but personally, not for me full-time.

So yeah, to each his own. Which is great, we are all different, with different circumstances, different opportunities, different goals.

And yes, high speed internet removes a huge part of "have to leave" (or at least adds a big part of "can come back") to the equation. Plus remote work can pump significant revenue into a small-town economy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com