Hacker News Reader

Comment by somaguy | Hacker News Reader

Because cities are where success is. People who are already rich like living in the countryside. People who would like to become rich need to live in cities.

Huh? In the US, median rural income was $40,135, compared to $51,522 in metropolitan counties. [1]

Things that are for sale, are generally for sale in cities. Want to buy something? Your best bet is a city.

Please tell me how long the drive from SF to the nearest Walmart is.

Cities aggregate enough people that you won't be the only person like you.

This is a very good point. Lots of interest-based communities form in cities. In suburbs, there would not be a sufficient "critical mass" for this kind of community to exist. It drives business too - there are, for example, restaurants in cities serving niche foods. They would never have a large enough customer based outside of a highly-concentrated urban area.

[1] http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=3086

View on HN

The basic business model of Walmart--the premise of the company existing in the first place--is to provide affordable retail to rural communities underserved by other retailers. And they're so successful that in much of rural America, they have an effective monopoly. The real question is: do you have better options than Walmart? Because the bargain-basement shit they have for sale isn't worth buying if you can afford the alternatives.

I think you salary statistic is probably in rural favor unless adjusted for cost of living...

Judging by google maps, there are several Walmarts within a 12-14 mile radius of the Sutter-Stockton garage. (All on the east side of the bay, as you might have expected.) The traffic estimates are roughly 30 minutes.

For comparison, my family lives in a "suburb" 20 minutes or more away from everything (and 25 miles / 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart). I wouldn't have thought much of driving 30 minutes to Walmart, except that SF doesn't exactly encourage, or even tolerate, car ownership.

Then again, I could walk 10-15 minutes to Macy's, Nordstrom, or Target.

By most Americans' definition of suburb, Mountain View doesn't exactly qualify. My apartment was within 15 minute bike ride of Walmart, 10 minute bike ride of downtown (including commuter rail), walking distance of YCombinator, and it on the easternmost edge of Mountain View (the grocery store I walked to was technically in Sunnyvale). My commute to work was 5 minutes.

Now I live in Saratoga where I've a 20 minute commute to Palo Alto -- and again, am in walking distance of grocery stores, coffee shops, and biking distance of downtown.

I think I need to elaborate / clarify my earlier words:

---

For comparison, my family lives in a "suburb" 20 minutes or more away from everything (and 25 miles / 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart). When I was in San Francisco, I wouldn't have thought much of driving 30 minutes to Walmart (because of my background), except that SF doesn't exactly encourage, or even tolerate, car ownership.

Then again, I could (when I was in San Francisco) walk 10-15 minutes to Macy's, Nordstrom, or Target.

---

I'm not sure why you bring up Mountain View, as I didn't mention it and in fact was not referring to it in any capacity. My family lives in a "beach community" with one store, of which I do not know the name. Besides the store, there's a church, a school of some primary-or-kindergarten level, an outpost of the public library, and a fire department. I have also heard the location described as a "suburb". Going anywhere at all is a hassle; there is nothing nearby. It is possible, given the right wind, to smell the fertilizer that the local farms apply to their fields.

You weren't, but other commenters did call Mountain View a suburb.

I was just calling attention to your example (25 minutes to get anywhere) as it's a better example of an average suburb than Mountain View.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com