Millennials Moving to Suburbs Will Change Economic Development(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Millennials Moving to Suburbs Will Change Economic Development
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-03/millennials-moving-to-suburbs-will-change-economic-development
167 comments
Totally agree, and Canada is worse - we have very few major cities to choose from, and the two major ones (Vancouver and Toronto) are insanely expensive to live in on an affordability basis, due to the terrible wages Canadians enjoy compared to the US.
And worse, our already large but planned to increase annually immigration levels, much of which are wives and children of the world's 1%, who also coincidentally choose to live in the two cities above, essentially guarantees that working class people (by that I mean anyone that actually works for a living) will be eventually pushed out, unless some sort of a public dorm system is introduced.
And worse, our already large but planned to increase annually immigration levels, much of which are wives and children of the world's 1%, who also coincidentally choose to live in the two cities above, essentially guarantees that working class people (by that I mean anyone that actually works for a living) will be eventually pushed out, unless some sort of a public dorm system is introduced.
Right... and the conventional 'working class' as in service workers, some factory workers, and the like have to live stacked up in probably-illegal conditions while the white collar 'working class' lives in tiny apartments paying as much in rent for a 1 bedroom as a guy with a lavish multi-hundred-acre horse farm estate with 8 bedrooms pays for his mortgage in the country.
And the cream on top: the white collar worker living in a shoebox is paying 40% income taxes while the estate owner has no taxable income, despite buying a few new $100k+ cars per year. And the government "doesn't see" any of this happening.
To be fair, the accumulated wealth of the rich person has already been taxed.
I believe taxation on capital gains from investments is much less then on salary.
Also another fun game the wealthy can play is they can fund a company with large sums of capital. Then make themselves officers of the company. Then the cars, houses, flights, and clothing budgets are all expenses of the company. So they personally pay no taxes and the "company" can write them off as a lose for the year.
Also another fun game the wealthy can play is they can fund a company with large sums of capital. Then make themselves officers of the company. Then the cars, houses, flights, and clothing budgets are all expenses of the company. So they personally pay no taxes and the "company" can write them off as a lose for the year.
The accumulation of wealth (income) has been, the accumulated wealth (property) has not (except insofar as they wealth is held in asset classes subject to property taxes.)
Whether income alone, property alone, or some (and if so, what) particular combination of those two should be taxed is a matter of some debate.
Whether income alone, property alone, or some (and if so, what) particular combination of those two should be taxed is a matter of some debate.
You have to buy assets. The income used to buy them has already been taxed. Then, whenever those assets generate further income, that additional income gets taxed.
You can quibble about what the tax rates should be, but I was responding to somebody who made it sound like wealthy people pay no taxes, which is an utter misrepresentation of the situation.
You can quibble about what the tax rates should be, but I was responding to somebody who made it sound like wealthy people pay no taxes, which is an utter misrepresentation of the situation.
> but I was responding to somebody who made it sound like wealthy people pay no taxes, which is an utter misrepresentation of the situation
I wish you were right, however:
https://globalnews.ca/news/3773729/richmond-incomes-downtown...
A huge percentage of recent sales are to overseas investors (untaxed money), most of the appreciation wealth is accumulated by people who bought > 10 years ago, so no tax as it is their primary residence. So even though it seems hard to believe, in fact the majority of the money in this system is untaxed.
And if you're not familiar with the downtown eastside:
https://www.straight.com/news/847631/photos-three-months-dow...
I wish you were right, however:
https://globalnews.ca/news/3773729/richmond-incomes-downtown...
A huge percentage of recent sales are to overseas investors (untaxed money), most of the appreciation wealth is accumulated by people who bought > 10 years ago, so no tax as it is their primary residence. So even though it seems hard to believe, in fact the majority of the money in this system is untaxed.
And if you're not familiar with the downtown eastside:
https://www.straight.com/news/847631/photos-three-months-dow...
I find it hard to complain too much about untaxed wealth in the form of primary residences. This is a vehicle that is available to vast swathes of the American & Canadian public. As such, it doesn’t really bolster the argument that wealthy people somehow pay less taxes, which is what I was responding to.
Does this bolster the argument?
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3ddbwb/vancouver-dirt-now...
In case the logic isn't obvious:
If you own a house, you are wealthy.
Houses earn more than wages.
No taxes are paid on capital gains of primary residence.
Why should I have to pay higher taxes because I worked my ass off in school and continue to work my ass off, but someone who lucked into winning the modern day Canadian lottery gets a free ride? The legislation wasn't written with this scenario in mind I can tell you that for sure.
Our historic social contracts are starting to break down, if the state doesn't uphold it's end of the bargain, I don't see why I should uphold my end.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3ddbwb/vancouver-dirt-now...
In case the logic isn't obvious:
If you own a house, you are wealthy.
Houses earn more than wages.
No taxes are paid on capital gains of primary residence.
Why should I have to pay higher taxes because I worked my ass off in school and continue to work my ass off, but someone who lucked into winning the modern day Canadian lottery gets a free ride? The legislation wasn't written with this scenario in mind I can tell you that for sure.
Our historic social contracts are starting to break down, if the state doesn't uphold it's end of the bargain, I don't see why I should uphold my end.
I know plenty of non-wealthy, middle and working class people (born to middle and working class parents) who own houses. They aren't wealthy because they still have a mortgage for most of the value of the house. They may be wealthy in 30 years when their mortgage is paid off, but they aren't now.
Wealthy citizens of the U.S. and Canada all had to pay income taxes on the money they used to buy the assets they own. People who are wealthy enough to get by entirely on income generating assets were probably at one time in the top income tax bracket, which means they forked over about 50% of their income to the government. Which, btw, is a much higher percentage rate than people in the lower tax brackets.
So, do wealthy people have it easier than non-wealthy people? Yes. But they had to earn an unbelievable amount of money (since they had to pay half of it in taxes) to get to that point. So maybe it's not actually that unfair. And, since high earners pay a higher tax rate, maybe it's actually kinda fair.
Wealthy citizens of the U.S. and Canada all had to pay income taxes on the money they used to buy the assets they own. People who are wealthy enough to get by entirely on income generating assets were probably at one time in the top income tax bracket, which means they forked over about 50% of their income to the government. Which, btw, is a much higher percentage rate than people in the lower tax brackets.
So, do wealthy people have it easier than non-wealthy people? Yes. But they had to earn an unbelievable amount of money (since they had to pay half of it in taxes) to get to that point. So maybe it's not actually that unfair. And, since high earners pay a higher tax rate, maybe it's actually kinda fair.
> So, do wealthy people have it easier than non-wealthy people? Yes. But they had to earn an unbelievable amount of money (since they had to pay half of it in taxes) to get to that point.
Usually, but not always. That's the point.
In some geographical regions in the world, ownership of real estate is starting to trump everything. When it comes to net worth, your income is largely a rounding error. Strangely, when this discussion is raised, a variety of standard responses seem to be raised, in this case, "oh, you're saying that this is the case always and everywhere - since that is obviously false, therefore your entire premise if false, end of discussion".
Another common conversational diversion tactic (that worked for several years in Canada) was shutting down any complaint by playing the race card. Since it is usually people from mainland China (unsurprisingly, considering the scope of new wealth in that country) who are involved in massive real estate appreciation is most parts of the world, again and again in all Western countries we've seen dissenting voices silenced by accusing them of racism, often by their very own governments who are supposed to be managing these things and protecting the best interests of citizens. And boy is it effective, up to a point. Citizens in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are finally getting fed up with their governments to brush off racism accusations, but it's far too little, too late - things are so far gone, nothing can be done without destroying the Frankenstein economies that the overall economy depends on. I often wonder if that was the plan.
People living in the US probably don't notice this nearly as much, as you have a large population and enjoy a massive and powerful economy, whereas foreign entrance into our markets cause significant effects.
Usually, but not always. That's the point.
In some geographical regions in the world, ownership of real estate is starting to trump everything. When it comes to net worth, your income is largely a rounding error. Strangely, when this discussion is raised, a variety of standard responses seem to be raised, in this case, "oh, you're saying that this is the case always and everywhere - since that is obviously false, therefore your entire premise if false, end of discussion".
Another common conversational diversion tactic (that worked for several years in Canada) was shutting down any complaint by playing the race card. Since it is usually people from mainland China (unsurprisingly, considering the scope of new wealth in that country) who are involved in massive real estate appreciation is most parts of the world, again and again in all Western countries we've seen dissenting voices silenced by accusing them of racism, often by their very own governments who are supposed to be managing these things and protecting the best interests of citizens. And boy is it effective, up to a point. Citizens in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are finally getting fed up with their governments to brush off racism accusations, but it's far too little, too late - things are so far gone, nothing can be done without destroying the Frankenstein economies that the overall economy depends on. I often wonder if that was the plan.
People living in the US probably don't notice this nearly as much, as you have a large population and enjoy a massive and powerful economy, whereas foreign entrance into our markets cause significant effects.
> I was responding to somebody who made it sound like wealthy people pay no taxes, which is an utter misrepresentation of the situation.
Who? Because that didn't happen.
Who? Because that didn't happen.
If it was earned in Canada, which is increasingly not the case. How much, the government says it doesn't know. Funny that.
Multi hundred acres horse farms cost a lot more than 1 bedroom apartments in SV.
Or more likely: a corporate town complete with a corporate store and dorms.
Alternatively, you save for years. My SO and I have lived in a smaller apartment for years to save a house down + backup. We have no inherited wealth; we came from a rural background.
We could own in the countryside or suburbs. Both have shitty commutes, limit opportunity, and come with worse arrangements. Sticker price is lower, but TCO is higher outside the city.
I'll take opportunity in the city; where I don't have to drive an hour.
We could own in the countryside or suburbs. Both have shitty commutes, limit opportunity, and come with worse arrangements. Sticker price is lower, but TCO is higher outside the city.
I'll take opportunity in the city; where I don't have to drive an hour.
> Other cities in the country that aren't the big offenders that everyone complains about don't really have this problem.
True story. While the above is true for NYC, LA, Bay Area ... it's simply not true for Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio.
True story. While the above is true for NYC, LA, Bay Area ... it's simply not true for Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio.
San Francisco median income is $78,000 according to Wikipedia. That means 50% of households earn less than that. Those people seem to be able to live in SF, why do you assume it's "priced for people with access to intergenerational wealth and/or who don't work and just live off investments". That's likely a fraction of all the people who live there.
Well, you have to either be one of the lucky 20% who get housing for free from affordability lotteries, OR you have to be a member of the feudal lords who own property in SF. The rest are probably holding on to their rent controlled properties like they're a gold mine.
But, if your new to city and want to come there, anything less than 120K (300K+ if you have a family of 4) isn't going to make it.
But, if your new to city and want to come there, anything less than 120K (300K+ if you have a family of 4) isn't going to make it.
> if your new to city and want to come there, anything less than 120K (300K+ if you have a family of 4) isn't going to make it.
Not everyone earning $120k+ are "people with access to intergenerational wealth and/or who don't work and just live off investments". In fact I'd venture to say that most aren't.
Not everyone earning $120k+ are "people with access to intergenerational wealth and/or who don't work and just live off investments". In fact I'd venture to say that most aren't.
Heck I even lived in the Bay Area on less than that and did OK as a single person. But I have been a lot more successful financially in a region with a much lower cost of living. Your mileage may vary, but I bet on an alternative strategy that has been working for me. I believe that many people are discovering that the strategy of working in a high COLA region expecting an extreme payoff is not as reliable a strategy as it was for our parents' generation -- in part because our parents' generation was able to afford to buy property at reasonable prices and then benefit from the appreciation.
I lived in San Francisco for the past seven years, but moved to Missoula, Montana because living in the city and even surrounding places like Oakland, South Bay was increasingly way too expensive. I count myself lucky that I am self-employed and work in an industry that I can easily do remote work as the job prospects in Missoula mostly center around low-wage service work.
At the end of the day, I moved to Missoula so I can do my part as a millennial and start buying diamonds again.
At the end of the day, I moved to Missoula so I can do my part as a millennial and start buying diamonds again.
Are you afraid that you won't be able to find quality remote work at some point? As much as I'd love to go far off into the woods, my job prospects - even as a confirmed, life-long remote employee - are so much better being close to an urban center with solid transportation connections to major cities.
I work remotely for Bay Area startups. Have for the past three years, been consulting for six (lived in SF prior).
The burden of trust always falls on you, the developer. So you offer concessions to mitigate risk and hustle in the beginning to establish trust:
0) Reach out directly to the prospective job. Show them how you can make a remote arrangement work.
1) Offer a short term contract up front - if you're not "a good fit for each other" the terms allow either party to walk with little notice.
2) Offer to fly out to meet the team personally (most other prospective engineers won't do this). Factor this cost into your rate and _do not_ bother them with additional travel expenses. Tell them you'll "foot the bill".
2a) Give them a single invoice with one number - make it easy for them to pay you.
3) When you've finally joined the team remotely, quickly offer up cosmetic suggestions on PR's, open up new PRs to improve the on-boarding documentation, tackle a couple of simple stories and get a PR out within a few days.
4) Get the senior devs to do walk-throughs of the code on Slack. When you encounter something semi-difficult that Google can't answer, that would probably take you a couple of days to unravel but a senior dev already knows, _call_ them on slack. Swallow your pride. Make a call.
5) Goes without saying - don't miss the standups. If you were in the office, it's easy to see that you're doing something else. When you're 1500 miles away, especially in the beginning, nightmares of the remote dev going MIA kick in quick.
The burden of trust always falls on you, the developer. So you offer concessions to mitigate risk and hustle in the beginning to establish trust:
0) Reach out directly to the prospective job. Show them how you can make a remote arrangement work.
1) Offer a short term contract up front - if you're not "a good fit for each other" the terms allow either party to walk with little notice.
2) Offer to fly out to meet the team personally (most other prospective engineers won't do this). Factor this cost into your rate and _do not_ bother them with additional travel expenses. Tell them you'll "foot the bill".
2a) Give them a single invoice with one number - make it easy for them to pay you.
3) When you've finally joined the team remotely, quickly offer up cosmetic suggestions on PR's, open up new PRs to improve the on-boarding documentation, tackle a couple of simple stories and get a PR out within a few days.
4) Get the senior devs to do walk-throughs of the code on Slack. When you encounter something semi-difficult that Google can't answer, that would probably take you a couple of days to unravel but a senior dev already knows, _call_ them on slack. Swallow your pride. Make a call.
5) Goes without saying - don't miss the standups. If you were in the office, it's easy to see that you're doing something else. When you're 1500 miles away, especially in the beginning, nightmares of the remote dev going MIA kick in quick.
Regarding your #2, in my experience as a remote dev., I have visited HQ multiple time per year.
Would having the company coordinate your travel and expenses give you insight into how the company functions?
Would having the company coordinate your travel and expenses give you insight into how the company functions?
Some of the startups in SF are pretty small, just ramping up in terms of head counts and may not have someone in charge to deal with travel logistics (you could be the first remote dev ever).
If you're trying to get a signal regarding whether the company is going to pay you and pay on time, request a tighter payment schedule, e.g. net 10. That reduces the risk a bit on your side (you won't end up working for two months for free) and isn't much different on their end.
If you're trying to get a signal regarding whether the company is going to pay you and pay on time, request a tighter payment schedule, e.g. net 10. That reduces the risk a bit on your side (you won't end up working for two months for free) and isn't much different on their end.
This is great advice. I've been working remotely when not traveling (consultant) and #5 is _key_. These negotiation tactics seem very solid.
I wouldn't say Missoula is far off into the woods, but maybe that's just where you want to be; sorry if I misunderstood you.
I think about remote work drying up often, but I think if remote work dried up for me it would mean there was a major shift in the industry, so I don't think anyone would be safe from that.
Being near an urban center would mean that you could possibly pound the pavement for a new job in a major city a lot easier. If the industry changes massively, will being near an urban center mean there will still be a lot of jobs there? Maybe? Maybe not.
I think about remote work drying up often, but I think if remote work dried up for me it would mean there was a major shift in the industry, so I don't think anyone would be safe from that.
Being near an urban center would mean that you could possibly pound the pavement for a new job in a major city a lot easier. If the industry changes massively, will being near an urban center mean there will still be a lot of jobs there? Maybe? Maybe not.
There are current open jobs for the following companies in Missoula: https://classpass.com/about/careers https://www.onxmaps.com/join-our-team https://resume.submittable.com/submit
http://www.geofli.com/jobs/
There are more, these are just the ones off the top of my head.
There are more, these are just the ones off the top of my head.
diamonds? Is that what they call avocados in Montana?
There's avocados in them thar hills!
Hey Neighbor! Let me know if you're interested in a beer or networking in the area. Hellgate Venture network is a great place to meet other tech oriented people in the area.
Oh heck ya! I will search the net for Hellgate Venture. I don't know if there is any PMing here.
No worries. My email is [email protected] or client4 via keybase.
Doesn't hurt that Missoula is a great little town.
It is a great town. Very friendly people. Beautiful valley. Really looking forward to summer! :)
> As millennials age into their 30s and homeownership is on the rise, demographics are now moving against urban landlords.
> We know how and what to build when we're dealing with an influx of young urban renters. But what will they want as they age into their next phase of life, and how can policy makers meet their needs?
A lot of this article seems to be pinned on an unwritten idea that the suburbs are where you go when you want to grow up. This seems like a bit of a trap for developers and speculators, to me: at least in the city I live in, there has been some focus on urban development to provide services for families of all sizes.
> We know how and what to build when we're dealing with an influx of young urban renters. But what will they want as they age into their next phase of life, and how can policy makers meet their needs?
A lot of this article seems to be pinned on an unwritten idea that the suburbs are where you go when you want to grow up. This seems like a bit of a trap for developers and speculators, to me: at least in the city I live in, there has been some focus on urban development to provide services for families of all sizes.
The dealbreaker is schools. Without getting into a fight about why urban schools are dysfunctional, they are, and that will drive families to suburbs. While millenials are having kids somewhat later, it doesn’t look like there will be a dramatic drop in the percentage of millenials who will ultimately have kids.
"Without getting into a fight about why urban schools are dysfunctional, they are, and that will drive families to suburbs."
It's interesting if that is the case in the US: it was also true in the UK in the 1980s and 90s with Central London having a reputation for poor schools.
However, today the UK situation is completely reversed and the narrative is more about why schools in the regions don't perform as well as schools in the capital.
One eye-opening statistic I read recently is that a disadvantaged/poor kid growing up in Hackney, East London (which is about as 'urban' as it gets here) is 3X more likely to go to university than a similarly disadvantaged kid growing up in the North of England.
It's interesting if that is the case in the US: it was also true in the UK in the 1980s and 90s with Central London having a reputation for poor schools.
However, today the UK situation is completely reversed and the narrative is more about why schools in the regions don't perform as well as schools in the capital.
One eye-opening statistic I read recently is that a disadvantaged/poor kid growing up in Hackney, East London (which is about as 'urban' as it gets here) is 3X more likely to go to university than a similarly disadvantaged kid growing up in the North of England.
Did you consider that the cost/benifit of higher education might be different in North England?
That's how it is in the rural US.
That's how it is in the rural US.
I'd say it's even more important in the North because of the paucity of opportunities.
It really depends though. As a parent raising kids in the city myself, my wife and I made the conscious decision to settle in the city and raise our family here.
We based this on:
0) We just really like the city and want to raise our kids in the city.
1) In Chicago, where we live, CPS students outperform the state overall. Source: https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/perception-vs-reality-c...
2) Breaking down a school's performance at the demographic level can often change the equation. The elementary school my son will attend actually scores higher for students above the poverty line than the one I attended out in the suburbs.
3) My wife is a STEM professor and has seen lots of students who attended the region's top-tier public schools (9/10 or 10/10 on greatschools, etc) that were woefully unprepared for college, despite otherwise decent ACT scores.
4) The suburbs are facing their own austerity crisis: postwar subsidized infrastructure gravy train is long over, so property taxes are rising. Their housing stock doesn't align well with the smaller and most cost-conscious millennial family. So a big worry for us was, do we want to buy into a "good school" suburb only to have our kid's school budget slashed to control costs? This is already happening to one Chicago suburb famous for its great schools (Hinsdale, IL)
5) School performance is, at best, a trailing indicator. Say you've got 2 kids under the age of 4. Is it worth buying a home somewhere because of a high school they won't be attending for 10+ years? It makes sense if you're talking about a radical difference in school performance, but marginal advantages seem prone to change.
I don't claim that this is the best course of action. For all we know, the city schools could just as easily go sideways due to budgeting issues, or maybe suburban schools are the first to break free from the trend of "teaching to the test" and our kids are left behind. But right now, it just feels like once you have a safe learning environment and some basic academic standards, most of the outcome is in the hands of the parents and students. High-performing schools don't produce great students so much as they attract the people who foster that attitude.
We based this on:
0) We just really like the city and want to raise our kids in the city.
1) In Chicago, where we live, CPS students outperform the state overall. Source: https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/perception-vs-reality-c...
2) Breaking down a school's performance at the demographic level can often change the equation. The elementary school my son will attend actually scores higher for students above the poverty line than the one I attended out in the suburbs.
3) My wife is a STEM professor and has seen lots of students who attended the region's top-tier public schools (9/10 or 10/10 on greatschools, etc) that were woefully unprepared for college, despite otherwise decent ACT scores.
4) The suburbs are facing their own austerity crisis: postwar subsidized infrastructure gravy train is long over, so property taxes are rising. Their housing stock doesn't align well with the smaller and most cost-conscious millennial family. So a big worry for us was, do we want to buy into a "good school" suburb only to have our kid's school budget slashed to control costs? This is already happening to one Chicago suburb famous for its great schools (Hinsdale, IL)
5) School performance is, at best, a trailing indicator. Say you've got 2 kids under the age of 4. Is it worth buying a home somewhere because of a high school they won't be attending for 10+ years? It makes sense if you're talking about a radical difference in school performance, but marginal advantages seem prone to change.
I don't claim that this is the best course of action. For all we know, the city schools could just as easily go sideways due to budgeting issues, or maybe suburban schools are the first to break free from the trend of "teaching to the test" and our kids are left behind. But right now, it just feels like once you have a safe learning environment and some basic academic standards, most of the outcome is in the hands of the parents and students. High-performing schools don't produce great students so much as they attract the people who foster that attitude.
What neighborhood do you live in? I live in Uptown with my wife. We don’t have any kids yet but I don’t think I would want my kids to go to school around here. Uptown is sketchy and people seem to get murdered here on a regular basis. I would feel differently if we lived in Lake View, Lincoln Park, or Wicker Park, but those neighborhoods are too expensive for us.
I live in the painfully uncool neighborhood of Jefferson Park. There are a decent chunk of good K-8 CPS neighborhood schools up here. A very safe neighborhood, in part due to the number of CPD who live in the area.
Uptown is amazing and while it is still rough around the edges it is easily one my favorite neighborhoods in the city. The crime is slowly getting better, but I think most parents of means send their kids to private school or lottery them somewhere else.... or move.
Uptown is amazing and while it is still rough around the edges it is easily one my favorite neighborhoods in the city. The crime is slowly getting better, but I think most parents of means send their kids to private school or lottery them somewhere else.... or move.
Yup. Even before school comes into play, daycare is a major factor as-well. My wife and I applied to 6 different daycare centers when we found out she was pregnant. Despite paying application fees, we got into none of them due to overcrowding. We did receive a phone call about two years after my child was born, offering us a spot in one of them, but we'd since left the city.
A friend of mine (who also lives in a major city) just told me that getting into their local public elementary school isn't guaranteed and is based on a lottery system because of overcrowding.
So their options are:
1) Take their child to the next closest and available school which is 30 minutes away
2) Pay for private school - which, as you can imagine, is expensive
3) Move
They're ultimately choosing #1, but I can easily imagine them getting sick of that quickly.
Oh well, I guess it's better than SF's system. Can't even imagine dealing with that.
So their options are:
1) Take their child to the next closest and available school which is 30 minutes away
2) Pay for private school - which, as you can imagine, is expensive
3) Move
They're ultimately choosing #1, but I can easily imagine them getting sick of that quickly.
Oh well, I guess it's better than SF's system. Can't even imagine dealing with that.
Yep once we start having kids we’re leaving the city. That’s just the reality. There’s also elements of my childhood I want to ensure are available to my offspring (plenty of outdoor, unsupervised play) that aren’t possible in the city or are simply too unsafe today.
Cities are likely to be much safer today than they were when you were growing up. It's the adults' attitudes to seeing kids alone and unsupervised that changed.
Uhhh no. When I was a kid there was viturally zero chance of running across used needles at the park, nor being harassed by homeless people on public transit. Look I want to make cities work as much as the next guy, but at some point I’m going to vote with my feet and signal that things are not acceptable.
Any homeless person who's not completely bonkers knows that harassing a lone child on public transit is just about the worst possible way of attracting the attention of law enforcement, since other adults might ignore harassment of other adults who seem to be dealing with the situation but will step in to protect a child. In all of my life living in large cities, I have never seen something like this happen, nor came across any news of something like that.
This seems to be in the same category as not letting a child walk alone to school, in a Western country, because of fear of Islamic terrorists -- possible, but so unlikely it is statistically improbable.
This seems to be in the same category as not letting a child walk alone to school, in a Western country, because of fear of Islamic terrorists -- possible, but so unlikely it is statistically improbable.
Depends on the city. Millenials could also push for changes and upgrades in urban school districts.
They could, and some will...but the majority won't have time/inclination with the obligations of work/family and will just move to the suburbs (if history is any indication).
This is basically been the case for decades in the U.S.
This is basically been the case for decades in the U.S.
It could be like that, but the new generation has proven to be very different from the baby boomers, so who knows.
Other countries seem to get by just fine with living in cities and having kids.
Other countries seem to get by just fine with living in cities and having kids.
> Other countries seem to get by just fine with living in cities and having kids.
Other countries don't concentrate all their disadvantaged people in the cities.
Other countries don't concentrate all their disadvantaged people in the cities.
You're absolutely right! That could very well happen!
With that said, it's perhaps possible that millennial pushing for changes and upgrades and improvements and the fundamental human right of quality education for all might not yield an ideal outcome. Improving schools can very reasonably be expected to be multi-decade project of changing budgets, priorities, staffing, training, expectations, culture, and more. Someone with a toddler might want quality schools in the next three years instead of next thirty. This might, for some, incentivize a different set of somewhat more selfish reactions.
You're completely right. Millenials can, should, and are morally obligated to push for improvements and upgrades. But there may be a wrinkle or three.
With that said, it's perhaps possible that millennial pushing for changes and upgrades and improvements and the fundamental human right of quality education for all might not yield an ideal outcome. Improving schools can very reasonably be expected to be multi-decade project of changing budgets, priorities, staffing, training, expectations, culture, and more. Someone with a toddler might want quality schools in the next three years instead of next thirty. This might, for some, incentivize a different set of somewhat more selfish reactions.
You're completely right. Millenials can, should, and are morally obligated to push for improvements and upgrades. But there may be a wrinkle or three.
So, make city living even more expensive?
This is what the whole urban charter school thing has really been about. A cluster of middle class people set up a charter school and steal most of the other high potential kids, leaving the actual public school with even worse performance and students.
Indeed they do. You're right, and it's a disaster.
With that said, is it possible that high-potential children could be viewed as something other than interchangeable widgets whose primary purpose is to make public schools that are failing many students look good? Especially given that such schools are often little better at meeting the needs of the high-potential children than they are all of the other children.
You're right. Charter schools are often guilty of creaming. Yet, are we doing anyone a favor by sacrificing the education of high-potential children to mask problems?
With that said, is it possible that high-potential children could be viewed as something other than interchangeable widgets whose primary purpose is to make public schools that are failing many students look good? Especially given that such schools are often little better at meeting the needs of the high-potential children than they are all of the other children.
You're right. Charter schools are often guilty of creaming. Yet, are we doing anyone a favor by sacrificing the education of high-potential children to mask problems?
When I lived in the subburbs in long island, millenials felt pretty left behind. Home prices were over a million dollars with very little opportunities for renting. Most people either rented semi-legal basement apartments or lived with their parents. It wasn't till I moved to New York City that I started to see people my age doing well. It's a very safe city, has a huge culture of renting, and with higher wages.
Unless you have the money to afford a home, it's better to live in a city and rent.
Depending on the city, buying a house is a big liability too, and just doesn't make any financial sense unless you're sure you're going to be there for at least 8 years. What if you get a new job on the other side of town? What if you want to move in with your significant other, and they work somewhere else? As a renter, it's not that hard for you to pack up and move to a more convenient location so your commute isn't so horrible (or to have a more equitable commute between you and your partner), but when you own a house, you're going to lose a huge amount of money just by selling it thanks to ridiculous closing costs.
Or you could turn the home into an income producing asset by renting it. Invest a small amount in some repairs and paint, do it yourself. Light fixtures and doorknobs go a long way. Rent it for more than your costs, or just at your costs and earn the equity over time.
> What if you get a new job on the other side of town?
For starters, I'm not moving. I hate moving and find it very stressful and disruptive.
For starters, I'm not moving. I hate moving and find it very stressful and disruptive.
Ok, so you just got laid off at your job, and you can't find anyone on your side of town to hire you. However, there's a company on the opposite side of town that will. What are you going to do? Spend 45-60 minutes commuting each way, or move?
Work on the other side of town? 45-60 minutes? LOL. My commute is 2 hours each way. It’s not the end of the world and living this far from everything allows me to own a home and put my kid in a good school. I’m not going to rent a shoebox in a gang war zone just so I can get a 20-30 minute commute.
Commute. It is what I have always done. My door-to-door commute is over an hour now anyway.
You can also rent the house you bought if you need to move (particularly if you're just moving to another part of town). Although that requires decent savings, since you can't depend on the rent coming every month.
There are a few places in the country where the immediate suburbs are very different, cost-wise, than everywhere else. Mainly NY, LA, and SF. You'd have to go really far there to find sub-500K housing. It's different elsewhere.
I don’t agree in long term it’s better to rent. Your rent builds no equity with in long term isn’t a good financial decision. (In my opinion.)
There are a lot of factors — that math only works out if you're not planning on moving much and owning is cheaper than renting, which it often isn't. Plus we're at a pretty high point in the real estate cycle right now.
This is a classic: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-cal...
This is a classic: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-cal...
If you want to dig into more complicated situations, I really like this one: https://michaelbluejay.com/house/rentvsbuy.html
It's much harder to find on Google today than it was 8 years ago.
It's much harder to find on Google today than it was 8 years ago.
I don’t understand how the article can bemoan high rents but then also say urban cores are overbuilt? Overbuilding drives down rents, which isn’t great for developers but not exactly a problem for the rest of us.
Miami is going through the same, so many condo towers are going up it’s suppressing rents - in the most expensive area of the city. Yes, they are premium units, but the supply drives down rents across the board.
Miami is going through the same, so many condo towers are going up it’s suppressing rents - in the most expensive area of the city. Yes, they are premium units, but the supply drives down rents across the board.
I'm guessing it's because many cities still strangle development. "Overbuilt" could be concluded from a lack of feasible projects within a city.
There's also the nebulous problem of investors buying units in new luxury buildings but not occupying or renting them. This could preserve high rent prices as new units are not being faithfully put into the housing pool. Stories about that pop up often but don't seem quantified as an issue.
There's also the nebulous problem of investors buying units in new luxury buildings but not occupying or renting them. This could preserve high rent prices as new units are not being faithfully put into the housing pool. Stories about that pop up often but don't seem quantified as an issue.
I don't think they're saying that the cities are overbuilt in the short term but could be overbuilt in the long term. It can take decades for a large apartment building to show an ROI. A significant decline in renters, even over 10-15 years can leave large development projects without the money to maintain the buildings and grounds. Gross looking buildings of course struggle even more to attract renters and a neighborhood can go into a downward spiral in as little as a decade.
OR millennials are moving to the exurbs not because they want to, but because cities are too expensive when you have a family and don’t want roommates. Much of the rest of the world is happy to raise families in cities... why not here? The solution should be to build infrastructure and improve the schools in urban cores, not invest in suburbs.
Yeah, in my city, people my age (late 20s, early 30s) aren't moving to the suburbs because they want to, but because they're forced to by the insanely high cost of living in the urban area compared to the wages offered here. From what I gather, this is true in pretty much every city in the US that I know people in.
Don't doubt your experience at all (while driving today was going back and forth on whether I'd prefer moving back into the city or further into the suburbs, and honestly not sure), but there's lots of people who just like the suburbs. Yeah, there's lots of wasted space and it's very residential, but that wasted space is nice in a way. It's a much quieter place. Especially when raising kids, unless you can move into the nicest neighborhoods, the burbs are an easy option for many people and not just due to money.
I've lived in a very urban area and I miss it but I really don't. It's harder to get away there. I don't mind helping homeless people, but dealing with aggressively mentally ill people every other time you step out the door or drug addicts screaming at each other in the middle of the night is not something that's enjoyable. That happens in the city, I've never experienced it the suburbs. It just seemed like you always had to be on alert. Maybe that says a lot about how we handle social problems, but it can't be easily discounted.
I've lived in a very urban area and I miss it but I really don't. It's harder to get away there. I don't mind helping homeless people, but dealing with aggressively mentally ill people every other time you step out the door or drug addicts screaming at each other in the middle of the night is not something that's enjoyable. That happens in the city, I've never experienced it the suburbs. It just seemed like you always had to be on alert. Maybe that says a lot about how we handle social problems, but it can't be easily discounted.
You're not really contradicting the article? They address that possibility and don't really ascribe a particular cause:
> If people are moving to suburbs and exurbs because the urban cores are "full," with high rents and home prices, then the question becomes: Do politicians fight anti-development interests like homeowners who have sought to block construction in their neighborhoods?
> If people are moving to suburbs and exurbs because the urban cores are "full," with high rents and home prices, then the question becomes: Do politicians fight anti-development interests like homeowners who have sought to block construction in their neighborhoods?
We need a short pithy term for people who comment on the title link and don't read the article, it's a modern plague.
I read the article.
[deleted]
Some suggestions:
1. Skimmer 2. Scroller 3. Titlefiend
1. Skimmer 2. Scroller 3. Titlefiend
Titlefiend. I am often guilty of titlefiending.
Would be fun to write a content aggregation site where you had to answer a question about the article before commenting like some sites are doing with their own internal forums.
[deleted]
I'm sorry, but that's against the HN guidelines.
>Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
It's annoying that pointing that out to the didn't reader is against the rules, but derailing the discussion by not reading is perfectly okay.
But what do I know? Am shadowbanned most of the time.
>Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
It's annoying that pointing that out to the didn't reader is against the rules, but derailing the discussion by not reading is perfectly okay.
But what do I know? Am shadowbanned most of the time.
But firing comments from the hip derails discussion even worse by making everyone discuss whatever obvious knee-jerk reaction there is to the article. It's regularly the top comment thread where people are essentially arguing a straw man. And people have to scroll through hundreds of comments to get to the next thread so they receive far less attention.
It's HN's worst aspect.
It's HN's worst aspect.
> But firing comments from the hip derails discussion even worse
The proper response, then, is to downvote the derailing comment, not to respond with an attack. Downvotes are HNs tool for maintaining S/N ratio, attacks making ascribing what you presume caused the poster to post in a way you find less-than-worthy don't deal with any problem, they just exacerbate it and fill HN with toxic noise.
The proper response, then, is to downvote the derailing comment, not to respond with an attack. Downvotes are HNs tool for maintaining S/N ratio, attacks making ascribing what you presume caused the poster to post in a way you find less-than-worthy don't deal with any problem, they just exacerbate it and fill HN with toxic noise.
You can also, if you see a particularly bad example sitting at the top of an active discussion, email us at [email protected]. We moderate the threads to try to prevent shallow dismissals from sitting at the top, but we don't see everything.
I agree.
>derailing the discussion by not reading is perfectly okay
Is according to guidelines, not me. My fault that wasn't clearer.
>derailing the discussion by not reading is perfectly okay
Is according to guidelines, not me. My fault that wasn't clearer.
[deleted]
Easy to say, but it is hard to reverse. Those currently in cities don't have kids (yet?), and thus aren't interested in fixing the problems. Either they don't care at all, or they care more about who will keep the taxes low (since taxes translate into rent). For those that will eventually have kids this is to their detriment, but for the others.
Confounding this is the fact that those who do send their kids to city schools are poor because of lack of education and they are passing their lack of value for education to their kids. Even if one person does stay in the city it will be hard for their kids when all the peer pressure doesn't value education (this isn't insurmountable, but it is a negative parents have to fight)
Remember in the US schools have a significant amount of local control. The federal or state government in large part cannot step in and say "do thing this way" - even if we agreed on what is the right thing to do (we don't) the power to get anything done is lacking where it is needed.
In short there are significant headwinds that you would have to counter. You alone cannot do it, and getting enough other people interested is hard.
Confounding this is the fact that those who do send their kids to city schools are poor because of lack of education and they are passing their lack of value for education to their kids. Even if one person does stay in the city it will be hard for their kids when all the peer pressure doesn't value education (this isn't insurmountable, but it is a negative parents have to fight)
Remember in the US schools have a significant amount of local control. The federal or state government in large part cannot step in and say "do thing this way" - even if we agreed on what is the right thing to do (we don't) the power to get anything done is lacking where it is needed.
In short there are significant headwinds that you would have to counter. You alone cannot do it, and getting enough other people interested is hard.
> Remember in the US schools have a significant amount of local control. The federal or state government in large part cannot step in and say "do thing this way"
Not only can state government generally do so (and, in fact, most states do set standards and methods and control some funding decisions of local districts), some state governments have processed by which they will go beyond dictating the standards and methods, etc., to actually assume direct control of local school districts.
Not only can state government generally do so (and, in fact, most states do set standards and methods and control some funding decisions of local districts), some state governments have processed by which they will go beyond dictating the standards and methods, etc., to actually assume direct control of local school districts.
Research exists that indicates people choose to move to suburbs when they have a family for many reasons besides financial. Suburbs are viewed as safer and more private, and additional outdoor space is valued over location proximity.
On the other hand, research indicates people choose to live in cities for career advancement and to find a mate.
On the other hand, research indicates people choose to live in cities for career advancement and to find a mate.
Cities have a lot to offer kids as well. My kids will have independence from not being tied to a car. Schools/friends are an easy walk away; it doesn't have a "drop off" lane. Enriching family trips to museums, zoos, aquariums, parks, etc are all a train ride away with free passes from the local library.
If the research is representative of people's opinions, then perhaps this is a failure of marketing.
If the research is representative of people's opinions, then perhaps this is a failure of marketing.
Agree. It makes me sad to think that the "drop off" lane is a daily experience for many American parents and kids.
Sorry, what’s wrong with the drop-off lane? Is it better or worse for kids than getting lunged at by a mentally troubled homeless guy?
>Much of the rest of the world is happy to raise families in cities
Even in the Nordic countries, smaller towns have a higher birth rate than cities:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0032472070157174...
Urbanism has always been associated with lower birth rates across nations from the US to Europe to China.
Even in the Nordic countries, smaller towns have a higher birth rate than cities:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0032472070157174...
Urbanism has always been associated with lower birth rates across nations from the US to Europe to China.
Yup. Cities are population sinks.
>improve the schools in urban cores
This is the one that matters in the Rust Belt. It's not more expensive, really, to live in a trendy neighborhood in St. Louis or Cincinnati or whatever, than it would be to live in a nice suburb, but the schools are terrible. It's a cliche in these towns that even the most "City committed" folks move out when they start a family.
This is the one that matters in the Rust Belt. It's not more expensive, really, to live in a trendy neighborhood in St. Louis or Cincinnati or whatever, than it would be to live in a nice suburb, but the schools are terrible. It's a cliche in these towns that even the most "City committed" folks move out when they start a family.
There are plenty of cities where raising a family is doable. Albany, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, St. Louis, even Chicago. Of course you're talking about NYC, San Fran, and LA and therein lies the problem.
People like good weather, and people like being around those who are competing at the highest levels, perhaps hoping they will also strike it big.
Even in Atlanta, we're seeing pretty insane rent increases. It's hard to find anything under 1000. I pay just a tiny bit less than that just to rent a room in someone's house.
Chicago is quite expensive unless you live very far out or are willing to compromise on less desirable areas to live. I'm not sure the employment opportunities in these other cities are anywhere near the levels of the coasts though. Perhaps things have changed a bit recently, but my understanding is that most Midwestern areas suffer from brain drain issues.
> Much of the rest of the world is happy to raise families in cities... why not here?
Do you really need to ask that? "We" have the land and the area for people, a lot of "the rest of the world" does not.
For other reasons, schooling and crime are such that for those that want families, cities are less than ideal than the suburbs. The ability to get around is relatively cheap.
And the economics reflect that. So you can anguish in your "what should be", but ultimately it mostly comes down to money and incentives.
Do you really need to ask that? "We" have the land and the area for people, a lot of "the rest of the world" does not.
For other reasons, schooling and crime are such that for those that want families, cities are less than ideal than the suburbs. The ability to get around is relatively cheap.
And the economics reflect that. So you can anguish in your "what should be", but ultimately it mostly comes down to money and incentives.
> For other reasons, schooling and crime are such that for those that want families, cities are less than ideal than the suburbs.
Translated: White Flight.
There are great (public and private) schools in NYC, the Bronx, and Brooklyn.
Many of the cities with "poor" inner city schools are also cities where white flight and highway riots hit the worst.
Translated: White Flight.
There are great (public and private) schools in NYC, the Bronx, and Brooklyn.
Many of the cities with "poor" inner city schools are also cities where white flight and highway riots hit the worst.
Why is it white flight and not those who have the means flight ?
Always with the race.... its obtusive
Always with the race.... its obtusive
Because money wasn't enough. Banks, real estate developers, and white buyers and sellers routinely discriminated against non-whites through practices like redlining and blockbusting.
IMO cities are crap if you have certain hobbies.
If you want to have a garden, or a wood shop, or race around RC cars or drones, or big pets, a city just won’t work well for you.
Most people are happy in cities because their lives aren’t much more than sleeping, eating, going to work, and then maybe going to some social events or watching tv, which is a perfect description of millennial life so far.
If you want to have a garden, or a wood shop, or race around RC cars or drones, or big pets, a city just won’t work well for you.
Most people are happy in cities because their lives aren’t much more than sleeping, eating, going to work, and then maybe going to some social events or watching tv, which is a perfect description of millennial life so far.
I'm not sure what city you live in, but in Chicago there are plenty of community gardens, cultural centers with workshops, and lots and lots of open park space to play with drones.
I see plenty of medium and large dogs running with their owners on the lakeshore trail, and most parks have fenced off dedicated dog parks.
Cities work fine for all these things, it just requires that the city has shared space for people with hobbies that don't fit in an apartment.
I see plenty of medium and large dogs running with their owners on the lakeshore trail, and most parks have fenced off dedicated dog parks.
Cities work fine for all these things, it just requires that the city has shared space for people with hobbies that don't fit in an apartment.
Putting up ham radio antennas is difficult enough in the suburbs, and damn near impossible in the cities. It didn't used to be that way; you could once string up wires between buildings and no one would care.
It's 2018, who would bother with ham radio anymore?
Ham radio is often a gateway (and a destination, too) for people interested in electrical engineering.
Yep, I'm an EE.
"If you want to have a garden, or a wood shop, or race around RC cars or drones, or big pets, a city just won’t work well for you."
Also, if you like loud motorcycles, could you please f$%k off to the suburbs. Thanks.
Also, if you like loud motorcycles, could you please f$%k off to the suburbs. Thanks.
If you live in Midtown Manhattan or the Loop in Chicago, I can see why you'd believe that. But if you live in the outer neighborhoods/boroughs, thats not in the slightest bit true.
I live in Brooklyn. The hobbies I cannot participate in, mostly due to not having a car, that I once enjoyed:
Autocross/Track days
Sporting clays
Golf (dragging clubs on the subway is not fun)
Kayaking
Camping
There are other things to do, but NYC is a bad place for a person making less than 6 figures to participate in a lot of outdoor activities.
Autocross/Track days
Sporting clays
Golf (dragging clubs on the subway is not fun)
Kayaking
Camping
There are other things to do, but NYC is a bad place for a person making less than 6 figures to participate in a lot of outdoor activities.
Definitely Agree. Lived throughout the Northside and West Sides of Chicago for about 8 years now. The amount of "free" activities seems to dull suburban life by comparison.
Festivals
Concerts
Bars
Shopping
Food
Gyms
Meetups
Zoo(s)
Aquarium
Beach
Bike/Jogging trails (606/lakeshore)
Holiday Parades
Holiday Events (Christkindle/July 4th, etc)
Architecture
Very accessible social circles (walking, public transit)
etc, etc
These are what I worry I'd be giving up if moving to the suburbs as a renter currently.
(edit) Can't figure out a hard-return for formatting
(edit 2) Trying to get into a bowling alley is ridiculously hard though, having an hour wait to bowl never has happened to me in the burbs.
Festivals
Concerts
Bars
Shopping
Food
Gyms
Meetups
Zoo(s)
Aquarium
Beach
Bike/Jogging trails (606/lakeshore)
Holiday Parades
Holiday Events (Christkindle/July 4th, etc)
Architecture
Very accessible social circles (walking, public transit)
etc, etc
These are what I worry I'd be giving up if moving to the suburbs as a renter currently.
(edit) Can't figure out a hard-return for formatting
(edit 2) Trying to get into a bowling alley is ridiculously hard though, having an hour wait to bowl never has happened to me in the burbs.
I lived in urban apartments when I got into my hobby of building and flying RC sailplanes. There are plenty of parks I could walk to or bike to that are big enough to fly in. When I needed more space, I drove to my sanctioned flying field which is out in a truly rural area.
Most suburban back yards are still far too small for RC flying so I'm not sure what the living suburbs gets you for this hobby that you can't have in a city.
DC is a special case because the entire city is subject to special flight rules[1]. You're SOL if you live there.
[1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/no_drone_zone/
Most suburban back yards are still far too small for RC flying so I'm not sure what the living suburbs gets you for this hobby that you can't have in a city.
DC is a special case because the entire city is subject to special flight rules[1]. You're SOL if you live there.
[1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/no_drone_zone/
Agreed. I want to let my dog run around in the backyard all day, swim in the pool, etc. I want to be able to work on my cars in my garage with all my tools. I want to be able to play my music and movies as loud as I please.
[deleted]
With housing inventory at an all time low, and the market at higher highs than peak bubble in 2006 (in most markets), this doesn't seem like a problem anyone needs to worry about at the moment.
Perhaps the solution to the 2006 mortgage crisis shouldn't have been to immediately and urgently reinflate the bubble. Oh well. Same story, different year. Maybe the fed can finally play with negative interest rates during the next downturn!
Perhaps the solution to the 2006 mortgage crisis shouldn't have been to immediately and urgently reinflate the bubble. Oh well. Same story, different year. Maybe the fed can finally play with negative interest rates during the next downturn!
It's funny because this article thinks we can find jobs outside of cities...
Not all cities have lack of surrounding infrastrastructure that make it impossible to reasonably commute into the city for work. Chicago, for one, has a good rail system that reaches into a large number of surrounding areas (about 40 - 60 miles out), and also has decent roads that take between 30 - 45 minutes to commute in from a number of areas.
And a lot of jobs here are "close" to the city, but not in it (due to land for large campuses being cheaper).
And a lot of jobs here are "close" to the city, but not in it (due to land for large campuses being cheaper).
> It's funny because this article thinks we can find jobs outside of cities...
But it's an article about living in suburbs... suburbs of cities... where the jobs are. You can catch a train (or take a company bus or drive in the US I guess) from a suburb into the city for your job. That's what suburbs are.
But it's an article about living in suburbs... suburbs of cities... where the jobs are. You can catch a train (or take a company bus or drive in the US I guess) from a suburb into the city for your job. That's what suburbs are.
I did exactly this for a year and my quality of life suffered so badly that I nearly had a panic attack so i just sucked it up and moved into the city. I mean look: I like living in the city but when I consider that I could eject and live in the country i continue to encounter the reality that i would be disconnected from the majority of my community and the most interesting and well paying jobs.
I can't understand why people are on this site are so allergic to the suburbs. What is it that made you have such a bad quality of life that you had a panic attack? Why can't you have a job in the city if you live in the suburbs?
Long commutes are extremely stressful for some people. Myself included.
I used to quite like my commute for a couple of hours a day - I used to have breakfast, read, work, or even just snooze. It became good quality time actually.
And who said anything about a long commute? You can live in the suburbs and be just 15 minutes from the city.
And who said anything about a long commute? You can live in the suburbs and be just 15 minutes from the city.
And that's even assuming the jobs are actually in the city. While tech jobs in urban cores have increased in recent years, in a lot of places the majority are still out in the exurbs and suburbs--including in the case of the Bay Area. (The difference being that in regions like Massachusetts, housing prices are a lot more reasonable in many towns outside of the urban core.)
I mean that's kinda a given about the Bay Area. Outside of SF, its just suburbia on steroids
It is possible to find a suburban job and live in that suburban area, but if you want to leave or the company leaves, you will either have to move or have a long commute somewhere else.
Ah yes this is a good point that I forgot: living in NYC i enjoy the huge privilege of being able to get another job in my industry immediately and very local to whatever box i happen to be living in at the time.
You mean you pay for the privilege, as do I. We pay to take less employment risk.
I wonder about this. I definitely pay more but (and this is a bit hand-wavey, i admit) it seems like the opportunity i'd be wasting if i lived anywhere else is FAR greater than the insane rent.
I moved from Nowhereville, USA to the Bay Area for that exact trade off: higher cost of living but lower career risk. Here, if things don’t work out with my employer I take 6 months or so and find another job locally. In Nowhereville, I’m likely moving to a different state if I need another job.
Important to note that Urban areas continue to grow, but the rate at which they've been growing is decreasing, while suburban growth rates are increasing again. To me, the comparison feels a bit dodgy, as a much smaller change in suburban population will move the growth rate for those areas compared to Urban areas, due to lower populations, and Urban centers continue to grow, just slower than before.
I don't think that's right:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-suburban-are-big-am...
> Nationally, 26 percent of Americans described where they live as urban, 53 percent said suburban and 21 percent said rural. (This comes close to the census estimate that 81 percent of the population is urban if “urban” is understood to include suburban areas.)
Of course, that's response-based, but if you look at the character of most American cities, there's very little truly dense urban areas. Though even the definition of suburban itself can cover a wide range, since "suburban" Los Angeles has a lot of 8-10K person/sqmile areas and "suburban" Dallas generally is more like 4K, and then others are even less.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-suburban-are-big-am...
> Nationally, 26 percent of Americans described where they live as urban, 53 percent said suburban and 21 percent said rural. (This comes close to the census estimate that 81 percent of the population is urban if “urban” is understood to include suburban areas.)
Of course, that's response-based, but if you look at the character of most American cities, there's very little truly dense urban areas. Though even the definition of suburban itself can cover a wide range, since "suburban" Los Angeles has a lot of 8-10K person/sqmile areas and "suburban" Dallas generally is more like 4K, and then others are even less.
I don't know if this chain of events actually lines up. The way I see it, autonomous vehicles will allow anyone (not just millennials) to reclaim that lost time commuting, which can be used for work and thus make the idea of commuting from the suburbs not all that bad. Then people won't mind moving far away from the city centers given that the commute is no longer a fruitless activity. Personally I'd be very happy to live an hour away from a city if it meant that I could use the 2 hours round-trip to do work (if I still had to work in an office).
We're almost certainly going to see more congestion charges put in place when self-driving cars take off, making this a less viable strategy.
I feel like we're going to need differently organized cities to really see drastic benefits from self-driving cars in large cities.
I feel like we're going to need differently organized cities to really see drastic benefits from self-driving cars in large cities.
I think that wish would be corrupted quickly.
Oh so you commute all the way out to the suburbs? Hey since we know you'll have nothing to do anyway please complete these additional tasks. If you work on the way home we won't bother you after you actually arrive there.
Oh so you commute all the way out to the suburbs? Hey since we know you'll have nothing to do anyway please complete these additional tasks. If you work on the way home we won't bother you after you actually arrive there.
Just say no.
Exploitative behavior only becomes an expectation when enough employees prove willing to do it.
Exploitative behavior only becomes an expectation when enough employees prove willing to do it.
The first paragraph has an assumption that might be proven wrong. This generation might not have children like the previous generation did, at least not in the same numbers.
Good point. Depends on the generation you are referring to. Gen X? Child rates have been slowly decreasing since the 70s. I imagine most expect that trend to continue, but I"m not sure that it would be enough to preclude a substantial desire to move into the suburbs.
As an aside, I wish articles would just put the age ranges in the title for the group they are referring to, rather than a blanket term like "millennials". For example, if millennials [0] includes anyone 22-37, the image in a person's mind of "a millennial" could greatly vary from someone fresh out of college to a a young couple with a baby. That creates a disconnect from actuality if the article is referring to a specific subset in their late 20s-early 30s.
[0]: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/defining-gen...
[0]: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/defining-gen...
Up to folks with teenagers, you mean. Many couples have more than a baby by age 37.
after moving from seattle to a smaller city , my wife and I regret it a great deal and plan to move to an urban location permanently, with our young child. It was a voyage of self-discovery.
Can you elaborate why? Based on the reference to your young child, is your regret based on daycare and school choices?
* Terrible transit.
* Anti-tax attitude
* Limited multi-cultural experience
* Less forward-looking attitude (this is hard to verbally pin down).
With respect to the child, it'll be more difficult in the city. But I want to stress that as a gestalt system, the big city is a better place to live for all of us. If we had the opportunity work out, we would live in Manhattan (but the relocation is a substantial logistical problem at present). Opportunities exist in the big city that are not present in smaller cities or suburbs.
* Anti-tax attitude
* Limited multi-cultural experience
* Less forward-looking attitude (this is hard to verbally pin down).
With respect to the child, it'll be more difficult in the city. But I want to stress that as a gestalt system, the big city is a better place to live for all of us. If we had the opportunity work out, we would live in Manhattan (but the relocation is a substantial logistical problem at present). Opportunities exist in the big city that are not present in smaller cities or suburbs.
As someone on the younger end of what seems to be considered "millennial" (graduating from uni in May), I hope this means cheaper rent in cities like New York, Austin and Boston?
I know that rents in those places has plateaued, but there's so much demand that even a steady outstream of new parents might not make a dent in housing prices. NYC rents dipped recently for the first time in years, but as somebody who's currently shopping around for apartments in NYC, the changes aren't really substantial to the end renter.
It appears to me, based on looking last year and this year, that the L train shutdown is starting to distort rents in desirable neighborhoods outside of Wburg. People are fleeing Wburg in favor of places like LIC, Astoria, and Downtown Brooklyn before L service is suspended. Probably a great time to look in Wburg if you can commute via ferry or stay in the neighborhood though.
Edit: I should add that people aren't just leaving Wburg, anywhere along the L line is impacted. I suspect it's creating a rental price floor in other parts of the city, at all price points.
Edit: I should add that people aren't just leaving Wburg, anywhere along the L line is impacted. I suspect it's creating a rental price floor in other parts of the city, at all price points.
As someone whose current lease on the L doesn't end until this October/November, this scares me.
I've been wondering how many 100's of dollars average rent for a bedroom will rise (100, 200, 300?) in the other BK neighborhoods that young, childless, salaried people tend to live. I've found that one of the biggest benefits of NYC is the salary to rent ratio (compared to other major American cities) if you're OK with roommates and a 30-45 minute commute on the subway. I wonder how much the L shutdown changes the math.
I've been wondering how many 100's of dollars average rent for a bedroom will rise (100, 200, 300?) in the other BK neighborhoods that young, childless, salaried people tend to live. I've found that one of the biggest benefits of NYC is the salary to rent ratio (compared to other major American cities) if you're OK with roommates and a 30-45 minute commute on the subway. I wonder how much the L shutdown changes the math.
At least it's slightly more reasonable than Bay Area prices... haha
To the contrary. Rent in the cities has plateaued, but mostly capped by the amount that banks and tech companies are willing to pay new grads.
We'll, I would have loved to stay in the beautiful green and generally family friendly city I lived in, but once you're at a point where one has to spend around 2/3 of the income on rent to have sufficient room for kids there's simply no other choice than moving to a village.
Nearly everyone of my friends with kids did exactly the same.
Yet another article which attempts to use Millennials as a homogeneous cohort to paint some broad-strokes policy questions to ponder. In fact, the generational cohorts are significantly less relevant than income [1] in correlating with where and how Americans live and work. Urban revival is driven by high-earning, middle-aged adults, working in downtown jobs that have seen the highest percentages of wage growth. But most population growth and job growth happens in the suburbs, where people with lower incomes fall, Millennial or otherwise.
The much talked-about phenomenon of urban cores gaining jobs faster than their suburbs was confined to certain cities [2], and was entirely untrue in others. In the general case, suburbs have consistently posted higher rates of employment growth [3][4], and command a higher absolute number of jobs. In fact, some of the highest growth areas are metropolitan areas that hardly even have an urban core that stands apart from its suburbs [5].
Suburbs everywhere are living on borrowed time, because as their infrastructure ages, they will develop the same problems circling back to lack of funding as the big cities that gave rise to them in the first place, but without the political and business clout that big cities mustered up to retain their relevance. As the infrastructure ages, the taxes will rise, discretionary funding on quality-of-live services like schools will be reduced, and the most wealthy will begin to move out into a new ring of exurbs (or edge cities), or back to the urban core, leaving progressively poorer people to remain and take their place.
Only suburbs which can successfully pivot to being employment centers can avoid this painful demographic crunch.
[1] http://jedkolko.com/2016/03/30/urban-revival-not-for-most-am... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/upshot/more-new-jobs-are-... [3] https://www.brookings.edu/research/where-are-the-jobs-cities... [4] http://www.newgeography.com/content/005264-suburbs-continue-... [5] http://blog.indeed.com/2017/03/08/bounceback-for-job-and-wag...
The much talked-about phenomenon of urban cores gaining jobs faster than their suburbs was confined to certain cities [2], and was entirely untrue in others. In the general case, suburbs have consistently posted higher rates of employment growth [3][4], and command a higher absolute number of jobs. In fact, some of the highest growth areas are metropolitan areas that hardly even have an urban core that stands apart from its suburbs [5].
Suburbs everywhere are living on borrowed time, because as their infrastructure ages, they will develop the same problems circling back to lack of funding as the big cities that gave rise to them in the first place, but without the political and business clout that big cities mustered up to retain their relevance. As the infrastructure ages, the taxes will rise, discretionary funding on quality-of-live services like schools will be reduced, and the most wealthy will begin to move out into a new ring of exurbs (or edge cities), or back to the urban core, leaving progressively poorer people to remain and take their place.
Only suburbs which can successfully pivot to being employment centers can avoid this painful demographic crunch.
[1] http://jedkolko.com/2016/03/30/urban-revival-not-for-most-am... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/upshot/more-new-jobs-are-... [3] https://www.brookings.edu/research/where-are-the-jobs-cities... [4] http://www.newgeography.com/content/005264-suburbs-continue-... [5] http://blog.indeed.com/2017/03/08/bounceback-for-job-and-wag...
Just today on Reddit, there was a "shower thought" that being a Millennial is like starting to play monopoly where there is a hotel on every property. My response is that, of course all the properties in the major cities have hotels and are expensive, but there are many properties still up for sale for cheap if you move out a little. The first rule of negotiation is being willing to walk away.
However after having run small businesses and/or freelancing for 10 years I can say that it is not something that everyone is cut out for.
The problem the cities have now is that they are not priced for people who work for a living. They are priced for people with access to intergenerational wealth and/or who don't work and just live off investments. Everything from the cost of property to the tax structure penalizes people who work severely and rewards people who own property and live off capital gains lavishly. Everything in the laws screams out "YOU SHOULD NOT BE WORKING HERE/EARNING A SALARY/STARTING A SMALL BUSINESS -- MOVE OUT, PEASANT."
People included in the "PEASANT" category include people earning low to mid six figure salaries. There is only so much that people will tolerate working hard to make their landlord rich. Other cities in the country that aren't the big offenders that everyone complains about don't really have this problem.
It is a problem that there is a solution for, though: move out, buy property, save money, work less, enjoy life more, get to keep the stuff that you used to give up to your landlord for the privilege of a few square feet in a dirty, stinky city with infrastructure that would humiliate someone from a country that isn't as backwards as the US.