While I’m not trying to be overly critical, he is also off base with his violent crime statistics as the nineties had the highest aggregate number of murders up until the end of the decade.
The cost is high because those "affluent childless" singles are willing and able to pay more.
If a city has high-paying jobs but doesn’t build enough housing for all the people working those jobs or the economy supporting those jobs, only those with lots of money to spend can afford housing, food, &c.
Presto, you get a high proportion of “DINKs” (double-income, no kids.)
Either explanation may drive the presence of high costs and density of DINKs. Or both: Perhaps the two things create a cycle of costs spiralling up combined with a change in demographic.
They've started to co-opt words typically reserved for human children at a rate that is difficult to believe is some sort of bias on my part. It's bizarre. Pets are surrogate children.
I lived in San Francisco for 20 years and never, ever saw that. I'm not some boring techie who never leaves SOMA or the Mission, I've walked every street in san francisco (according to my Garmin), I've had a drink in every bar, I've made music in almost every park.
Have you ever even been to San Francisco?
What do we do if our canine companion has mobility issues? How do we take them shopping with us so that they aren’t left at home, lonely? How do we take them to the park so they can lay down under a tree with us while we read a book?
Many people choose very small dogs. I don’t know if it’s fashion, or if it’s the best choice for living in a very small apartment/condo, but perhaps very small dogs aren’t able to keep up for long outings, and a stroller lets them accompany their human.
I stop far short of ridiculing things without looking past my biases and knee-jerk impulse to criticize things I don’t understand.
I'll tell you something else in response:
Starting a response by suggesting that someone is acting in bad faith is not a productive way to engage people in discussion.
You may misunderstand something about the subject. You may misunderstand the person's comment. The comment may have several interpretations, and you may have picked one that differs from the person's intent. The other person may misunderstand something.
There are lots of reasons you may feel a comment misrepresents your perception of reality, and going right into the sewer to suggest malicious deception is a terrible way to participate in a social group.
Have a nice day.
I don't know if it's ever going to be anywhere near 1:2.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=san+francisco+stroller+wit...
The city that I know, have supported, run companies, run punk venues, run hacker houses, and taught children to program does not bear any resemblance to the views of recent techie imports.
If you know who to talk to, you can go to an illegal, underground restaurant where guest chefs like Michael Minna cook. The are no less than 5 hacker warehouses focused solely on robotics development. Two of the old goth warehouses are still available. Sure, and there are bars/night clubs, hundreds of music venues. The closeness to natural beauty combined with all of this is almost unfair. 45% of the city is public parkland.
That's just San Francisco, not mentioning the rest of the bay area. If you can't find a niche in the bay, you would be happier living somewhere that you can find a niche. Why be unhappy just for money?
Nowhere in the world is even close. Maybe Berlin, but I'm not a big fan of Germany.
One side effect is that you are a lot less likely to find out. Spaces I used to attend which were generally "if you can find it, you can come" now have guest lists and sometimes vouch lists with the intent of keeping the bros out.
To give you context: I live in SF since 2012, and I try to bring my own experience and observations, rather than "stuff I read on Reddit". But of course I'm not perfect, and I am certainly biased in some ways.
You sound like someone who knows much more than me. Share it with us. That's what HN is for. Not for flame wars.
Have a kid in the big city is the ultimate flex. No one else has kids because they can barely afford to live there themselves, let alone support a kid in it.
Edit: Also, it's not as if the author failed to mention that it's expensive to raise families in the city. It's that he says "yes it's really expensive to raise kids in the big city" but then goes off on a completely different tangent to say that everyone living in NYC and SF are "affluent childless" singles who just want to turn the city into their own childless entertainment machine, which completely negates his earlier comment on cost of living as the primary reason why there are so few young families in the city (plus something about fewer people enjoying sex).