I want to walk, not drive, out my front door, and be within 15 minutes, on foot, from entertainment and dining and friends and shopping and groceries and pharmacies and salons and cafes. And I want those things because I have social/communal living desires, not antisocial/isolated ones, and because I've lived in many different kinds of environments and seen just how much nicer it is to live in a walking city.
The problem is that many walkable cities continue to refuse to build upwards. NYC, Philadelphia, Boston...they're all vastly 2-4 story construction from 100 years ago. Paris generally goes up to 7 or 8, but has restrictions preventing much more. So they get more and more expensive. But they only get more and more expensive because they continue to be more desirable places to live despite the expense.
The GP has a different point of view; there's nothing special about yours or about NYC that makes yours better. The two of you deserve each other.
Well there is something special about the higher cost places.
That thing special, is that they are more desirable by a much larger amount of people.
Otherwise prices wouldn't be so high.
So yes, the more in demand places are better to a much larger amount of people.
The quality of something and validity of people's preferences doesn't depend on popularity.
For the average human music listener, yes that is what that means. Should we dive into the relationship between "preferred" and "better"?
The preference is not individually objective, but objectively the people have spoken.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. They are not the same things; there is nothing magical about subjective preference that makes something 'better', no matter how many people share it. If they like burritos and I like ramen, does that make burritos 'better'?
In fact, people can prefer things that are clearly 'worse', for many purposes, such as beer over hydration fluid. People can prefer things that are clearly wrong, such as disinformation.
sue me. I think food for someone without food is more important than a middle class person being able to drive a brand new car.
You can manipulate language as much as you want, I will still judge you for that opinion.
A large part of why I made the post I did is because people post shit like this on this website and expect to be protected by such judgements.
absolutely not, it's an immoral stance made by moneyed people who believe this site is a safe space.
I can tell you from my experience, whatever it is, you seem to apply it to me. You're attributing things to me that I haven't said nor have they crossed my mind, and attacking me about whatever is making your angry. I just stopped by at my favorite spot for a chat.
And you are doing it in the worst way possible where you get to be technically correct, but correct in a way that is completely irrelevant to what anyone else is saying and is also worthless.
Here is how this conversation basically went.
Other person: "I like these very common qualities about housing that many other people also like. This is proved by the fact that houses with all these qualities have much higher demand and price".
You: "Whoa dude. Have you consider that everything is relative? And that there is no way to prove that those qualities are better than other qualities?
What about a person who really likes their house to be burnt down. Or to have rats in their walls. Or to have high crime and being in constant danger. Nothing is better or worse dude!"
All of this is completely worthless commentary. Yes, it is technically true that I cannot use math or science to prove that certain qualities about a house are better or worse.
But that doesn't matter. Because we live in the real world and it is perfectly ok to generalize preferences without getting into the fact that I cannot prove to the universe that some qualities are better than others.
Instead, we can just generalize things based on obvious and common preferences.
> Other person: "I like these very common qualities about housing that many other people also like. This is proved by the fact that houses with all these qualities have much higher demand and price".
That's backwards. The other commenter was saying their home was less expensive and larger than what was in NYC, and therefore superior.
> we can just generalize things based on obvious and common preferences
We can't truly say something is better or worse without some scale on which to measure it. Is a Macbook or cloud Linux instance better? It depends on what we want to do with it - graphic design? Macbook. Host some files publicly? The Linux instance. In other cases it depends on the user - a veteran Linux sysop may use their favorite OS for more things, an Apple guru will prefer theirs.
For some things almost everyone shares the same scale and generalizations are accurate. We could generalize that people prefer running water, heat (as needed), roofs that don't leak, larger spaces (to some limit), lower costs, etc.
But for other things people have different scales and then generalization is false. In this case, preferences for location vary widely; some want NYC because on their scales, it scores really high; some want quiet suburbs, based on their scales; some want rural or small town, warm climate or four seasons, etc. The other commenter seemed to assert that their scales/preferences were universal, and I disagree.
IMHO the best part of human interaction is learning about people and points of view I don't already know - I learn infinitely more than hearing myself talk or by framing their points of view in my perspective; that limits what they say to what I already know, like a someone insisting mathematics be described only in English words they already know - they need to learn new words and use some actual math, or they are limiting themselves. The other commenter seemed maybe to think it was a fight (I don't want to speak for them), so we didn't get far.
> you are playing a word game that ignores anything that actually matters
It seems like you're saying that the other person's ideas are games, and yours are the only ones that actually matter. If you notice I'm not addressing your ideas, you might be right, but not because I'm playing games - I actually have different ideas. My ideas aren't measured by how much they agree with yours - I use a different scale in that case.
Those are the very best chances to learn in life, IME - an opportunity to open territory I didn't even know existed 5 minutes before. If I am curious and interested (and I genuinely am), I find that almost everyone has very interesting, valuable things to say. You too.
I think I'm signing off, as this thread isn't yielding much of that sort.
What you're doing is called post-hoc rationalization. You took issue with the idea of me telling people to move if they can't afford a house and tried to back into all sorts of reasons why that's not possible and tripped over the philosophy of nihilism in your haste.
Ok and it is less expensive because it doesn't have other qualities that are in demand by other people in the market.
And someone coming along and saying "well everything is relative! " Is a worthless comment.
It is worthless because it is perfectly fine to talk about common qualities that are in demand by the market.
> without some scale on which to measure it
The scale that everyone is obviously talking about is market demand.
It is ok to talk about market demand and commonly demand qualities.
> the best part of human interaction is learning about people and points of view I don't already know
Ok and this has nothing to do with the completely objective measurement of looking at market demand.
It is an irrelevant point that does nothing but distract from what everyone else is talking about.
Apparently I'm angry that other people spend a lot more than me to live in a nice neighborhood in a nice house? rawr, why is my life so much better than the people in NYC!?!?!?
When it's all done I'm still going to believe food is more important than a brand new car. I'm comfortable knowing things are true.
Personally, if you're not a coward you'll proclaim here and now that a brand new car is as important as food. After all, this stuff isn't knowable.
Of course not, you know how heinous that position is, but it's the direct result of what you're arguing here, that we can't make judgements like that.
instead of reading my posts as angry, read them as a complete and utter dismissal of your argument. It has no merit and it's easy to see because you won't make the proclamation that's the obvious result of your stance.
Your argument is just nihilism in a funny dress.
A poor person is _forced_ to strip down to the bare essentials. Middle class _should_ do the same but they have enough money that they can afford the delusion until they can't (lifestyle inflation) due to losing a job, unforeseen expenses (medical bills, for example). The wealthy can do whatever the hell they want because the unforeseen expenses and job loss are a blip to them rather than an existential crisis the way it is for the middle class and poor.
IOW, just because someone is not willing to forego something does not imply it's an essential, it implies they have a preference they won't compromise on. That may or may not be a good decision, but people make poor decisions all the time.
I drive a 2004 corolla, early in 2023 I decided I needed a minivan and purchased a 2007 Honda Odyssey and then paid to have it fixed up. The GPU in my gaming machine was literally more expensive than the initial purchase of that Odyssey.
I'm a tech person and a gamer, I was not willing to compromise on the GPU but at no point was I ever under the delusion that made it an essential. it's like sneaking that candy that you know you probably shouldn't eat, it's a guilty pleasure.
On the flip side, if someone tells me they can't leave NYC because of family, I absolutely get it.
When discussing demand and pricing, preferences are the only thing that matter.
By definition the thing that is the most popular is the thing that is the most in demand and therefore has the most money trying to purchase that good.
This is important and relevant to the discussion of housing, because it tells us how to satisfy the most people's preferences.
Therefore my statement is true and you didn't agree with me when I said: 'Well there is something special about the higher cost places.
That thing special, is that they are more desirable by a much larger amount of people.'.
This statement is still true.
That's a very bold statement and a total oversimplification. Like the rest of your comment too IMHO. Do you think people in the countriside don't have "social loving desires"? I know lot of people living on the countryside and friendship is much more better than in an anonymous city (IMHO).
I live in a city, you can have all of those things here. In fact, we have an entire stretch down the side of a river that has restaurants and other things down the side of it. The housing in that area is some of the most expensive but still doesn't touch NYC.
One way of thinking about this is that everyone in NYC is wrong. Another way of thinking about this is that NYC might have more of those things and then some. Does your city have a dozen museums, dozens of museums, or hundreds of museums? Does your city have a 24/365 public transit system? Bodega cats? Offices of all of the top companies worldwide? Something equivalent to the high line? Broadway? If not, why not? Some places have some of these things. How many places have all of them?
apply whatever the hell you want to rationalize that existence, I don't personally care.
When you're done screaming about how terrible it is that you'll never own a home, come join sanity.
or don't. I don't give a shit about your rationalization.
The problem is that people who can't afford that think it is a hate crime if they can't afford to live in Brooklyn with the rest of the hipsters.
I don't think this word means what you think it means.
I looked up the average salary in NYC out of curiosity and I make well above the average there.
but I live extremely cheaply and part of that is the lessons I learned as a child. I could afford a much bigger house, much nicer cars, more toys. I choose not to.
I know people who will finish paying off a vehicle and turn it in for another one. Not essential.
Just because someone _feels_ as though something is important doesn't mean that it is. The difference between middle class and poor is that poor has to deal with reality, middle class gets to keep the delusion that things like nice cars are essential.
These people are choosing not to move. It's great that they can afford it but maybe they should stop complaining vociferously about how victimized they are for choosing to live in that area.
Good, then nothing is essential and we can stop worrying about whether something is essential or not and go back to talking about desirable.
You may try and argue some of the grey areas, but most of the things you listed are _clearly_ not essential, they're desirable by specific people, as you said.
(personally speaking, like many people I have eczema, and my wellbeing tends to be diminished by having a scraped anus)
My mother has heart issues and she has a pump that's connected to her 24/7. She has a medical condition and so has special needs. I would not call that pump an essential but it certainly is essential for her.
The context of this conversation has been _in general_, my responses were never meant to apply to those with medical conditions.
to answer your question, a bidet is a nice to have, a toilet would be an essential otherwise you're shitting in the street, as you implied about downtown SF. Because toilet here does not mean literally toilet, but someplace reserved for using the restroom. When I go to the river to fish they have an outhouse there and I absolutely use it, as do construction workers with the mobile outhouses they employ.
defecating and urinating are absolutely essential activities, how you clean yourself afterwards needs to happen but any specific way of doing it is not essential.
But doing them in a toilet is not, unless we start expanding the definition of essential to include dignity and thriving.
buuut... well you know your response is bullshit.
hey guys, dontcha know the only essentials are death and taxes! otherwise you have to admit that a brand new car driven off the lot is also an essential!
yeah, ok...
I was born and raised in a city with >2M population, and surely my needs are extremely different than someone who is accustomed to a rural life. Even small things like, sleeping in an extremely quiet rural town has been a torture for me every time I tried it. And I am sure, opposite is true for people who are used to hearing absolutely no sounds at night.
For instance… I am medically… complicated. Living somewhere rural where I’m more than 10 or 15 minutes from an ER isn’t really viable for me. Well, I mean, it would be, right up until it isn’t.
She absolutely lives near a hospital. I live in a city, just one that's LCOL. Hell, one of our hospitals is renowned for it's heart research.
City planning is hard, but it's absolutely the case that cities just do it very stupidly and poorly and myopically and to preserve the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of the everyone else. There are not any good reasons for Cambridge, MA to have a 35 foot maximum height limit, only shitty ones. It's not a hate crime, but it is both hateful and a crime against society.
I think it would do you good to work out the difference between things that make you angry and things that are unjust.
I agree with you, transportation and planning is intentionally manipulated by wealthy landlords to maintain their high rents. Absolutely. So don't live there? Don't base your self worth on how impressive the resume's of your neighbors are? Find other neighborhoods that aren't based on inherited multi-generational snobbery and artificially restricting access to education to elite morons?
You're using a specific definition of "crime" that is different than the one the people you're arguing against are using, and that makes the argument not apt.
Being shameful for causing harm is also what calling something a crime can mean.
But lets go along with your desire to get away with using your definition instead of the original way the word was used in this context. Is it really a 'grave offense against morality' for a city to democratically decide to not allow skyscrapers? What would be the consequence of not allowing skyscrapers, is it that people like BugsJustFindMe starve to death? nope. That you will be deprived of basic human needs like shelter or the right to self determination? nope. The 'grave moral harm' done to you is that you can't afford to live within walking distance to that cool bar you like to go to. How ridiculous are you going to be?
Wait until you hear about the verbs "sanction" and "dust". Words being able to have multiple common meanings is just facts.
That’s basically your argument. Living in a LCOL area is not comparable to living in NYC.
There is a reason millions want to live in NYC and almost no one actually wants to live in, say, Iowa.
FYI, the trains in Tokyo are privately run by corporations.
As I mentioned, I know a woman who is buying more house than that and her income is technically below the poverty line.
In addition, I work remote in tech and looking up the average salary in NYC, I'm making more and it's not close. Not everyone can do that and I understand that, but my point is that people around here don't feel as though house ownership is out of their power.
What i do not care is a 2 car garage. That already implies a lifestyle i really do not want. So where wpuld i move to in the US?
if you don't want a 2 car garage then fine, move downtown.
You can get _anywhere_ in this town in 20 minutes or less. We flat don't have the traffic that places like NYC does. rush hour might be a bit slower depending on where you go, but not appreciably slow.
I feel like people who don't live in these areas have a lot of misconceptions.
who knows, maybe it's not really that bad and I'm ignorant here, it's possible.
But my point is that if you don't own a car there's automatically a limited range of movement that you have. It might be better in NYC (it probably is), but we have areas like that too. We also have public transportation in the form of buses rather than subways and they stop a lot so it can take longer but you can get anywhere in this city via bus, including the suburbs.
You can absolutely pick an area for its walkability and use the bus transport to move around the rest of the city. But to leave the city will require a vehicle or a greyhound.
> who knows, maybe it's not really that bad and I'm ignorant here, it's possible.
You answered your own question.
NYC most definitely has far longer commute times than this area.
Even in rush hour traffic, 20 minutes implies driving from 1 side of this city to the other, some in NYC are reporting commute times of over an hour.
People generally care where they live more than they care about the things you describe. Location is the most important factor for most people in real estate purchases - so much so, that it's a cliche.
You are free to have your own preferences, and I'm glad it has worked out well for you. But let's not be incredulous that others have different priorities - that's the human interaction baseline.
what I'm incredulous about is the constant complaints followed by an obvious solution but no action towards it.
And while they make the best choice they can, they can still have problems with it - what in the world works out otherwise? Jobs? Elections? Anything?
no one gives a shit, seriously. This is the worlds tiniest violent playing for those who refuse to adjust to not having as much resources as they'd like to have.
oh man, I'm so turrble, telling them they should probably live as if they're only half-millionaries.
offly enough, reality doesn't give a shit.
If a multi-millionaire cannot accept a solution that has them living like someone worth 500k, maybe the issue is with them as the vast majority of people survive while being worth far less.
But hey, repeat how you just can't understand what I'm saying, I'm sure enough people will believe that to make it worth saying.
Not sure how your proposed solution works while also defying basic economics.
"oh, but market forces so I'm just going to stay here and continue posting online about how horrible it is that I'll never be able to afford a house!".
You do you I guess.
I think you should start visiting these areas before you say that.
It takes me less than 5 minutes to get to 2 different grocery stores, a theater, a market dedicated to fish, a greek restaurant, a Mediterranean bar, a mexican restaurant (very good btw), Target supercenter, Lowes, various stores dedicated to clothes, one dedicated to hobbies (not hobby lobby), and more I could go on about. In 20 minutes I can be sitting on a dock by the side of the river enjoying the breeze and fishing. In 30 minutes I can be standing at an orchard purchasing peaches, in 45 minutes I can be standing at a lake enjoying the fishing there. In the summer we have a farmers market that's probably 10 minutes away and is amazing, they generally have someone there playing music live. Which, btw, this area is _known_ for (it's independent artists).
It feels like too many people here imagine LCOL means living in the middle of fields with cows milling about. rural areas are even cheaper but what you're imagining and reality do not match.
It may not ultimately be what you prefer, but to call it in the middle of nowhere is just vastly ignorant. I live in a city.
It is precisely because I spent the first 30 years of my life in such a place that I don't want to.
Beleive it or not not everyone wants a giant lawn, white picket fence and 1.8 kids in the middle of incredible blandness, unworldliness, and closemindedness.
I won't speak to your story but that's not been my experience and yes, this is a conservative area. I'm left leaning but have friends on both sides of the aisle and of varying religions.
I did once get fired for admitting to being agnostic but I dismissed it as assholes, every area has assholes. By far most of the people I run with and encounter don't act like that.
go watch that and understand that conservative areas where BY FAR more supportive than New York.
This is a common trope amongst youtubers and they _consistently_ find that these conservative areas are more accepting than the liberal areas such as New York. And they're more willing to speak up.
But go on, explain to me why an asshole defines the entire region. I want to hear how we have more assholes and somehow can't be forgiven for that, but apparently NYC can!
FYI, I'm not a conservative.
For software devs tho, you are right. Just get a remote job.
Honestly confused what it is you’re suggesting
And that they also won't organize to try and fix the issues with the housing in the HCOL area.
I agree with the sentiment personally, it's why I always tell people to move.
I was watching a youtube video earlier this week about a couple who did exactly that. They lived in portland oregan. they bought a rundown old trailer that no one wanted, put the elbow grease in to clean it up and rented out a space for it.
They then realized that with their income it was going to take many more years than they wanted to become financially independent. So they moved out of state and w/i 2 years had paid off a 2 bedroom home (they had savings and sold the trailer) and were living in it and considered themselves financially independent (they no longer had to work to live).
They talked about how their family shunned them when they moved away and they've learned not to talk to friends about it because it just causes friction.
some people do it, it's just most won't.
Moving to a LCOL is always my recommendation as well.
What's the implication here? That you're extra safe? Or that it's a neighborhood that they would also choose?
It's just a strange signifier to me. Does a real estate agent mention this? Do they know they play this role? Are they compensated in any way? Should other neighborhoods encourage the presence of a single police officer home?
Why is it a strange signifier that a police officer living next door and a park where kids are openly playing implies it's a nice neighborhood that you might enjoy living in?
it's like saying it's a strange signifier that you would avoid a neighborhood with homeless walking down the street pushing carts and empty syringes laying around the sidewalk.
Neither of those seem strange conclusions and I posit that if you can't understand that it says more about you than anything else.
and yes, I've been shown houses in neighborhoods like that, and no, I didn't move in.
I'm shocked...
oh wait, no I'm not, the post wasn't honestly given.
1,1k gets you a room. If you are lucky.
I'd expect living next to a cop to be cheaper, not more expensive.
The point is that here, a 70k salary is easily good enough to buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood.
Are there nicer houses in nicer neighborhoods? We have a lot of old money here, gated mansions with groundskeepers, and so forth.
That wasn't my point.
Congrats on whatever opportunities you've made work for you but many people are tied to where they are due to onerous management, community, family etc. We are not the highly mobile society of even two decades ago and the false promises of mobile technology haven't truly been fulfilled. We got close during COVID but business interests and human nature got in the way of fulfilling what people on this forum have been touting for a decade or more with remote work.
$1,100 is considered "well below market rates" for a 1 bedroom apartment in NYC? That's _nuts_ to me.
I'm paying $1,600 for a 3 bed, 2 bath 1800 sq ft house with a 2 car garage. Vaulted ceilings, my neighbor is a police officer and I'm on a corner lot across from a park. fire department is literally 3 blocks away. IOW, I pay more because of the neighborhood.
Granted, I live in a LCOL area, but that's kind of the point. If you feel you don't have the buying power, move. Hell, I know a woman who has a mortgage that she pays off of a fixed income and a bit of side work (600/month I think? in that ballpark) and she's buying more house than that.