So rent a room and/or don’t live in the best part of the city. That’s what I did near Boston a few years ago. My rent was well under $1000. Do people think they’re entitled to private apartments in the most expensive cities in the world?
Boston is actually an amazing example of things the US needs to do to enable affordable living.
The expansive public transport network allows you to live far from the city without incurring huge commute times. That paired with the density means that car ownership is discouraged, which takes away another expense. Lastly, the city continues building multi-family middle housing in the city outskirts which keeps housing availability high.
High density and walking/public space culture comes with many other advantages. High footraffic means restaurants can run low-margin, high-volume food that poor can afford. The public spaces mean that restaurants can operate low-overhead businesses out of food trucks and holes in the wall.
Speaking if public spaces, they've generally (idk how, it is more localized there) managed to avoid the violent homelessness problem of the other major cities. Violent homelessness disproportionally affects poor people as they are more reliant on public spaces and safety in numbers. This has helped the city avoid an SF/Portland/Seattle-esque deterioration of entire neighborhoods.
Most American cities don't have any of these pros, which leads to skyrocketing costs associated with city living.
Boston and eastern MA are far from affordable. Homeownership in a decent area inside 128 is unattainable without a pretty sizable nest eg (equity or gift from parents).
The public transit system is insufficient. The Commuter Rail is infrequent, slow and often unreliable. The entire system needs to be electrified for RER service but that’s probably twenty years away if we are lucky.
And the homeless have just been concentrated into one shantytown at Mass and Cass.
My praise for Boston was in comparison to absolutely shambolically run cities in the rest of the US. In comparison to some well-run global cities, (Greater) Boston still has ways to go.
> Mass and Cass
Yep, Methadone Mile is the uncomfortable compromise between liberal: "don't evict the homeless" versus the moderate: "keep our neighborhoods safe" agendas. It keeps the rest of Boston relatively aggressive-homeless free, but the addicts and local residents are worse off.
> entire system needs to be electrified
At times, it is jarring to see the US do worse than 3rd world countries. The mind-boggling cost of any infrastructure in the US is really holding the country back.
> Do people think they’re entitled to private apartments in the most expensive cities in the world?
Yes, they do. Read any thread on a vaguely left-leaning subreddit that even starts approaching discussions of renting, or landlords, or landlord-tenant relations, and you'll get flooded with comments so detached from reality it will stun you.
Within a specific, ideal job they always wanted and got without having to make hard tradeoffs somewhere, or do a ton of searching?
This is what folks are talking about. Expecting things to just fall into place 'just because' without having to do the legwork to actually make/find something workable.
It's an entirely solvable problem at the data level.
We know where the employers and residential zones are. We could put together a model to minimize average commute time.
The problem is that we need to have a grand "rehoming" moment to deliver it. The day where everyone gets assigned a new residence in accordance with the optimization scheme. A day that would doubtless be deferred to long past the heat-death of the universe in endless court challenges by those who ended up on the losing side of the deal in some way.
In a way, the fact we still have powerful regimes which aren't tied down to "rule of law", and specifically the "property rights as sacred" segment of it gives me hope; I'd expect to see this day occur in Beijing long before it happened in San Francisco.
100% agree. Most cities in the US (not just SF, but definitely SF) are locked in this bizarre ‘you can’t make
it better because you’d stub my toe’ mode that enforces stasis. SF in particular is in this bizarre Byzantine political deadlock where it seems the only thing the city is allowing itself to do is stuff that it knows doesn’t work.
Why is that relevant? The cost of maintaining a reasonable standard of living is what matters, not the amount listed on your paycheck (as long as the latter is >= the former).
If you can’t afford to live in the city where you work then it’s pretty much the definition of “not a living wage.”
Like are we really at the point where we’re totally fine with people commuting an hour one way every workday to a shitty minimum wage job instead of just building affordable modest housing reserved for people working in the city.
It's not the wage that needs to change it would be the prices of housing in the city. This can't change because it's not determined by some governing body. It's called gentrification. It's currently happening to me. I could not afford to buy my house now and I just bought it a few years ago. Of course there still needs to be staff in the area working retail etc. but I haven't seen anyone over 25 in a store near me for over a year.
It’s the natural consequences of policies enacted by many governing bodies. Cities with land use restrictions and onerous zoning restrictions where they are allergic to highways and only build bad public transit run by incompetents, built by corrupt contractors and expensive unions? The prices are substantially the fault of the local governance. This is why people move out of San Francisco and New York and Chicago.
The parking requirement is just a symptom. The problem is everyone with some stupid pet interest tries to use the zoning code or other local laws as a backhanded way of legislating a monetary bar to entry. They don't want triple deckers, they want classy luxury apartments. They don't want a distribution center. They want a white collar office park. They don't want industry and jobs, they want high end retail and dining. But you can't go from suburbia to downtown without the middle steps so of course no meaningful development happens.
If we just respected property owner's rights to do as they see fit we wouldn't have these problems or not nearly to the same extent.
Even in cities that don’t require that, rents are still expensive (with the exception of Tokyo where you can rent a 2.5 tatami sized apartment, shared toilet, no central heating, for $300/month).
> Even in cities that don’t require that, rents are still expensive
Maybe you've got some good examples from other countries, but here in the US the only major city with reasonable zoning is Houston which has quite affordable homes.
I wouldn’t mind living in Tokyo, Houston doesn’t tempt me at all. I assume much of its affordability is related to demand, and the fact that given a lack of zoning it can sprawl forever (also reducing its appeal). I met a homeless person in Seattle from Houston, even the homeless don’t find the city desirable (though it might be due to weather?).
“In the city of New York there were laws
passed to push the private sector out of the SRO business [and eliminate SROs] on the theory that SROs were inhumane. Consequently, people sleep on grates outside.” — George McDonald
SROs, residential hotels, boarding houses and the like were all banned in the 1950s (and the surviving ones dismantled through the 1980s), a loss of about 100,000 units of affordable housing.
I think absentee ownership and zoning laws have a fundamental impact on the availability of housing. It seems outside of governmental concern because their impact is already so normal. It’s normal for rich people to own/rent land they don’t occupy or use in perpetuity. It’s normal to see almost everything zoned for car dependent, single-family housing.
Tomato potato. If you make policy that lowers the cost of living then the living wage goes down and vice versa. I don’t think we’re at all in disagreement.
How? If you can travel back and forth and that makes it work, what is the problem? You can hate it, sure, but, at least where I live, people commute 3+ hours/day to make a nice living while living cheap. What is wrong with that?
The increase in the world’s entropy is not priced into the commuting costs, so it is artificially cheap living. Assuming an inhabitable planet with clean air and water is a goal, then commuting 3 hours would not be cheap.
You are right, but you can stimulate wfh and stimulate companies to spread out more. The fact a lot of people are against that (including here on HN) shows that it's all great, but not in my backyard.
If a city has 1 million jobs but only homes for 800k workers, then you will always have 200k workers who are priced out of homes. Or if you do it the communist way and assign homes with arbitrary price ceilings, you still have 200k people without homes although now it is the 200k most recent immigrants and not the 200k poorest, but the problem is still there.
So what do you suggest we do about that except build more homes?
> So what do you suggest we do about that except build more homes?
Why are you trying to make this complicated? Just get rid of density caps so that developers build more apartments. Problem solved with zero cost to taxpayers.
>Why are you trying to make this complicated? Just get rid of density caps so that developers build more apartments. Problem solved with zero cost to taxpayers.
Because "better a thousand rental units go un-built than let one slum lord construct a substandard basement apartment" or some other garbage like that.
Basically people keep trying to set a quality floor that society mostly isn't rich enough to afford and most land can't be developed enough to justify then acts surprised when the actual densification that happens is only a slow trickle.
Yeah, that's kind of how this country markets itself. Being able to afford a home and a family on a regular worker's pay is literally part of "The American Dream."
I've thought a lot about this, esp as someone who was born here and whose parents immigrated here for the American Dream.
They've done great. We lived in a rural area. It was possible because one of them came highly skilled and solicited to immigrate.
That being said I shudder when I hear "just move to rural blah blah blah". My life was horrible there. I was considered black, egytian, non-english speaking, to come from a family of savages or royalty or witchcraft depending on the speaker.
This whole "move to a rural place" really doesn't seem open to the non-white growing majority. Its certainly nothing like the Californian life I live now where I still cannot afford a home but can enjoy Mexican, Indian, Ethiopian, Korean, and american culture in a form of acceptance that was fully closed to me growing up.
Care to expound some more on the differences between living in rural places vs. the Californian life? I've spent most of my time in the suburbs of coastal cities.
The American Dream is not about getting more for less, as in "most luxury for the least amount of effort." It's about having a shot at owning a business without the financial backing of a rich family [0], which is more like "most luxury for an insane amount of effort."
[0] A lot of recent discussion centers on how many of the most successful US entrepreneurs come from privileged backgrounds, but you should not lose sight of the fact that literally every other country in the world will fare a lot worse in this regard. Many things are broken in the US, but no other place on Earth has lower barriers to starting your own LLC and hiring your first employee.
@Aerosmile I dont know that you need to look at Austria. You can just look at America over time. Mobility is getting harder and there's no real need to pretend it isn't
The US is not a capitalist paradise. We moved a software company from the UK to a US Delaware Corp 2 years ago and it was a major headache involving substantial legal fees, accounting, employee benefits, and taxes. Texas interestingly has been the hardest to deal with--probably our biggest single accounting expense due to what seems to be antiquated tax management on their end.
It was a lot easier doing business in the UK. We had relatively low accounting overhead, the laws were not hard to follow, and we didn't have to deal with having employees and customers sprinkled over a dozen state jurisdictions.
We're fortunate to work in a growing and lucrative market, but it's not all peaches and cream.
You're confusing accounting expenses and the cost of running a business. Even personal taxes are a pain the US.
So, yes, doing your own corporate taxes in the US is likely not a good idea, especially if you hire people across several states. But the cost of an accountant is a minuscule cost compared to paying X% more across your entire payroll (not to mention other aspects).
Completely anecdotal, but my maternal grandfather was a first-generation immigrant at the turn of the 20th century, speaking no English, no family, no job - the whole cliché. He did various jobs - fireman, train conductor, court stenographer - none of which would be particularly high-income or high-prestige today. But by the 1960s he had managed to raise 12 children with my grandmother, a stay-at-home mother, and to pay off both a 10-room home in the suburbs of NYC and an 80-acre vacation place in the Catskills.
The heroic labor of immigrants notwithstanding, I strongly doubt that would be possible for a fresh-off-the-boater today. I told my 20-something kids about it and they just laughed, like hearing about someone who stumbled across a pot of gold or a magic goose in a fairytale. I can't say I blame them.
That's a very different version of the American Dream than what I've always considered it to be. Even as portrayed in movies through rose tinted glasses it's always seemed to be the conjecture that even if you start with nothing, through a lot of hard work, thrift, frugality and determination you can work your way up through the ranks and eventually achieve a good living. They generally make a big deal out of the protagonist living a hard scrabble life while they're working towards their big break.
Seeing it as being guaranteed a home and family on an average workers pay is completely detached from that narrative.
Uh no. The American Dream has been about the ability to work hard to better oneself, and work UP TO that after education or doing something unique (like making their own business work and be profitable). Not that anyone could move here and just get it everything by doing the minimum.
Here's what FDR said about the minimum wage law that was passed in 1933:
> It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.
> By business I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.
If you think working and living conditions are worse now than they were in 1933, I'd love some concrete examples.
I'm not saying things couldn't be better. I'm saying that most people talking about this seem to be completely devoid of context about life at all, and most proposed solutions just come across as strong arguments that they have no clue about the world at all, or why anything is the way it is.
Which is a solid vote in the column of 'changes proposed won't accomplish the stated goals, and will cause way more problems'. In my experience, anyway.
In my experience one of the biggest issues is that no one reports companies doing shitty things, and the labor orgs in the gov'ts get away with ignoring shitty things, because no one holds any politicians accountable on labor issues because most of the population is super complacent about everything.
Hell, Amazon and a number of other companies are super blatant about their ACTIVELY ILLEGAL ANTI-LABOR ORGANIZING, and not a peep seems to be coming from the appropriate labor departments.
And since everyone is super complacent (barely any protests even), then of course nobody cares. Because nobody is making them care.
If everyone really feels so badly about it, make it known by making them feel badly about it. Instead everyone seems to go back to candy crush after posting complaints online about how terrible things are.
What is the 'minimum' when every single corporation is working to de-skill jobs so that they can cut wages, limit onboarding etc.
We all work on or adjacent to embedded software for robots to replace people in these jobs so that they can go on to be 'free' to have a higher skill job doing....no one ever seems to know what. Except maintaining said robots.
It's literally always been that way. Every business tries to cut costs, or they become unprofitable. Every organization tries to mechanize/create repetitive process where they can to minimize the amount of skilled workers they need as part of it. Every organization tries to skrimp where it can.
I literally never worked for a company with an onboarding or training process until I got to a FAANG. At that point I had been in industry full time for ~ 13 years, and worked at everything from startups to established 200+ employee companies.
Everyone has been worried about 'automation' nuking the jobs since I was born, and outsourcing killing all industry too. First it was Japan that was going to own the world though. Then Outsourcing to India. Then China. And they had impacts. But somehow, everyone who is useful keeps working, and everyone actually seems better off. Hell, the 'maintain the robots as the only jobs left' was a 90's thing with worries about car manufacturing automation.
Back then, a lot of jobs were things like secretaries, gophers (task runners)/delivery workers, retail shopping workers, postal workers, etc. Now people use email and write their own documents, uber or ubereats what they want, have things shipped to their door. Quality of life is dramatically higher in every objective way I can see.
And if anything, there are waaaaay more jobs now, and people seem to be doing better everywhere. But they seem to hate everything and everyone way more, and FEEL poorer.
Yet you don't see that "gopher" / shopping jobs are alive and well in the very service workers you use today (Uber/eats, "items shipped to your door", etc.)
I hear you on 'always' and say - while strenuously protesting that I am not a luddite - that many jobs required apprenticeship. Some in the US still do and in places like Japan its a requirement. In France you can still make a living as a butcher and if the Great Pottery Throwdown is to be believed you can be a successful scrub nurse or elder care manager in the UK and still own a home and have the wherewithal to be a fantastic potter, in a home pottery studio. (that last bit is tongue in cheek).
Capitalists gonna capitalist.
But they are limited to differing degrees due to policy. Our current state isn't inevitable.
Statutorily for sure. Most don’t require apprenticeships as a part of the job/role fundamentally though. Electricians (classic apprenticeship setup there) for instance could be made through formal trade school + probationary period, and it would likely be even better than it is now. If it works, it works though.
Generally, It’s a means of locking in stasis in a particular field in general, or restricting competition to the ‘have’s’, just like the old Guild setup before that. Still very much a thing for MD’s in the US.
There is a reason why France in particular is notorious for not getting anything done.
German’s do it too of course, but in their own way which is focused more on results, so it tends to be less sclerotic and more productive.
It’s always a trade off - more protectionism, or more churn/chaos/competition. If they can provide good labor protections while maintaining economic growth enough to ‘lift the tide’ overall, hard to fault them. It’s easy to go so far that it strangles the economy and locks everyone into a pointlessly inefficient setup in favor of the protected classes though. (And they won’t necessarily be rich protected classes either).
Europe’s tide hasn’t been rising very rapidly for awhile, and many EU countries are clearly insolvent overall (Greece, Italy, etc), so we’ll see how long they can sustain it.
And housing wise - to be somewhat on topic - very unlikely those Nurses in the UK are doing so in London.
A home, yeah, not a home in downtown metros. My uncle is a teacher and owns two houses in rural Ohio with his wife, kid, and two dogs. Living the American dream.
Pretty much. Not realistic to assume someone comes to the US with nothing and then buy a home in say San Francisco.
The American Dream is typically "come to the US with nothing and build a comfortable life, no matter who you are". I still think that's possible. Guaranteed? Of course not.
A high percentage of homes in San Francisco are literally owned by first-generation immigrants. You can obviously see this just walking around and talking to people.
I don't know when that idea got started, but it seems like my grandparents' generation (The Greatest Generation) enjoyed the greatest benefits of it, then my parents' generation benefited but also inherited their parents' wealth. As a GenX person, I watched my cohort struggle well more than their boomer parents' cohort.
The American dream was effectively denied to my generation and it's only gotten worse for subsequent generations.
I don't know anything about Boston, but where I live in Europe that's not so easy; a lot of properties within commuting distance aren't cheap, either. Sometimes they're even more expensive actually. And living two hours from your workplace isn't cheap either: you pay either public transport costs or fuel for your car, never mind the enormous amount of time you'll spend commuting.
Consider a place like London. It's bloody huge, and much of it is quite expensive. At the end of the day, London is going to need people staffing grocery stores, and cleaners, and that kind of thing. Not the entire population can be software devs or whatnot working from home, and you can't push them all outside of London.
They aren't neccesarily designed that way, it is the reality of democratic local governance that real property owners in a community are naturally going to vote for measures that maximize the value of their property so that they can sell it once the land has a more profitable use than their own. When everyone votes for their own economic interest it tends to make real property more expensive over time.
You're just nitpicking vocabulary. This is exactly what I meant, and I would consider the laws and regulations that result from this process the "design" of a city.
I mostly agree, although are Amazon warehouses in the most expensive cities? My understanding was that they were big and therefore located in spread-out suburban food-deserts poorly served by public transit, where land is cheap and available, and the zoning is lax if you're building an Amazon warehouse and "bringing jobs" but strangely prohibitive if you're thinking of building apartments.
Anyway just penciling out the math, a $15/hr wage ($31K/yr) puts you in the 12% federal tax bracket and the 4% California (for example) state tax bracket. So your take-home would be $15/hr x 2080 hrs/yr x (1 - 0.12 - 0.04) = $26.2K/yr. So at that point rent ($1K/mo = $12K/year) is a good 45% of your take-home pay, and you've got $14.2K left to pay food, utilities, transportation, and (hopefully not) healthcare. It can be done. Each thing tends to trade off with other things. For example, to avoid healthcare expenses you'll want to stay healthy, eating healthy food for example. But healthy food is expensive, and probably not located close by your shitty part of town, so you'll be either driving (expensive and to be avoided) or spending extra time on public transit, or risking a catastrophic healthcare expense by biking there (in America anyway), or just eating the regular ol' cheap food. Also, do not take on any dependents. Like I said, it can be done.
Healthy food like frozen chicken, canned vegetables, potatoes, apples, and eggs are widely available and cheap unless you're in a complete food desert.
It’s been a while for me but i always remember single person apartments (even studios) being relatively more expensive than multi bedroom with roommates. Anytime I wanted to save money that was always the first place i started. In that sense i personally would consider an apartment all to yourself a relative luxury.
If it has been a while for you, then perhaps you were much younger and comfortable sharing a living space with relative strangers. Many people working these crappy jobs are not kids in their teens and twenties. They are middle-aged and these are their careers. Also, the workers we are talking about don't "want to save money", they are perpetually spending every cent they earn to cover costs and debt. It isn't some pit stop on the way to the upper-middle class (though upper-middle class people seem to like to pretend it is).
Sorry, I’m biased because I’ve literally never lived alone. Didn’t even cross my mind that one person’s salary can afford an apartment. When I say an entire studio apartment to yourself an entire studio apartment for you and your roommate or partner.
Renting a room comes with its own logistical nightmares, fwiw. Navigating the entire roomate interview process sucks. More than once I've had friends who deal with roomates have months at a time too stressed to advance their other career goals because roomates stealing their shit, playing loud music, refusing to leave, not paying on time, etc etc. When you don't have "fuck you" money, there is surprisingly little necessary to royally fuck up your plans to get out of the bad situation you're in.
