Stay Put, Young Man

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november_december_2013/features/stay_put_young_man047332.php?page=all

by pg • 13 years ago

125 94 13 years ago

ggreer3• 13 years ago

A nitpick on San Jose:

The city’s tallest building, Yglesias notes, is a mere twenty-two stories high.

Anyone who lives in San Jose can tell you why this is the case. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California#Arts_and_a...

Because the downtown area is in the flight path to nearby Mineta San Jose International Airport, there is a height limit for buildings in the downtown area, which is under the final approach corridor to the airport. The height limit is dictated by local ordinances, driven by the distance from the runway and a slope defined by Federal Aviation Administration regulations. Core downtown buildings are limited to approximately 300 feet (91 m) but can get taller farther from the airport.[80]

The rest of the article did a good job of arguing that housing prices harm migration and contribute to income inequality. But twisting a fact like that makes me suspicious. Hopefully fault lies with Matt Yglesias, not the author.

NoPiece2• 13 years ago

Lazy research - they probably googled "tallest building in San Jose", went to the first result, then forgot to sort by floors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Sa...

twelvechairs2• 13 years ago

Yglesias' style is generally this kind of slapdash big-claim making sensationalism. He's basically an opinion writer who cherry picks a few facts to try to support his hypotheses. For example, see the reviews of the book mentioned in the article on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078X...

To be fair to him though, its a hard line to walk when you are discussing the kind of complex open-ended issues which he does. I think his writing has done good to stir up thinking and provoke responses on some of the issues he discusses.

shawabawa3• 13 years ago

Actually if you sort by height, the tallest building does have 22 floors. The building with the most floors isn't the tallest

StavrosK• 13 years ago

Why sort by floors? "Tallest" means height.

cafard2• 13 years ago

I have not read the Washington Monthly much in many years. When I did, it seemed to me that they had a bad habit of picking one one aspect of a situation, explaining everything by it, and wrapping it all up with a QED at the end of five pages. It made for very satisfying reading, but eventually doubts would set in.

jacalata• 13 years ago

Can you explain how you think it is twisted? It doesn't seem to me that 'why' matters in this case - the article didn't seem to say 'San Jose has introduced zoning limits in an attempt to price out poor people', but 'San Jose has restrictive building limits that price out poor people because they are unable to meet demand'. You could perhaps add a little detail by changing it to say 'the city doesn't have any buildings with more than 27 stories' but that doesn't really feel like a big difference to me.

joyeuse6701• 13 years ago

I had an opportunity recently to move to the Bay for a contract position from a fulltime one in LA. Risk/benefit considerations aside, the cost of living, much of it rent, in the Bay stayed my hand from signing off and changing jobs, and I am someone who could afford to live there, I can easily see why anyone who made as much or less would never move from here to there either.

priyadarshy• 13 years ago

I always wonder how its feasible for people in service industry roles to work in the bay area. (Something I think about a lot when I go to work at a cafe).

That being said, it would be interesting to see a graphic of commute time and wage/salary to see the tradeoffs people make.

netcan2• 13 years ago

Good question. The answer I think comes from the fact that "cost of living" is a blunt measure, however it's measured. Price differences vary between by good. Rent might be more expensive, but ipods and levis cost the same.

If you don't pay rent (eg you live with parents), its probably a net win. If you don't consume much housing (eg, 4 person house share), it might still be a net win. Also, some people are more flexible than other in their consumption which is influenced by relative price. So, they might consume less housing by house sharing but more iphones and clothes.

Try figure out if a 22 year old barista living in a trendy city centre with 3 housemates, but a nice nice budget for gadgets and clothes is better off then one in a small town with a completely different lifestyle. Its extremely subjective.

humanrebar2• 13 years ago

If you don't pay rent (eg you live with parents), its probably a net win. If you don't consume much housing (eg, 4 person house share), it might still be a net win.

The typical person in the job market has a spouse or children. Having to have multiple roommates on top of that is generally considered a nonstarter.

When you say, "If you don't consume much housing...," you're saying, "If you're single and unattached..." And it's only a net win as long as you stay that way, which isn't usually the case.

To connect the dots the rest of the way, when housing prices shoot through the roof, people with families and special needs get pushed out. What is left are people with fixed housing costs and single people who don't see having many roommates as being a quality of life issue.

ninetax• 13 years ago

Hopefully some of this can be solved by better/faster public transportation.

akamaka• 13 years ago

This article had potential, but its facts are questionable. For example, it claims that "California has been losing native-born residents for two decades."

See here: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-shows-increase...

jdhzzz• 13 years ago

I read that statement as almost guaranteed for every location on earth. The only way it is not true if no one born there leaves. For a location of any size that would be unexpected.

willvarfar4• 13 years ago

So when do we embrace remote working?

I've worked remotely for big American companies like Motorola (I live in Sweden) and continue to work from home for local Swedish companies. Almost all the people I interface with are in various offices in various timezones around the world anyway.

I also do game programming jams e.g. Ludum Dare over a weekend occasionally, and these are also distributed remote efforts. Yet we manage to work at a furious pace with the same immediacy and accessibility as if we were sitting in the same room.

It works well. It works well for me, and I believe it can be made to work well in general.

This is not just about IT type jobs; most office-work can be done remotely. Only people actually manipulating machinery directly need to be in physical contact with their machine.

But there is a definite distrust and dislike of it, especially among management types.

MaulingMonkey• 13 years ago

I have yet to crack the code in motivating myself in a remote-work setting, despite working as a programmer and despite my best intentions. For those whom it works, great, but that... let's call it skepticism instead of distrust -- that skepticism isn't wholly unfounded.

mahyarm• 13 years ago

It makes it easier for managers to work with people in open offices. They can keep a passive ear open for other people's status and possibly change design decisions as it happens.

Remotely, a lot of potential communication gets dropped and you have to do a lot of active effort to get status and so on. It's basically more work to manage remote workers. Just like its more work to have your team spread throughout a building or on another floor.

There is also the micro-management aspect of it, where they can shoulder surf and make sure people are only doing work activities. Some people probably get some sort of emotional satisfaction in telling people what to do in person too.

Timezones can be annoying for communication. Anybody who has to do 8pm india/china meetings can tell you that.

ggreer3• 13 years ago

The biggest problem is that there's no gradual migration process. The first remote worker on a team forces everyone to change how they work and communicate. Even with the whole team accommodating the remote person, they'll still miss out on a lot. It can be frustrating for both sides.

Also, the software for real-time collaboration sucks. Even if you constantly screen-share and video chat, it's not as good as working in the same room. Simple things like pointing at a section of code are difficult to do, and synchronizing files can be a pain.

I'm working on solving this (Floobits YC S13 yadda yadda), but there's still much to be done.

willvarfar4• 13 years ago

One small startup I helped out briefly many years ago was using Linux/KDE. They had it set up so that everyone's desktop was accessible from everyone else's desktop. In Linux you usually have several desktops which are easy to switch between, and they made it so that everyone else's desktops appeared in your desktop list. There are virtual desktop products for windows too.

I don't know if they used standard software for this, or whether it was their own cobbled-together scripts with normal screen-sharing apps like vnc. I was not involved in setting it up. But it worked very well.

I recall discussing using mosix (that's how old it was) too, so we were a big beowulf cluster for compiles etc. That appealed to them, but I don't know if it was acted on after I moved on.

In this particular case it wasn't about monitoring, this was about collaboration. But you can see how such a system would appeal to managers too.

This complete lack of privacy took some getting used to, but it was super focusing. It quickly sunk in that everything you did (on your screen) was visible to everyone else, and whilst there was toleration for reading the news and so on, everyone was self-censoring themselves to apply themselves.

This was in an open-plan office, but with modern bandwidth could work well remotely.

rurounijones• 13 years ago

There may not be a full migration path but I would say the first thing that needs to change (and still hasn't happened in many companies) is getting everyone:

* To use shared sources for things (company/department wide Wikis, bug-trackers etc) instead of c:/my_docs/spec.v1.docx being mailed about.

* Reduce the number of meetings (Which, in my experience, are usually unnecessary in a software-dev environment at least)

Obviously some roles are going to be less amenable to Remote working but without the above 2 (or even the first bit) done most companies couldn't even do it if they wanted.

bambax4• 13 years ago

The answer is not screen-sharing, it's making everything an API. The remote worker is responsible for her API, and no one needs to know or care how it works as long as it does.

ollysb2• 13 years ago

I've just started using floobits, I work remotely with people all over the place(and they all use sublime) so it's a fantastic product for me. One thing I haven't got my head around is the workflow involving git. Have you guys put any thoughts down about this?

keenerd• 13 years ago

The biggest problem is that there's no gradual migration process.

Sure there is. The process is similar to all the WinXP to Linux migrations going on. The intermediary step to OS migration is cross-platform applications. The intermediary step to remoting is to phase out everything that is based on paper or face to face communication.

Based on my experiences with heavily collaborative remote work, the gains are tremendous. Local efforts do not scale when when you get an influx of people. Remote processes do. And even for locals, the remote tech works better and faster than the old methods. (Of course a group of locals still get a bonus to communication and are often more productive than a bunch of individual remotes.)

jseliger• 13 years ago

The biggest problem is that there's no gradual migration process

I'm not convinced this is true: the biggest problem seems to be the way knowledge spills over from person to person when they're in close proximity to each other, and the way new ideas often appear from serendipitous encounters. Popular books like Steven Berlin Johnson's Where Good Ideas Come From and Edward Glaeser's The Triumph of the City discuss the issue in greater detail and cite much of the original research on this phenomenon.

Some of that original research attempts to measure knowledge transfers by proxy, like the way patents tend to cite other patents whose authors live nearby. It's not perfect but it is pretty compelling. Other research relies on descriptions of famous people describing how chance encounters fertilized their ideas.

I'm working on solving this (Floobits YC S13 yadda yadda), but there's still much to be done.

Very cool. If you haven't read Johnson's book in particular you should!

jsumrall• 13 years ago

How is a construction worker or teacher supposed to remote work? The problem is not that people like us can't afford to move, but that the average employee in normal other work roles cant. Sweden is much better at this, but I think even there I didn't meet anyone who telecommuted who wasn't in the tech industry.

willvarfar4• 13 years ago

All over the world people really do do remote learning, even at primary school level.

Another fun thing you see in Sweden is prefabricated houses. In England, prefabs have a horrid reputation from the war years, but modern Swedish houses and flats are assembled from large prefabricated sections that arrive on a lorry and are assembled in just a day or two.

rushabh• 13 years ago

A construction worker can generally make more money in San Francisco than in suburban Fresno. But it won’t likely be enough more to make up the difference in the relative cost of living. Indeed, few working-class people earn enough money to live anywhere near San Francisco anymore, to the point that there is now a severe shortage of construction workers in the Bay Area.

The wages for construction workers will go up and the situation should correct itself automatically. Unfortunately, it will take some time for people to adjust their cultures so that construction workers are valued more socially - like people who write term sheets.

taurath• 13 years ago

Or the construction workers wages will go down, as they have, and they won't live anywhere near where they work.

willvarfar4• 13 years ago

Isn't a lot of construction work done by poor migrant workers who live in dirty dorms provided by their contracting company? I've seen this in much of the rest of the world, even in places like Sweden where the workers are often from the other side of the Baltic. I'd be surprised if the US was very different in this regard.

aestra• 13 years ago

No... Not around here at least... (Eastern US)

Construction workers don't make a lot of money, but they aren't the poor migrant workers living in dirty dorms. They are the working class.

My uncle was doing construction, then just decided to start his own construction business rather than work for someone else, and makes very very good money doing that.

Every year the US Dept of Labor produces the Occupational Outlook Handbook which contains information about occupations in the US. Salaries, number employees, job outlook, etc. These are median salaries.

Construction Laborers and Helpers $28,410 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construct...

Now, if you get more specialized, you earn more:

Roofers: $34,220 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/roofers.h...

Drywall and Ceiling Tile Installers, and Taper: $38,290 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/drywall-a...

Construction Equipment Operators: $39,460 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construct...

mynewwork• 13 years ago

Then prepare to be surprised, it is nothing like that here in 99.999% of cases. The average american construction worker lives in a house or apartment comparable to any other working class / middle class person, owns a vehicle, etc.

humanrebar2• 13 years ago

In the American Southwest, much of the construction and landscaping work, especially odd jobs, is done by immigrants, usually from Latin America.

Historically, construction has been seen as a union job, and that's probably still true in certain parts of the U.S. and in certain specializations.

As far as housing arrangements, I'm not positive, but I do believe immigrants tend to pack in more people per square foot of an apartment. I have not heard of dorm-style arrangements run by employers.

eldavido• 13 years ago

People who write term sheets are using trust -- human capital -- accumulated over a 30-50 year career, to raise the funds to be able to deploy them in the first place.

For better or worse, the reason any random person off the street can't raise enough capital to start a bank, VC fund, or other capital-intensive project is lack of trust. Goldman Sachs, Sequoia Capital, etc. have trust; you don't.

eriksank• 13 years ago

I work remotely from Cambodia for companies mostly based in the UK (but also in the US and elsewhere). Lots of startups do not want to hire remotely. I have heard "no" more than once from companies in the Bay Area. However, it has become less of a problem over the last few years, because with every year that goes by, it gets easier to just do your own startup without ever setting foot in the Bay Area. For example, there are amazing opportunities in the Chinese market at the moment, while it does not give any advantage whatsoever to be located in the Bay Area for those.

simonv3• 13 years ago

"The percentage of married households with two earners has hardly changed over the last thirty years"

I wonder if the split across gender lines is still the same.

let1tra1n2• 13 years ago

Across the HC a couple days or maybe even a week ago. I saw a map posted here that predicted the odds over a colorful map across north america of exactly what you are looking for. just so you know.

let1tra1n2• 13 years ago

I mean HN

Reply

qwerta• 13 years ago

I think major reason is housing price. If you want to leave local safety net of relatives and friends, you must be able to survive on your own. You must also have savings for first couple of months. Not possible if housing is too expensive compared to salary.

Reply

gexla2• 13 years ago

This article seemed strange to me. It started out talking about how mobile people in the U.S. were for moving to where jobs are and then moved to making a case that people don't move to places with high housing costs.

The U.S. is a big place and locations with crazy housing costs are not the norm. I would think that most people moving for a job would already have a job available. I suppose there are plenty of cases where people might move without a job offer in advance because anything would be an improvement.

Maybe today people don't move as often simply because EVERYTHING is getting more expensive while the jobs people could land are staying the same or getting worse. Moving is quite expensive, especially when you don't have a job and especially when you don't have a job lined up at the place you are moving to. Gas is expensive for moving long distances. Getting into a house or an apartment is expensive. How many jobless people have the savings to withstand all this?

It would also be interesting to see more statistics. For example, where were people moving to and from when the rates were the highest? What industries were supporting the places these people moved to? Maybe the decline of jobs that could take just about anyone, in large numbers and paid well (manufacturing) contributed to the decline in mobility. There really isn't anything which could take the place of engineering.

Though people may be less mobile today, the options for that mobility will always be great. The U.S. is a huge nation with a lot of diversity. You can't really compare mobility in a nation like the U.S. with 50 states to a small country like that of Denmark or Sweden.

Reply

andyking• 13 years ago

But in a small country like Denmark or Sweden, citizens there are also citizens of the EU and so can freely live and work in 27 countries with minimal bureaucratic hassle. Language barriers notwithstanding, it makes the EU a lot more like the wide-open market of the USA.

Reply

gexla2• 13 years ago

Ah, that's very true. Good point!

Reply

mattlutze2• 13 years ago

Many, many people are moving from Greece, Italy and Spain to Germany for this very reason.

Reply

Kliment• 13 years ago

28 now.

Reply

dalore2• 13 years ago

If your healthcare is tied to your job in the USA, wouldn't that impede social mobility? If you can't change jobs because you would lose cover, how are you meant to move around?

Reply

Aqua_Geek2• 13 years ago

Your new job usually offers healthcare to replace your old. True, the coverage can be different - sometimes greatly so. It’s one of the factors you take into account when deciding to change jobs.

Reply

billmalarky2• 13 years ago

But you still can't move without having a new job lined up in the new place then. As someone who has recently moved to a new place by getting a remote job offer first, I'll tell you that it's a heck of a lot harder than getting a job in person.

Not saying it's not possible to move somewhere sight unseen and without health insurance (since that's presumably what older generations did) but it's still much higher risk than staying put.

Reply

dalore2• 13 years ago

But if you have a preexisting condition, you could be denied you're new job because of it. This creates an environment where the best worker for the job isn't doing it, leading to market inefficiencies.

Reply

jokoon• 13 years ago

living in france, 28 years old, I so want to go to the US

Reply

bluedino• 13 years ago

I've really struggled to understand why people will stay living in a certain area, unemployed, for years and years. Whether it's in a rustbelt city where the factories have shut down 20 years ago or a rural city where the only jobs are at Walmart or McDonalds, if you give people unemployment pay, they won't move.

I hear all the excuses for them not moving. It's too expensive, they'll uproot their families, etc. Do you think our grandparents didn't have those problems when they moved from the south to the rust belt to take those long-gone factory jobs?

It used to be people moved to where the jobs were. Now they are content to stay where the checks come.

Reply

innino• 13 years ago

Maybe now that the early phases of globalisation have settled down and all the frontiers have dried up, the global culture of movement has died down. It's a lot harder to think of moving as a possibility, let alone a good possibility, when it isn't part of the zeitgeist. People used to do it a lot in the 1800s especially, and it was something you could get swept along in - and there was an excitement of going to a fresh place where most people were new as well, economic opportunities and social relations were still up in the air.

Now you can trade a grind in one settled area for a slightly more profitable grind in another. With the tradeoff of losing contact with your whole social milieu and having to start a lot of things from scratch in the new place, while you're surrounded by people who have a lot more than you because they've been grinding in that place for years.

Not appealing, so it's no surprise that it's mainly the highly-educated who can a) seek high value economic opportunities and b) are guaranteed a welcoming social reception from university or work colleagues :)

People like us should be more generous about the incentives governing the lives of the new post-mobility local cultures.

Reply

saraid216• 13 years ago

If you're right, that makes the prospects of space colonization a little less optimistic.

Reply

jchrisa• 13 years ago

I moved from the Bay Area back to Portland to work remotely, so I fit in these statistics. I did it because Portland has a more laid-back focus on quality of life and I'm able to live without a car here.

Reply

hkarthik2• 13 years ago

My parents and I came to the US in 1981 and landed in Philadelphia. Over the next 32 years, my parents moved roughly every 9 years across state lines.

The mobility which my parents enjoyed was really tied to a reasonable cost of housing across the places they lived and a stable job market. My Dad generally could stay in one company for 9 years without moving. And he's never experienced a layoff. The one time he came close was due to an acquisition where the acquiring company offered every engineer a full relocation package to move to the midwest OR a 1 year severance to find a new job.

I look at the situation today, and I find the picture to be very different. Many housing markets are largely out of reach, many hiring companies are extremely volatile, and the salary differences across state lines are modest when compared to cost of living differences.

When things are like that, it's hard to justify moving and losing a social circle, uprooting kids, and being farther away from family members.

Reply

consultant23522• 13 years ago

lol, a one year severance package. That sounds like fantasy land to me.

Reply

hkarthik2• 13 years ago

I know, right? BTW this was in 1999.

Reply

100k• 13 years ago

Paul Krugman has commented about this phenomenon as well. Based on the literature he says it is due to lack of regional specialization. Interstate goods shipping has also declined. This is mentioned in the article but dismissed.

Personally, having recently conducted an interstate move, I think it is a combination of the lack of specialization (My career as a programmer was going fine elsewhere) and cost of living as mentioned in the article. Moving is expensive, especially when you have an underwater house, and it's hard to leave your social network behind. If you're moving for a raise from $18/hour in Ohio to $25/hour in San Francisco, that's not worth it.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/america-is-flat/

"[W]ithin the United States, at least, people are moving less — a lot less. Greg Kaplan and Sam Schulhofer-Wohl (pdf) say that interstate mobility has been cut in half over the past 20 years. And interestingly, they suggest that this is in part because regions have become more similar: increasingly, different parts of the country are producing the same kinds of things and employing the same kind of people, so that there’s less reason to move.

This story actually matches up with what the new economic geography literature says, which is that regional specialization peaked around a century ago and has been declining since."

Reply

crazygringo• 13 years ago

We might similarly observe, “Nobody moves to that state anymore. It offers too much economic opportunity.”

This article rests on the premise that all you need for a higher salary is to live somewhere where salaries are higher. But that is highly questionable -- just because they're higher in general, doesn't mean they'll be higher for you. At no point does the author convincingly explain that American unemployment is a problem of geographical mismatch, instead of the far more likely case of skills mismatch.

If labor markets were operating efficiently, construction workers, along with electricians, plumbers... would receive enough compensation to live near the places where their work is most needed. But our labor markets are not efficient; rather, they are rigged and skewed, offering too much compensation to people with some skill sets (merging companies and writing derivatives, for example) and not enough to others whose skills are often just as hard to learn (e.g., brick laying and teaching children to read) and often more vital to society.

What? How exactly does the author magically come to the conclusion? As far as I can tell, construction work and plumbing and electrical wiring is all getting done. (Never listen to businessmen complaining about a lack of workers, it's just a masked complaint that they're having to pay higher wages.) What evidence is there that our labor markets are "rigged and skewed"? By whom? It's like the author doesn't understand the basic concepts of supply and demand in a labor market.

It's extremely interesting that Americans are moving less. I'd love to know more of why. But tying it into arguments about career mobility seems highly dubious, at best. It's ridiculous, and almost patronizing, to suppose that people's careers nationwide are being held back by not being able to live in downtown metro areas. It's a big country out there.

Reply

mattsfrey• 13 years ago

Yeah I think housing markets are much more the problem. I just moved from a dead end place in upstate NY to Denver, CO, seeking the better job market for software developers. I'd have loved to have gone right to the main nerve in SV but the housing prices are just so insane it was beyond my budget.

Reply

jellicle• 13 years ago

At no point does the author convincingly explain that American unemployment is a problem of geographical mismatch, instead of the far more likely case of skills mismatch.

If it were a case of either of those, it would be visible in the data. Which it isn't. American unemployment - and European unemployment, for that matter - is a result of the class warfare practiced by the rich against the poor in recent years. Paul Krugman suggests Republican policies are responsible for 2% extra unemployment, nationwide:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/the-gop-tax/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/what-a-drag-2/

High unemployment is a result of policies that have artificially suppressed demand for goods and services by taking money out of the hands of people who will actually spend it, resulting in an overall excess supply of labor and low demand for labor and therefore, low wages.

Reply

muzz2• 13 years ago

"Average earnings in the valley grew by nearly 40 percent between 1997 and 2000"

Taking wage data from the massive tech bubble is some serious cherry picking.

Earlier in the same paragraph:

"in 2005 the [San Jose] metro area approved permits for only 5,700 new units"

Again, this also cherry picking, as the area was just coming out of one of its biggest busts-- the aftermath of the tech bubble (the number of tech jobs is still not as high as it was in 2000). Although one would never know it from reading the piece.

Reply

cafard2• 13 years ago

Ah, yes. Back around 1980, a piece in WM gave an number of hours flown for the USAF during the previous year or so, compared it with hours for some period about 10 years previous, and suggested that the decline was due to the Air Force's appetite for ever more complex and high maintenance airplanes. That the earlier period had been in the middle of the Vietnam War they did not mention.

Reply

the_watcher• 13 years ago

This was really interesting as an economic look at migration. I moved from LA to Austin because I couldn't stand the city and have loved it here, but one of the things I've loved most is starting from scratch and being forced into meeting new people and doing new things. I've loved it so much that I can't see myself staying in one place for too long until I am ready to have a family.

Reply

Glyptodon2• 13 years ago

I know a decent number of people (often with college degrees) who've moved to Arizona because they could afford to get by working at Best Buy or Target or similar, but couldn't at their previous locations in New York, California, and similar.

I think for the average person (who, let's remind, is probably part of a household making $50k or less per year) cost of living (and particularly housing) is what matters more than taxes or wages.

Reply

muzz2• 13 years ago

Perhaps you may have some anecdotes; however, there has been study of this.

Income in areas of high housing costs more than offsets those costs, so that the net result is ($income - $housing) is higher

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2011/12/us-cities-w...

Reply

Glyptodon2• 13 years ago

I'm sure that's true for people who for whom that's true, however, that 'study' is very anecdotal itself, and quite ridiculous. It doesn't address where people with low wages live, income distribution, and other complexities. The group I'm referring to is a group who will not have $35k+ left over for house no matter where they live, and is pretty much invisible in that study. If anything the article you linked is showing that higher incomes live in places with higher housing costs and make more after paying for housing also, which is a different conclusion than is claimed by the article.

Reply

toomuchtodo3• 13 years ago

Is that why I keep reading about the BART strike and not being able to get anything but a "nice crack den" for $3K/month in San Francisco?

Reply

lifeisstillgood• 13 years ago

I love a simple Gladwell-style opinion piece that actually makes me think with a few carefully revealed key facts.

My big takeaway here is that America is not and never has been one country. In Europe we are wringing our hands that the Southern states are too poor and being carried by the richer North, that migration must be controlled lest we depopulate a country and why can't we be more like America who just seems to go from strength to strength

yet, it's not true - all we fear in Europe apparently happens in the US anyway - different areas have different economic cycles, mass migration, vastly different state laws and yet it seems to balance out ...

Oddly I guess Anerica is a small working example of Keynes' International Monetary Fund - perhaps call the Fed a Continental Monetary Reserve.

It also suggests that acting more like a proper country might not be very good for you.

edit: The IMF was originally conceive as a way to balance out economic cycles - countries would pay in in good times, draw down in bad times. It seems however that politicans like the spend in bad times, but happily forget the pay in in good times part.

Reply

dxbydt• 13 years ago

The article asserts - "So where have people been moving to...Generally to southern Sun Belt states"

If you compute absolute population growth from 1969 to 2011 on a per-county basis, using publicly available demographic stats, the top-20 winners are

     ----
     Arizona        Mohave        7.38100563286945
     Georgia        Paulding        7.4570788900017675
     Virginia        Loudoun        7.954704312171496
     Georgia        Henry        8.023498694516972
     Texas        Hood        8.128975265017667
     Florida        Collier        8.313786154239164
     Texas        Denton        8.504770344932634
     Georgia        Fayette        8.909350004596856
     Texas        Montgomery        9.526487258446021
     Utah        Washington        10.029741513547181
     Florida        Hernando        10.384018414995067
     Georgia        Forsyth        10.637015231025215
     Florida        Osceola        10.880533448053345
     Texas        Rockwall        10.907133440749963
     Georgia        Gwinnett        11.063892016788289
     Texas        Fort Bend        11.168507788849015
     Texas        Williamson        11.323119312014695
     Colorado        Summit        11.39344262295082
     Texas        Collin        11.507137247655564
     Florida        Flagler        21.135939986360537
     Colorado        Douglas        36.49576488706366
     ------

So Douglas county in Colorado grew the fastest, 3600% growth! Indeed, it had a population of about 8000 folks in 1969 & now averages about 300000 => thats your 3600%
Generally speaking, the South is a big winner - GA, TX, FL, AZ...
3139 counties ranked by population growth in my github repo here - http://bit.ly/16RsjWa
Here's some Scala code for crunching this data yourself : http://bit.ly/1hZDQny

Reply

sillysaurus2• 13 years ago

Absolute population growth includes immigration, so those numbers may be skewed somewhat.

Reply

ido2• 13 years ago

So what's the reason? Air-conditioning having become widespread since the 60s + low taxes & vast amounts empty(therefor cheap) land in those areas?

Reply

toomuchtodo3• 13 years ago

Cheap cost of living? I live in Chicago, but the rest of my extended family lives in Tampa, FL. I make $120K/year in Chicago, but due to lower costs of living, only need to make $90K/year in Tampa for the same lifestyle.

Reply

anoncowherd• 13 years ago

That's right. You shouldn't leave California just because there's no way to make a living anymore! Verily, if you just stay put, a way to pay taxes again shall be revealed!

Reply

Stay Put, Young Man

Related Stories