[sterileopinions]

>Hundreds of millions of other Americans do fine not living in the Bay Area.

Do they though? Not sure why you singled out the bay area, but populations in less populated, non-coastal regions do pretty poor all around.

* Not as well educated

* Lower incomes

* Less savings

* Higher chance of medical issues

* Drug issues

* Higher suicide rates

* Pockets of STD's spikes that happen every few years

I'll pay the extra $1000 a month to be surrounded by good food and constructive outlets.

[oceanplexian]

The US has over 300 cities with a population of more than 100,000 people. I’ve lived in a few of these, as well as San Francisco. It’s nonsense to say that none of these places have good, diverse food options or opportunities to make a great income.

In fact, if you pull up the 25 best places to live list that US news does, you’ll find that other than Santa Rosa and San Jose, nothing else in the Bay Area makes the list.

[autokad]

> "The US has over 300 cities with a population of more than 100,000 people"

I hate being pedantic, but the US doesn't have 100 cities with 100k+ people, but I do get your overall point

edit: oops was wrong, somehow I was thinking 300 even though I read and typed 100. My mistake

[civilian]

I love being pedantic, scroll down this list ya dingbat!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

[CapricornNoble]

>>>* Drug issues

>>>* Pockets of STD's spikes that happen every few years

These seem like "those who live in glass houses should not throw bricks" positions to me. [1][2][3] And if you look at the STI maps by region, it's the poor Southeast states with the highest disease rates, not the Flyover Country interior (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Missouri, etc...)

[1]https://alt1053.radio.com/blogs/kcbs-radio/san-francisco-has...

[2]https://www.sfaf.org/resource-library/hiv-hep-c-statistics/

[3]https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/San-F...

[sterileopinions]

You literally actively went out of your way to ignore information easily accessible within 15 seconds of a simple google search, directly from the CDC.

It's actually kind of funny you devoted that much effort into making yourself feel right, while not even being able to negate what was said with any kind of substantial source.

[CapricornNoble]

Please share the data to which you are referring.

[sterileopinions]

I love people like you. I truly do.

This was so so easy to find, yet you somehow managed to accomplish not finding it. You then went through the effort of creating a post on HN pretending that this information didn't exist. Just to make some point because you got insufferably offended about data.

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/nchhstpatlas/maps.html

>These seem like "those who live in glass houses should not throw bricks" positions to me.

The level of disingenuous discourse allowed on this forum is silly.

[dang]

I didn't notice this comment sooner, but as you know from previous accounts, attacking others like you did in this thread is a bannable offense on HN. If you keep breaking the site guidelines this way, we're going to have to ban you again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[runako]

Are these things true of Chicago & Austin as well, or is the the common misconception that "non-coastal" regions means "rural"?

In any case, you cite

> * Lower incomes

> * Less savings

in response to an article about a person who is miserable living in a garage. Is it strange to consider that some would rather be "worse" off living in a larger purpose-built dwelling somewhere else? Perhaps they can get paid on an SF pay scale and buy housing in cheaper markets?

> * Higher suicide rates

SF is literally building a suicide barrier on its iconic bridge.

TL;DR; It's okay that people want to live where they want to live. People thrive in different environments.

[dragonwriter]

> Are these things true of Chicago & Austin as well, or is the the common misconception that "non-coastal" regions means "rural"?

Chicago is on the longest contiguous coastline in the US; it isn't rural, it's also not non-coastal.

[runako]

Good point! If we're stretching the definition of "coastal" to include proximity to bodies of water, we could also include cities adjacent to rivers and other lakes as "coastal." Then, we can add Austin, San Antonio, Memphis, Dallas, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, and of course Detroit to the ranks of coastal cities. (Depending on who draws the metro area, Atlanta could also be a coastal city using this definition.)

But that's not the grouping of cities commonly referred to as being "coastal." I obviously know that non-coastal != rural, but that equivalence is frequently used in American discourse. See also: "flyover country", etc.

[theworld572]

You forgot to add "Well actually" at the start of your sentence.

[bobbydroptables]

Longer than Alaska?

[dragonwriter]

No, I think the original statement is wrong, the Great Lakes coastline that Chicago is on is the longest contiguous coastline in the 48 contiguous states, not the whole US.

[sterileopinions]

>Are these things true of Chicago & Austin as well,

Those are populous cities.

>in response to an article about a person who is miserable living in a garage.

Something something anecdotes.

HN is complete garbage holy shit.