[SeanAnderson]

I live in SF and spend a fair amount of time thinking about its poor 5-year economic outlook. It's not great, but I am curious how it compares to other metros?

If I were to move from SF, wanted to live in a metro area, and was uncomfortable living in a very red state - where should I consider? Where is thriving? I have a good amount of friends in Portland, but Portland is adjacent SF in terms of poor economic recovery and it's not especially tech-focused. So, I think there's at least a bit more at play here.

There's a seismic shift occurring with WFH, Starlink, etc. Yes, San Francisco is near the bottom of many post-Covid economic recovery lists, but are there other metros that are on sound financial footing if 30%+ of their populace chooses a more suburban/rural lifestyle?

[TuringNYC]

I can only offer anecdotes, but:

1. NYC is booming IMHO

2. Pre-pandemic, there was barely room to walk on the sidewalks in many parts of NYC, now it is better (presumably as people come in 2x a week, not 5x). Some subways have seats now, but many are still standing-room-only.

3. For the last 8yrs pre-pandemic, I used to go to SF/SV 4x to 5x a year for work/conferences...My last Cali trip (cancelled) was literally April 2020 for NVIDIA GTC...I havent been in Cali since 2020. Most has been replaced with Zoom, some has gone to other cities.

[tempsy]

A "booming" NYC is not necessarily a purely positive thing.

SF and NYC used to be fairly comparable as far as cost of living goes but now renting in SF is comparable to a dozen other metros (eg. $3k for a 1 bed, under $4k for a 2 bed) but in NYC it's a now an absurdly expensive outlier eg. $5k+ for a 1 bed in a convenient area in Manhattan or Brooklyn.

Beyond that eating out/going out/uber+taxis all seemed much more expensive in NYC than SF when I visited last month.

[woodruffw]

NYC is indeed absurdly expensive (and getting worse), but: you're being taken for a ride if someone is trying to rent you a 1BR for $5K.

I live in a convenient (and "cool") area and pay less than a third of that. The only 1BRs that I'm aware of that go for anywhere close to that are "luxury" rentals, which tend to be worse anyways (newer construction means thinner walls, etc.).

[tempsy]

You're suggesting paying $1600/mo for your own place is a really good area of NYC is more the norm than paying $5k?

That's simply untrue. Average 1 beds on Zumper for all of Manhattan is $4k. In more central areas downtown it's absolutely going to be more right now. https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/manhattan-ny

And if you rent something that requires a brokers fee then that's another ~2 months of rent you're paying on your initial lease.

[woodruffw]

I said I live in a "cool" area, not midtown Manhattan. I don't live in Manhattan at all, although I did for over 20 years.

Looking at 1BR rentals in Bushwick and Ridgewood (not my areas, but similarly considered "cool"), the average is between $1800 and $2500. Studios average $1400 and $2100.

[tempsy]

You're still exaggerating. Streeteasy says median for Bushwick is $3200. Zumper has it at $2850 for a 1 bedroom https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/new-york-ny/bushwick

Yes, it's possible to rent for cheaper in the outer boroughs hence why I specifically said central and convenient. If something is $1800 it's because it's a dump or a tiny studio. It's not a normal amount rent someone is paying at all for their own place right now.

[renlo]

> Bushwick

How was I able to sense that you lived in Bushwick before you stated it? :P . That said, Bushwick only makes sense (to me) if you don't need to commute.

[fundad]

What is with the bad economic outlook talk? The job market is amazing. Business revenue is benefiting from high prices.

A lot of outdated commercial real estate in SF needs to be converted to public housing but that doesn't mean the economy is bad. I think there is a narrative from NIMBY's who think it's bad that housing is going to be created.

[bityard]

Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas. I'm a liberal-leaning moderate but many of my favorite people (friends and family) are conservative, and many of my hobbies tend to be populated mainly by the conservative demographic. You'll always find people here and there who won't give you the time of day if you're not on Team Blue or Team Red, but my take on it is, if I can't make friends with people who hold beliefs different from my own, then maybe I'm the asshole.

That said, if it really matters that much to you, you'll find plenty of swing states with mid-sized cities in the Midwest. Upsides are low cost of living, 20 minutes from the center of the city to cornfields. Downsides are you can't go too far north if you don't like cold winters.

No area is thriving right now thanks to the recession, but it sounds like you are aiming for remote work anyway, so why does that matter? If I were in your shoes, I would pick a place that has the geography, climate, and cost of living I am looking for and not worry so much about the politics and economic prospects of the area.

[Tiktaalik]

The thing is that personal politics don't end up being a personal thing because they result in real policies that guide real material outcomes.

At this point saying one is uninterested in living in a red state could be about party politics, but it also could just as much about not being inclined to subject onesself to starkly higher risks of being shot and killed (the outcome of someone's personal politics).

eg. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/23/surprising...

> In reality, the region the Big Apple comprises most of is far and away the safest part of the U.S. mainland when it comes to gun violence, while the regions Florida and Texas belong to have per capita firearm death rates (homicides and suicides) three to four times higher than New York’s. On a regional basis it’s the southern swath of the country — in cities and rural areas alike — where the rate of deadly gun violence is most acute, regions where Republicans have dominated state governments for decades.

[oatmeal1]

Avoiding red states to avoid being shot would be extremely dumb for many reasons.

1. Cities and neighborhoods in any state can be safe, even in the states with the most shootings

2. If you have enough money to choose to live in another state, you're probably not going to be living in an extremely poor area that is the most likely to be beset with gun violence

3. Other commonplace things are much more likely to kill you than being shot (cars, for example).

[CapstanRoller]

Mass shootings aren't correlated with poverty. Guns are expensive.

Most mass shooters are disaffected folks in the "middle class" who have money to acquire weapons (or access to weapons via relatives) and time to spend immersing themselves in online right-wing cesspits.

Actual poor people are too busy trying to grind and survive.

[dffdsa432]

The most violent cities in America are all blue cities.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/most-viol...

[mikeryan]

Shit. Your own source disproves that if you use the most recent data

https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/most-dang...

Take off the minimum population requirement of 100k residents and the most dangerous metro areas are all small, rural conservative towns. https://www.statista.com/statistics/433603/us-metropolitan-a...

[CapstanRoller]

>muh red cities

>muh blue cities

>deflecting from the larger point and arguing about team colors

It's all so tiresome.

[theironhammer]

And most of that is done by drug dealers fighting over turf. The shootings are highly concentrated in certain geographic areas.

[m0ped]

Most cities are blue cities

[red-iron-pine]

Virtually all large cities in the US are blue, even in otherwise rabidly red states.

[bombcar]

Mass shootings are technically any that have a victim count over a certain number and the vast majority of those are committed by criminals with cheap weapons.

Guns are not expensive, they're way cheaper than a car. The Hipoint C9 retails new for $199. If you can afford a mobile phone (read: almost everyone in the USA) you can afford multiple guns.

[theironhammer]

Perhaps you should have a look at this book. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/william-kleinknec...

Some Red States are an absolute mess. Some of their stats resemble third world countries.

Their education systems are shoddy. Their drinking water systems are dangerous to health. Taxes are shameful: low taxes for the wealthy but high sales taxes which hurt the poor the most.

Just for starters.

[alephnerd]

Not a fan of the GOP and I have actively worked with the DNC, but using HDI (which is the goto metric for comparing development across regions), most US states Red and Blue are roughly comparable to other western European peers.

The states that do lag significantly (MS+WV) are comparable to Portugal/Poland/Greece on developmental metrics, but they only represent ~1% of the entire American population and are anomalies due to historical social economic factors (that said, this should not mean that we should give up on them - we should in fact double down and invest in upgrading social infrastructure in laggard states).

That said, every single American state and territory fall strictly in the "Very Highly Developed" category from a development standpoint and calling them "3rd world" is only minimizing the actual suffering that exists in less developed countries as well as orientalizing actual poverty upliftment in former "3rd world regions" like China, India, Turkey, Mexico, ASEAN, the Warsaw Bloc, the Balkans, Southern Europe, South America, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.

US State HDIs - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...

European HDIs - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_...

[theironhammer]

Fair enough. From the link, I see that the states with the lowest HDIs are Red States while the highest HDIs are mostly all Blue States.

[dumbotron]

> Some of their stats resemble third world countries.

Have you walked through the TL?

Comparing California and Texas can be interesting because the states are both dominated by a single party, so you see how both ideologies can go wrong. With Texas being like a developing country, I'm reminded of the winter power outage. They love free markets. It's not worth it to harden the electric grid for an event that rare that only lasts a few days. Picking on California, its K-12 education is in the bottom quartile.

[zbrozek]

I live in the SFBA and have far worse uptime and far higher prices than Texas. The smugness from Californians wrt/grid does not make any sense to me. I would trade for Texas electrical grid performance in less than a heartbeat.

There was a five hour long outage on Monday while the weather was perfectly lovely. And more than a week cumulative outage in March when the weather was merely a little wet.

[seanmcdirmid]

Most of the gun deaths in red states are suicides. So maybe the states are just very depressing places to live in? Like Wyoming outside of Jackson Hole, is a tough place to l is so has the nation’s highest suicide rate.

[robotresearcher]

Wyoming and Montana have the two highest gun ownership rates of US states, and the two highest suicide rates. It’s probably not a coincidence.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/...

[benburleson]

Texas sure seems to be an outlier though.

[TexanFeller]

Native Texan living in the city. There has been only one time in my life I was near gun violence and it was 1/2 mile away. That didn't make me hate guns, it just made me consider concealed carrying again. Zero people I know have been near shootings or are worried about shootings, it's a nonissue in the real world and only seems scary because of news coverage.

[theironhammer]

Don't mess with Texas. It's already a mess.

[buzzert]

Utah as well. Arizona also has a much higher standard of living than California.

[dffdsa432]

This is such a propaganda piece. NYC has a per capita murder rate of 5.5 according to its latest report. There were 40 states with a lower murder rate [1]. The highest murder rates are all in blue cities [2]

1-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...

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

[CapstanRoller]

Except we're not talking about overall murder rate, but rather about violence (both individual and systemic) specifically targeted at gender, sexual, and racial minorities.

[ImPostingOnHN]

your comment keeps confusing, or switching back and forth between, states and cities, which one is your point based on?

states were the original topic, and it looks like New York is actually the 2nd lowest by 2019 numbers

[dffdsa432]

What percentage of gays and minorities were shot in Provo or Lincoln compared to cities like San Francisco and Chicago? I am assuming you have statistics to back your statements.

The highest gun violence rates are in heavily blue cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis and Baltimore.

[CapstanRoller]

Shooting isn't the only form of repression. It's not even the most prominent or insidious form. There's a big difference between murder and a hate crime.

Cop violence isn't counted in murder stats, by the way, because it's "lawful" and they're effectively above the law.

[ESTheComposer]

In 2020 California had more hate crime than Texas: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crim...

Edit: Actually I checked 2017-2020 and every year had way more hate crimes than Texas. CA has ~33% more population, but had triple the hate crimes. In 2021 CA somehow dropped from thousand+ hate crimes to like 40, so I'm guessing something is up with the data there.

[shjake]

> In 2020 California had more hate crime than Texas

Well there were significantly more cases of rape reported in Sweden than in most African or South Asian countries (and I mean up to 40 times more or so…). Something similar might be at play here.

[TexanFeller]

> Florida and Texas belong to have per capita firearm death rates (homicides and suicides) three to four times higher

It makes no sense to put suicides in the same bucket as homicides, please stop trying to manipulate the discussion this way. There are more gun deaths from suicide than murder and accidents put together, so it massively skews the numbers.

[diversionfactor]

The latest CDC Homicide Mortality by State numbers show neither Florida nor Texas even in the top 20:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality...

Although many of the highest homicide states are in the South, such as Mississippi and Alabama, many are not, such as New Mexico and Illinois.

Region-wise, the contention "the region the Big Apple comprises most of is far and away the safest part of the U.S. mainland when it comes to gun violence" is not supported by the data. Taking the latest FBA violent crimes (2016 is the latest I could find online broken down by Metropolitan Statistical Area) homicide rates per 100,000 inhabitants:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

The safest MSAs in America, tied with zero homicides in 2016, are:

Albany, OR M.S.A. Bangor, ME M.S.A. Casper, WY M.S.A. Columbus, IN M.S.A. Dalton, GA M.S.A. Danville, IL M.S.A. Iowa City, IA M.S.A. Lewiston-Auburn, ME M.S.A. Missoula, MT M.S.A. Ocean City, NJ M.S.A. Oshkosh-Neenah, WI M.S.A. Rochester, MN M.S.A. St. George, UT M.S.A.

These are all relatively small, here are some larger MSAs with lower homicide rates than New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA M.S.A.:

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH M.S.A. Gainesville, FL M.S.A. Midland, TX M.S.A. Santa Fe, NM M.S.A. Urban Honolulu, HI M.S.A. Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR M.S.A College Station-Bryan, TX M.S.A. Fargo, ND-MN M.S.A. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI M.S.A. Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH M.S.A. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA M.S.A. El Paso, TX M.S.A. Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL M.S.A. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA M.S.A. San Diego-Carlsbad, CA M.S.A. Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL M.S.A.

Thus the contention of "the Big Apple comprises most of is far and away the safest part of the U.S. mainland when it comes to gun violence" does not appear supported by the data.

(EDIT: The most violent top 20 MSAs in the USA belie the notion of homicidal violence as being associated with a particular political party, on either side; it is a pan-American issue: Guayama, Puerto Rico M.S.A. San Juan-Carolina-Caguas, Puerto Rico M.S.A. Ponce, Puerto Rico M.S.A. Fairbanks, AK M.S.A. Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, MI M.D. New Orleans-Metairie, LA M.S.A. Memphis, TN-MS-AR M.S.A. Mayaguez, Puerto Rico M.S.A. Mobile, AL M.S.A. Philadelphia, PA M.D. Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD M.S.A. Savannah, GA M.S.A. Auburn-Opelika, AL M.S.A Flint, MI M.S.A. Hammond, LA M.S.A. Salinas, CA M.S.A. Chicago-Naperville-Arlington Heights, IL M.D. Albany, GA M.S.A. Montgomery, AL M.S.A. Shreveport-Bossier City, LA M.S.A.)

[elieri]

If you're a person who anticipates ever needing reproductive health care, it's not a matter of Team Blue versus Team Red. It's not limited to elective abortion either.

See e.g. https://katv.com/news/nation-world/idaho-hospital-to-end-bab...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/04/21/abortion-ba...

[lotsofpulp]

> Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas

State laws have benefited me or the people I care about in the following ways:

-my wife had 8 more weeks of parental leave

-16 of my wife’s parental leave weeks were paid leave from the state’s family leave act

-state laws provide paid family and medical leave in case I should need it in the future

-my wife and daughter have an easy time finding access to all women’s healthcare, and will not have to worry about their body and well being being sacrificed during pregnancy

-minimum wage laws require a much higher minimum exempt salary, and overtime laws prevent having to work all day without commensurate pay

-non compete bans ensure we have a more balanced playing field against employers

-free breakfast and lunch in school for all kids

I cannot list them all, and it is not all rainbows and sunshine, but claiming that the way a state is managed has little effect on one’s life is nonsense.

[LeanderK]

There are also LGBTQ rights. What if your child ends up coming out to you? Just because you're not part of it is not a valid reason. It's like saying you don't care about racism because you don't personally experience it even though you don't belong to a minority yourself.

[matthewaveryusa]

I think the default is not to care about anything that doesn't affect you personally. I think it's the wrong approach to think folks should care because it's so obvious to you that they should. It's far more effective to explain why someone should care from their point of you than hand-waving 'everyone should care about racism because racism bad'

[slg]

>Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas. I'm a liberal-leaning moderate but many of my favorite people (friends and family) are conservative, and many of my hobbies tend to be populated mainly by the conservative demographic.

This is a comment that originates in privilege. The concern for many people is not simply that they would have to be friends with conservative people. The concern is that the government and the local community will be hostile to them. This is true for a variety of targeted groups including LGBT+ people, ethnic minorities, or even just women. For example, it is objectively riskier to be pregnant in places like Kansas City because local abortion laws rule out certain medical procedures that could save the mother's life[1]. That isn't something a woman in a blue state needs to worry about.

[1] - https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/health-care/article...

[prepend]

> …hostile to them. This is true for a variety of targeted groups including LGBT+ people, ethnic minorities, or even just women

I suppose that’s a personal design and a trade off that you and others need to make.

I live in a “red state” and am described by several of the groups you mention and don’t feel the government nor community is hostile to me. I think it’s hard to understand beforehand what is hostile and how much hostility is worth peace of mind, prosperity, etc. That being said, I think it’s possible that everywhere has some unpleasant aspects and I wish that it wasn’t a “pick your poison” situation of having to choose between $5k/month rent and piles of human poo and not having to travel out of state for an abortion.

[slg]

>I suppose that’s a personal design and a trade off that you and others need to make.

And that was effectively my point. The comment I replied to stated their opinion that it is universally bad to make this decision on a personal level. My counter did not say it was universally bad for people who belong to any of those groups to live in a red state. I said many people in those groups would feel that the local government and community are hostile to them. That isn't disproven when some members of those groups, such as yourself, don't feel the same way.

OP was applying how they feel to everyone likely because they don't need to worry about any of these concerns. I was reminding everyone that many people don't feel like they have the choice to ignore politics. And yes, if we want to be pedantic everyone technically does have that choice. We have the personal freedom to live our lives as the "this is fine" dog if we want (not saying that is you in this instance, I'm just speaking generally).

[prepend]

My point is that likely GP and others are aware of these concerns and make their decision knowing the consequences, not that they are oblivious due to privilege.

I was trying to communicate that we should assume best intentions and not that someone is stupid and “privileged.” I put privileged in quotes not because it doesn’t exist, it does, but assuming someone’s privilege is not a good idea and few know others well enough to do so.

[slg]

>My point is that likely GP and others are aware of these concerns

I don't think OP was aware. They did not say that letting politics influence where they live was a bad decision for them personally. They said they believed it was a bad decision. There was no qualifier. They were stating it universally.

They are also elsewhere in this thread not understanding why a trans person would have trouble making friends with conservative people. I don't think this person deserves the benefit of the doubt you are giving them.

I also didn't call OP "stupid" and "privileged" is not an insult.

[LeanderK]

is there really no middle ground (not an American)? What about cities like Seattle or Boston (just guessing here)? For me, the thought feels a bit like just going back in time. I mean there are still issues everywhere but this is so drastic and feels like you're back to constantly fighting for really basic rights.

This comment also reads a bit like it's ok for you if you don't personally feel hostility, so this might only be true for your personal situation. I don't think it's really that much of a personal question because different groups feel different amounts of hostility. Will you just ignore them?

[red-iron-pine]

> is there really no middle ground (not an American)? What about cities like Seattle or Boston (just guessing here)? For me, the thought feels a bit like just going back in time. I mean there are still issues everywhere but this is so drastic and feels like you're back to constantly fighting for really basic rights.

Keeping the political and social narratives focused on fights for basic rights ensures that no one passes laws that impact the ruling class.

Kinda like the Trump era tax cut, or how minimum wage hasn't changed. Meanwhile all everyone is talking about is guns and abortion.

[_gabe_]

> places like Kansas City because local abortion laws rule out certain medical procedures that could save the mother's life

What?

The headline of the article you linked literally says:

> Missouri, Kansas hospitals that denied emergency abortion broke the law

Also from the article you linked:

> But federal law, which requires doctors to treat patients in emergency situations, trumps those state laws

> In Kansas, when Farmer visited the hospital, abortions were still legal up to 22 weeks. It’s unclear why University of Kansas Health refused to offer Farmer one.

It's clear that the hospitals in these cases were the ones breaking the law by refusing to treat these women in need of emergency care.

[slg]

What federal investigators say after the fact doesn't change what happened in the moment. The hospital refused the treatment during a medical emergency. The article also quotes a hospital spokesperson who sticks by their behavior suggesting they will do this again in the future.

At the very least, doctors need to think about these issue during medical emergencies in many red states in ways that they don't have to in blue states. I personally don't want my doctor to have to consult legal counsel before giving me the treatment the doctor knows I need.

[DangitBobby]

It's now difficult in many states for a doctor to know ahead of time if actions they take for the health of the mother which risk terminating a pregnancy will be determined criminal in a court of law. And in some states, literally any relative of a fetus has standing in civil court to sue a doctor if the doctor's actions result in termination of a pregnancy, with huge minimum payouts for successful litigation. Idaho for example [0].

0. https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/01/05/idaho-supreme-court-u...

[seanmcdirmid]

When faced with competing laws, doctors without law degrees are not going to sort things out as efficiently when compared to lawyers in a 10 year court battle.

[FrontierPsych]

>This is a comment that originates in privilege.

This sounds like a comment about privilege that originates in privilege.

The person just expressed his or her opinion, and bandying words like "privilege" shuts down communication by route of shaming someone.

Not everyone is LGBT+, ethnic minority.

If someone was to offer someone $20 million per year to do a job in Kansas, I guess many people would turn it down to make a point, but no reason to crap over someone who wants to make that $20 million.

The fact of the matter is that in most red states, there are blue cities.

Texas - Austin (Travis County) - 72.8% voted for Joe Biden Georgia - Atlanta (Fulton County) - 72.6% voted for Joe Biden Arizona - Phoenix (Maricopa County) - 50.3% voted for Joe Biden North Carolina - Charlotte (Mecklenburg County) - 67.5% voted for Joe Biden Tennessee - Nashville (Davidson County) - 61.7% voted for Joe Biden Florida - Miami (Miami-Dade County) - 53.3% voted for Joe Biden Ohio - Cleveland (Cuyahoga County) - 68.1% voted for Joe Biden Indiana - Indianapolis (Marion County) - 60.2% voted for Joe Biden Missouri - Kansas City (Jackson County) - 60.7% voted for Joe Biden Utah - Salt Lake City (Salt Lake County) - 62.9% voted for Joe Biden

And remember, geographically, California is MAJORLY red. Look at the last election map. What happens if someone moves there. Sure, you get abortion in California, but your neighbors are going to still be hard-core MAGA Republicans.

I must say, it is extremely disheartening when people throw around words like "privilege" just as an easy way to shut down communication by shame. I know you'll most likely deny it, what else can you do, but it is what it is. So I'd appreciate it if people would argue their case without these types of coded words. Just my opinion, don't tell me I'm privileged or misogynist or transphobic or fat-shaming or the million other words designed to immediately shut down a conversation by name-calling. I mean, I know that's the game these days - continual virtue signalling, de-platforming, gotchas for showing the world how virtuous one is and tallying up one's "I'm good" checkmarks. And if you say you aren't or that isn't the purpose...right, ok, sure. If you say so. Whatever you say. I believe you. Right.

[ImPostingOnHN]

can you elaborate why you think the comment about privilege is wrong, rather than emphasizing that you don't like that the word was used?

> Not everyone is LGBT+, ethnic minority

yes, but some are, and ignoring concerns which apply to them because you're not personally affected by the concerns is, well, privileged - you literally have the privilege of not having to worry about right-wingers driving a car into you only because you're the wrong ethnicity or nationality, like one just did in Texas

if you feel shame as a result of this, look inward and ask why, because nobody here is shaming you for simply being privileged

[iinnPP]

The assumption that people from the LGBT+ community must be of certain political beliefs is in itself prejudice.

People don't have to do what anyone believes is best for them. They don't need anyone pressuring them to behave a certain way. They don't need that from society, or anybody. What they wear is their's to choose. What they spend time on is their own. They can do whatever and be whoever and nobody else is in any way an authority of what is or isn't good for anyone other than themselves.

Edit: I changed single person wording to reflect the actual purpose of the message.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> The assumption that people from the LGBT+ community must be of certain political beliefs is in itself prejudice.

this is an assumption you made, if anybody did, as I did not

> People don't have to do what you believe is best for them.

I didn't claim otherwise here, either

you seem extremely confused at what I said, so please re-read it, because I literally didn't mention political beliefs or forcing people to accept what's best for them at all

perhaps you're upset that such people are choosing for themselves to avoid right-wing hate, and you don't like their reasoning (they don't want to be restricted / harassed / threatened / murdered by right-wingers) ?

we can't be surprised there, given said right-wingers don't care about politics when they're mowing people down with a range rover on a sidewalk, or in a shopping mall with a gun, just for looking different than them

BTW, you never explained why you felt the comment about privilege was wrong.

[FrontierPsych]

Because "privilege" is a code word and a slur on those who do not agree, and a way to try to shut down rational conversation. Words can have more than one meaning, they can be nuanced, and they can mean something else entirely to the "in-crowd."

>like one just did in Texas

This could have happened in any state, including New York City or San Francisco or Seatle or any other liberal city and you know it. You are arguing unfairly.

>if you feel shame as a result of this, look inward and ask why, because nobody here is shaming you for simply being privileged

I didn't say that I felt that way. This is yet again another way that you are using ad hominem attacks by saying that I feel shame.

I'm sorry that you feel that you have to try to use shame to shut down dialogue.

And you seem to indicate that I am privileged. How do you know I am not a black lesbian trans woman? You have no idea.

All I am asking of you is to have a dialogue without using loaded language.

.

As it says in wikipedia:

*Loaded Language:*

"Loaded language (also known as loaded terms, strong emotive language, high-inference language and language-persuasive techniques) is rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations. This type of language is very often made vague to more effectively invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes. Loaded words and phrases have significant emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning."

And read again the last sentence.

*Ad hominem attacks*

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.

Dog whistle language

In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans. Dog whistles use language that appears normal to the majority but communicates specific things to intended audiences.

Choosing broadly appealing words such as "family values", which has extra resonance for Christians, while avoiding overt Christian moralizing that might be a turn-off for non-Christian voters. Same with many words on the left.

Code words

A code word is a word or a phrase designed to convey a predetermined meaning to an audience who know the phrase, while remaining inconspicuous to the uninitiated.

.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not familiar with these terms, but now that you are, maybe you will use discussions to the fairness of both sides of the discussion.

And to repeat, I'm not really taking sides in the actual argument. I'm saying that your language usage is unfair, both to the original person you responded to, and to me in response to my last comment.

If you have more to say to me, I'd appreciate it if you didn't use the automatic words of things like "privilege," "white supremacy," "transphobic," "toxic masculinity," "patriarchy," and all those types of language.

But it is a free world, we have free speech, you can do as you wish. I'm just asking this as one rational person to hopefully another.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> "privilege" is a code word and a slur on those who do not agree, and a way to try to shut down rational conversation.

I'm not convinced this is the case, or that it is indeed "loaded language" as claimed, as the only evidence behind such claims is you, a random person on the internet, claiming them

in fact, it's beginning to seem like maybe you don't know what privilege is at all. Perhaps you could illustrate that you do, and get back on topic at the same time, by explaining the privilege shown by the post at the beginning of this thread (rather than repeatedly trying to shut down rational conversation with your tone policing)?

[dumbotron]

> my hobbies tend to be populated mainly by the conservative demographic

What are conservative (and liberal) hobbies?

[seanmcdirmid]

Conservative hobbies are like hunting, fishing, NASCAR, watching football, going to church, a lot of that is regional. A conservative in Saudi Arabia is going to have different hobbies compared to one in Utah.

[imajoo]

My assumption would be hunting perhaps? Since that involves gun ownership, and gun ownership/rights typically being associated with "conservatives".

[seanw444]

Which is stupid. It's everyone's right. One side just understands the importance of it, the other tries their hardest to throw it in the trash.

[AndrewKemendo]

Yours is a naiive position positioning itself as enlightened

Firearms are worthless without organization and there is no actual revolutionary force in America even at the seed stage that is approximating anything near even Taliban levels of insurgent capabilities.

Your 2A “movement” has neither the coherent holistic political philosophy nor the competent leadership needed to actually create a viable social structure

So no, you’re cosplaying as a hollow copy of the Taliban with none of the threat, risk or even dedication to a real cause.

[fundad]

Yes it's pretty plain to see which states are using the law to suppress the rights of many people.

Also most suburbs even in blue states are conservative enough, no need to go further MAGA.

[refurb]

Which states? I mean, if you asked me, California’s gun control laws suppress the rights of many people, but I’m guessing you don’t agree?

My point is, you have your own political views, but at the same time live in a country with a lot of differing views.

You should feel free to live wherever you want but at the same time realize you’ll never find a place that 100% agrees with all your views.

[ovao]

Oregon and Washington — both blue states — are examples of other states that have begun to lean more heavily into restricting gun rights (whether you agree or disagree with the motivation & justification).

So, agreed, it’s accurate to say that there are examples of different states imposing legislation that restricts some sets of freedoms depending on the state’s political leaning.

[toss1]

>>California’s gun control laws suppress the rights of many people

Seriously?

I have a relative who lives in CA and bought a pair of AR-15s a few years ago, just because...

I've never seen any serious gun proposal that would actually infringe on any actual right. They are all about ensuring that background checks apply to all sales, waiting periods, red flags, etc.

People seem to forget that allowing any mentally ill incompetent full and immediate access to the highest caliber and rate-of-fire weapons at any time is the exact opposite of "a well regulated militia" (citing the exact words of the Second Amendment which grants that right).

Please cite some actual legislation entered for consideration (not right wing "They're coming for our guns" rhetoric) that would actually restrict that right for any sane, stable, and responsible citizen. This is not a rhetorical question, I would like to know if there is any actual such legislation proposed.

And no, I don't consider restricting weapons above certain levels of high power, high caliber, high magazine capacity, high rate-of-fire, etc. to be illegitimate. I actually think it should be a sliding scale of qualifications according to the above criteria, e.g., kid's 22 requires a basic safety course and you're good to go, but semi-auto high-power require solid marksmanship skills, combat training, proof of mental stability from licensed psych, insurance, etc., and all qualifications mean you can be called up for militia service at any time.

So, seriously, under "as part of a well regulated militia", what actual proposed legislation in any state would actually restrict such a right?

[refurb]

Hand gun roster and red flag laws are two good examples.

Allowing the police to seize weapons based on suspicion is unconstitutional.

CA only recently started allowing concealed carry after the Supreme Court forced them.

[throwawayacc5]

>Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

>I have a relative who lives in CA and bought a pair of AR-15s a few years ago, just because...

No you don't. AR-15s are illegal (felony) in California.

[justinzollars]

This is a very preachy church lady like response.

[slg]

Maybe, but is anything I said inaccurate? Try telling a trans person that the local political environment shouldn't impact their decision on where to live. Your best case scenario is an eye roll.

Only certain people are given the freedom to ignore politics.

[mattcaldwell]

Trans woman here, can confirm eye roll.

[iinnPP]

Yes, tell people how they ought behave in order to meet your view of them.

[CapstanRoller]

It's only "preachy" if acknowledging the harsh reality faced by repressed minorities makes you feel uncomfortable.

[fundad]

Yeah ask a church lady how she feels about government and if her state should defend the rights of ALL religions.

[HDThoreaun]

Oh I can make friends. What I can't do is get an abortion or in good faith tell my lgbt child that I support them.

I deeply believe that unwanted children make society worse so expect abortion banning states to become less desirable in 15-20 years.

[candiddevmike]

What's wrong with your kids being LGBT? Why wouldn't you support that?

[krisoft]

> What's wrong with your kids being LGBT? Why wouldn't you support that?

There is nothing wrong with your kids being LGBT. I believe you are misunderstanding HDThoreaun. They are talking about why they wouldn't want to live in a red state. Read their comment again with that context in mind.

It says if they were living in a red state they couldn't tell their LGTB child that they support the child. Presumably because HDThoreaun feels if they would really support said LGBT child they would move out of the red state.

It sounds like you read their hypothetical as if HDThoreaun has some problem with their kid being LGBT. I don't believe that was the intended message, quite the contrary in fact.

[porkbeer]

You are supremely out of tough if you think red states preclude you from being vocally proud of your kids. Most conservatives got over the lgbt thing decades ago. Dont give voice to the extremeists of either party as if they are the norm.

[krisoft]

> You are supremely out of tough if you think red states preclude you from being vocally proud of your kids.

Of course you can be vocally proud of said kid. But are you able to "in good faith tell my lgbt child that I support them". Supporting someone is not just words. But perhaps living in a place where they are not handicapped by laws.

> Dont give voice to the extremeists of either party as if they are the norm.

Sure. What about the extremists who are writing the law in those red states? Can I be concerned about those?

[HDThoreaun]

are proud and support synonyms now?

[HDThoreaun]

Some red states are beginning to enact legislation that makes it more difficult for lgbt children to come to terms with who they are. I think the abortion issue is a much bigger deal, but I would definitely feel guilty about raising a lgbt child in that environment.

[striking]

I think the parent comment is suggesting you can't move to such an area and say you're supporting your LGBT child, that it would be in bad faith to tell them you support them having made the choice to move there.

Or in other words, perhaps they'd like to say they support their child, but it'd be disingenuous.

[dumbotron]

I'm sympathetic to concerns that some kids (mostly girls) are doing it because it's a trendy thing to do. I'm worried things like The Genderbread Person send the wrong message by gendering clothes and activities. It tells a boy wearing pink and playing with barbies he's a girl.

If my kid's LGB, I'm glad they found what they're looking for, and if they change their mind, that works too. The trans bit worries me because it's permanent.

I think both sides have gone too far on this issue, and find California and Florida equally scary.

[fwungy]

The Romans managed their empire with divide and conquer tactics.

Guns, abortion, trans issues are just red meat the corporations throw to the masses to keep their eye off what's really going on.

What's really going on? The pensions and retirements of the middle class are being drained away with inflationary monetary policy to pay for wars around the world and keep the corporate class on top.

We are free to fight to the death about sex and guns, but there's no effective discussion of the murderous, planet killing US war machine and the parasites who profit from it in the public discourse. What a coincidence. Divide and conquer.

[dumbotron]

You're confusing misdirection for divide and conquer. Divide and conquer would mean the US splits up so China can be the superpower.

[red-iron-pine]

Yeah the parent isn't fundamentally wrong, just misusing a term.

"Wedge Issues" would the political science nerd terminology, e.g. abortion, guns, or trans rights, which serve as a lever to push political action.

[fwungy]

It means splitting the country politically so that it is impossible to generate opposition to the leadership.

It's pretty clear that that is the modus operandi.

[kelseyfrog]

Absolutely anything to distract folks from class identity. I'm 50-50 on whether or not the intergenerational conflict articles[1] are part of a psyops program.

1. The sort of "Boomer hate Millennial" or vice versa or "Zoomers have no idea what a record player is"-type clickbait.

[dragonwriter]

> Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas.

Policy climate can br a very good reason to avoid living in certain areas.

Failure to recognize this in time can be a very bad way to avoid living entirely.

> I'm a liberal-leaning moderate but many of my favorite people (friends and family) are conservative, and many of my hobbies tend to be populated mainly by the conservative demographic.

I have had friends all over the political spectrum, but “ability to make friends” is not the reason people avoid particular political climates. If you are privileged enough not to need to ubderstand that, congratulations.

> No area is thriving right now thanks to the recession

What recession?

[dllthomas]

> > Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas.

> Policy climate can br a very good reason to avoid living in certain areas.

While there's clearly substantial overlap, I think there can be an important difference between choosing not to live somewhere because your personal politics disagree with the norm there, and choosing not to live somewhere because of the actual impact of the policies that are or may be implemented there.

[ejb999]

>> if I can't make friends with people who hold beliefs different from my own, then maybe I'm the asshole.

Well said...and true.

[jkubicek]

When folks say stuff like this, I feel like they're imagining two buddies arguing over tax reform or something. I'm absolutely fine being friends with someone who has conservative economic beliefs.

What I'm not fine with is being friendly with someone who supports policies designed to hurt my friends and family.

[bityard]

It turns out that befriending people who hold opposite and even toxic opinions is actually a great way to bring them back to more moderate and rational thinking.

There is a Jordan Harbinger podcast about a black man who single-handedly dismantled multiple KKK clans literally by befriending them. The trick is to approach the other person with curiosity and reason, not with judgement and adversity. Not everyone can be talked out of being a racist (or whateverist) of course but at the end of the day we all have more in common than we have in difference and a surprising number of people are willing to change their views on an entire demographic if they aren't being shouted at, shamed, or just silently shunned.

[CapstanRoller]

Why are you putting the onus on victims to befriend and "convert" their oppressors?

Seriously, what the fuck.

[ejb999]

When someone disagree's with your point of view, you are thus a victim?

I think I see the problem here.

[tayo42]

Life is to short to put up with that. If others want to do that and make it something important in their life good for them.

[mschuster91]

> Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas.

Of course it is. Imagine your daughter getting pregnant and being unable to abort the pregnancy even if her survival would be at stake, or your son ending up gay or trans? Both of these not-unlikely events can have real, deadly impact depending if you are living in a red vs purple or blue state!

> but my take on it is, if I can't make friends with people who hold beliefs different from my own, then maybe I'm the asshole.

These people may simply beat you or your children up for not conforming to their narrow worldview. Hate crimes have exploded since 2016, and on top of that comes the everyday gun violence.

Beliefs are one thing - I'm a socialist and still enjoy debating with libertarians. But some things - like the right to self-determination about your body, reproduction and sexuality or the freedom to believe in anything else (or nothing) but Jesus - these are existential questions, and I cannot (and do not) reasonably engage in discussion with someone who 'd like to see me or my friends and family dead.

[mattcaldwell]

Is it not a good reason to avoid living in red states if your rights are being taken away? I'd love to keep living in my blue city in the south, but I'd also love to keep getting the health care I need.

[dumbotron]

> No area is thriving right now thanks to the recession

We're not really in a recession. Tech was probably in a recession in 2022, but Google and Meta both had good earnings reports, so maybe we're through that. Finance is having its own issues. Everyone else is a little nervous, but doing ok, except for inflation.

[neilv]

> Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas.

> but my take on it is, if I can't make friends with people who hold beliefs different from my own, then maybe I'm the asshole.

It's not only about getting along with people on an individual level.

"Politics" is why Massachusetts has a social safety net for many, there are abortion rights, the first gay marriage in the US was a short walk away, my trans neighbor can walk down the street without being hassled, there's countless different flavors of churches and other religious meeting places (as well as many seculars), and education and science are generally valued.

And when some people traveled to Boston to promote aggressive right-wing ideas, an overwhelming number of locals showed up to tell them to take a hike, and sent the message that they had the backs of the people the clowns were threatening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Free_Speech_Rally

This Blue State is far from perfect, but I see plenty of practical reasons for someone like myself to live here rather than in a Red State, no matter how nice and decent the typical Red State resident might be.

[frozenport]

Red states fuck up the eduction system. What you going to do if your kid tries to make America Great Again, daughter needs an abortion.

[dang]

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

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

[TechBro8615]

I've learned that I prefer mini-metro areas with population on the order of 250k people... you get most of the upsides of a city without many of the downsides, while also retaining advantages of smaller areas like more green spaces and lower cost of living.

[vikingerik]

Yup, that's the sweet spot. Richmond VA is a great example of such a mid sized city - housing is affordable, traffic is manageable, and it's big enough to have things to do and find like-minded hobbyists.

[actionablefiber]

DC is it for me. I don't want to own a car or drive, I want to ride a bike or take the train everywhere I go, and DC has the infrastructure to support that lifestyle.

[drewg123]

The downside of Richmond is that you get to add an extra ~2 hours to most trips to the west coast. Either by the need to change planes in ATL/CLT/ORD/etc, or by having to drive to DCA/IAD to take a direct flight.

[robszumski]

RIC is getting more direct flights as volume picks up. Breeze flies to SFO direct, but its not super regular and apparently they cancel them last minute (yikes!).

[drewg123]

I've been trying to take them for the last 6mo or so, but their schedule never lines up with when I need to be somewhere.

[spicyusername]

But you have much shorter trips to the east coast...

[brianwawok]

That is where I moved to Chicago from ;)

I can do most things I want to do. My max drive is like 15 minutes.

And if I need Chicago for like their airport.. meh, 2 hour drive. About the same as my old 7 mile subway ride while I lived in the city.

[lawkwok]

I visited Boise and i realized that about myself too. I prefer all the amenities and infrastructure of a walkable city that is not too crowded.

[eatbitseveryday]

Living in big cities within "red" states is not like living in the state itself outside the city, other than you are all affected by the same state laws (unless the latter is the main concern).

Atlanta GA, Austin TX, etc. are all "blue in a sea of red" as they say. Lived in the former myself for many years. Yes you're affected by state laws, but most of the folks in large cities are going to be less like the stereotype associated with the state.

[calgarymicro]

Unfortunately, this is becoming less and less true as GOP-run states strip autonomy from cities and steadily increase state control over them. Take Texas as an example,[0] where they've banned cities from

  -enacting paid sick leave

  -enacting mandatory heat and water breaks for manual labor jobs

  -modifying their police budgets

  -restricting fracking within city limits

  -restricting greenhouse gas-intense products

Among other things.

[0]https://www.ksat.com/news/texas/2023/04/18/texas-house-appro...

[hotpotamus]

Wow - apparently a 10 minute cooling break every 4 hours is too much to ask.

[dumbotron]

There's an argument that you want consistency across the state. Having snowflake jurisdictions is a headache for businesses.

[sangnoir]

Cities can compete against each other to attract businesses - no? If businesses can deal with a patchwork of sales taxes and building codes, they can handle other bylaws just fine. These laws have the hallmark signs of a partisan power-grab as they are limited to a number of on red-meat issues.

[dumbotron]

> Cities can compete against each other to attract businesses - no?

We've seen this with Walmarts. They get cities to compete for their stores. Amazon did it for HQ2. The problem is the winner's curse. The winning city will often bid so low they take a net loss.

[sangnoir]

I mostly agree with you, but let's be honest: this is not the motivating factor for republican state legislatures grabbing power from cities. If it were, the legislatures would be getting rid of tax rebates and tax holidays cities offer to attract businesses, and instead have a uniform tax structure across the whole state for "uniformity"

[standardUser]

Republican politicians in many red states have been aggressively exerting political control over their blue cities and towns in recent years. It's worth considering the political trajectory of a state, not just its red/blue orientation.

[no_wizard]

I share one thought about this, which is I don't want my tax dollars supporting red state policies, in essence, and I wonder if OP feels the same way

[Xeoncross]

There are several red states with no state income tax. Texas and Florida for example, so I assume you're talking about property taxes and taxes on items like gas or food?

[lotsofpulp]

Tax is tax, does not matter whether it is income tax, sales tax, car registration fees, tolls, unemployment insurance, estate tax, etc. If it is mandatory, and it eventually goes into government coffers, it all falls into the “government expense” bucket for an individual.

[hotpotamus]

I like to think of property tax as a wealth tax for the middle class. My understanding is that the per capita taxes of those states aren't really much different from others, but they're structured more regressively.

[lotsofpulp]

The opposite is true.

First, there is no middle, it would be more useful to describe socioeconomic classes of people by decile, or even quintile.

But the top 10% surely owns more real estate than the bottom 90%, so low property tax is very regressive since it allows them to hoard real estate, while the rest of the population pays to secure it via funding the police/legal system.

Second, the lower socioeconomic classes are going to spend all of their money on rent, and goods and services, like consumables and healthcare and food and tolls. So sales tax and usage based taxes for things necessary to live are the most regressive.

Third, property tax can be broken down into land value tax and building value tax. The former being low is a problem since it incentivizes hoarding land at less than maximum economic usage, ultimately reducing supply of housing, ultimately increasing rents on the lowest socioeconomic classes amongst other phenomena like food desserts.

So if the goal is progressive taxation, then a very high land value tax, and no building value tax would be the way to go.

[mkr-hn]

Athens, GA is good if you want something that feels a little more small town but still has (free!) bus stops everywhere, the occasional rainbow flag, and enough food and entertainment options that you'll never be bored.

[lwelyk]

The problem is the recent slate of "don't say gay" bills and abortion bans are state-wide affairs

[kibwen]

Not all industries will be equally impacted by WFH. SF is being gutted because the only equipment a programmer needs is a computer. If you're looking for a healthy metro area that will weather the WFH realignment, look for one whose primary industries require equipment that you can't pick up at Best Buy. Things like healthcare, biotech, and research universities (just to name a few) will still require butts in seats. Off the top of my head, Boston, Pittsburgh, Cleveland will be fine. NYC might be impacted because of the finance industry, but it's also plenty diversified.

(Furthermore, in the long term SF will be fine because the geography and climate is beautiful, and people will always be clamoring to live there regardless of industry, in the same way people desire to live in Honolulu. But it's in for a rough time in the near term as the tech industry diasporizes.)

[dumbotron]

> SF is being gutted because the only equipment a programmer needs is a computer

I think that's only half of it. The other half is a lot of people were only in SF for the money. When given the opportunity to leave and make the same money, they did.

[baby]

I don’t think you received great answers besides New York. I myself am trying to move from SF to New York. The reality is that in the US New York is the only city that seems livable if you are not a car. Chicago is the only one I can think of that’s dense and has life as a pedestrian, but the winter there is intense. It’s too bad because real estate is cheap there.

[hifromLA]

I agree even though you’ll always get responses talking about other US cities where it’s technically possible to live without a car.

I found living without a car in SF not so ideal because it ultimately means living your life in a pretty small subset of the overall metro area. That slice of the metro area is also disproportionately gentrified and has that kind of yuppie vibe (with prices to match).

I feel the same from visiting other cities like Seattle, Chicago, DC, Philly, etc. New York is the only US city I’ve been to that I would say is actually comparable to other global cities. All the other US cities pale in comparison.

[ghc]

You definitely don't need (or want) a car in Boston. Boston is extremely pedestrian friendly and correspondingly hostile to cars. 95% of the people who complain about getting around here are commuters from outside the city.

[helen___keller]

Unfortunately this isn’t true in all of greater Boston or even within the whole metro core. If you live in Watertown, Quincy, Waltham, Newton, etc etc you are going to have a very different experience

My main complaint with Boston is that even if you’re happy with just the walkable city center, it’s still tough commuting if you can’t walk/bike and you aren’t going to/from downtown Boston.

For example if someone in Somerville takes a job in Boston Landing they’re looking at a multiple seat commute over an hour most likely, to effectively travel maybe 5-10 miles. Driving still ends up winning.

[klysm]

Somerville to Boston landing is kind of a tough example, but I agree it’s annoying that there’s no way to go “sideways” on most public transport in Boston - everything goes to the center

[ghc]

This is true of even the most public-transit-centered cities like Tokyo and NYC. It's easy to find commutes that are short as the crow flies but cover a much longer distance on public transit.

[Gravityloss]

If you're going 5 miles, biking sounds like a realistic alternative?

[helen___keller]

Yep, the drive and bike times for my example are roughly the same at rush hour according to google. For someone interesting in biking as a commute, Boston/camberville is probably one of the best places to live+work. If you can deal with the winter anyways

[LeanderK]

> You definitely don't need (or want) a car in Boston

I have never been to Boston, but if this is true then why is the public transport map so weird? There's the subway for inter-city travel but if you're commuting then commuter rail does not seem practical at all because of this weird gap? To me it made the impression of a neglected system, presumably because everyone commutes by car. Is there still space downtown for e.g. bicycle lanes? Otherwise this surely would have been fixed for decades now.

Or is it just painful to commute because there's a livable downtown with public transit, bike lanes etc., which was not completely sacrificed for cars, but just without a great commuter solution?

[ghc]

The public transit system is shaped by natural barriers and landfill, so the weird layout really has nothing to do with neglect (though there's plenty of that too!). The subway system actually covers a large area including Boston and the urban area surrounding it. The commuter rail mostly serves the urban cores of suburban communities outside Boston, so people drive to the commuter rail and then commute by train from there.

Before covid (no idea what the numbers are now) only 40% of people in the Boston metro commuted by car alone, roughly the same share as those who took the commuter rail and subway. 20% of people commuted by car and bike. The share of people who commute by car in the core of Boston is extremely small. At least 50% of roads in the city are single lane and one way. Parking is expensive and scarce. Driving 2 miles (as the crow flies) can easily take an hour, which makes walking pretty competitive as a mode of transit.

[ckdarby]

Coming from a Canadian, you're in for a shock if you think New York doesn't have intense winters as well.

[wildrhythms]

I live here and the winters are not that bad. I lived in the midwest and west previously and they were 10x worse due to needing to potentially drive somewhere in it (and the supermarkets being wiped out in the days leading up to inclemate weather). Here in NYC you just put your boots and coat on and go on your way. The subways still run when it's snowing. The coldest day of the year only dipped below 0°F once in the past 15 years.

[tayo42]

Never thought of it buts it's funny in away that the cities with the shittiest winters are the best walkable cities.

Really so cal, texas, South east, and west should be walkable but their car centric nightmares filled with traffic

[nytesky]

The key to being a walkable city is to developed as a city BEFORE cars. Then they had dense grids because most people walked or took wagons at best.

Cities didn’t develop in southern hot climates until really the advent of air conditioning, which aligns roughly with the rise of cars.

[mattcaldwell]

Zero need for a car in most of DC, NOVA, and MD inside the beltway.

[baby]

What’s nova and md?

No need for a car != agreeable to live as a pedestrian. For example, I don’t need a car in SF but I wouldn’t compare it to a real and agreeable walkable city like we have in europe or asia. It’s mostly large streets designed for cars, residential areas, with shops only allowed to exist in limited commercial streets.

[wildrhythms]

NOVA = Northern Virginia MD = Maryland

Both considered commuter hubs for DC. And I think they're alluding to being able to utilize the DC metro 'inside the beltway' (I-495) hence the distinction there, which is true to an extent, but I wouldn't live in NOVA or MD without a car personally. There is Amtrak service to areas outside of the beltway, but my experience with Amtrak has been extremely poor. I know many people in DC and they all own a car because the metro, while great for getting in and out of DC, is somewhat limited when it comes to going anywhere else.

[dumbotron]

I saw this today. It looks at mass transit funding in big metros. Mass transit is interesting because it's a proxy for downtown health.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-09/us-public...

The outlook isn't good, and the shortfalls mean there will likely be service cuts, driving people away from city centers even more. SF will probably be worse off because of how poorly it's handled homelessness, theft, and drug use.

[CydeWeys]

Most cities don't seem to be having the same problem (it's almost uniquely SF that has this problem). NYC for example is booming.

[jeffbee]

This problem is not at all unique to SF. According to Cushman & Wakefield, Austin has 23% vacant offices, Manhattan has 23%, Brooklyn 24%, and SF has 25%, same as Minneapolis and Chicago, while Houston has 26% vacant.

https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en/united-states/insights/u...

[CydeWeys]

Unless you are the owner/lessor of commercial real estate, why does this matter? NYC is happening these days, even if not everyone is going back to the office every day. They're still here in their homes (which are renting out for record high rates) and going about their daily lives in the city, which is absolutely packed.

[jeffbee]

But downtown SF has always been like a scene out of "Night of the Comet" compared to NY.

[CydeWeys]

Look, I'm not gonna argue with you that NYC has always been better than SF (it obviously has), but post-pandemic now the difference is even more stark. NYC's economy is much more diverse than SF's, and also has much more housing within city limits, to the point that it hasn't suffered nearly as much from the pandemic, and indeed right now is booming whereas SF is withering.

[alephnerd]

Ehn, SF is returning to its pre-2010 roots (heck, even the population in SF has fallen to the same level as it was in the 2000s).

The entire sofrware+hardware industry before the 2010s was south of Redwood Shores and the biotech industry was always situated in northern San Mateo County. Before the 2010s, SF was primarily a hub for the Northern California legal+investment banking industries, both of which cratered during the GFC.

There's a reason why "FiDi" is called that - SF used to be the Wall Street of the West until the GFC, and most private sector white collar jobs in the city back then were legal and finance related.

[SeanAnderson]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2022/06/16/which-m...

I haven't scrutinized this heavily, but, at a glance, it appears that the best recovery for "Work Trips" is still down 13.2%, New York is down 26%, and the worst, SF, is down 32.7%. In no way do I see these numbers as booming - they all make me question how the cities are going to balance their books as commercial real estate gets devalued and undermines taxation.

Is that the wrong way to be looking at things?

(EDIT: these numbers are old, my bad!)

[woodruffw]

Those numbers are almost a year old; NYC is expecting a significant rise in tourists[1] and for business travel numbers to return to pre-pandemic levels[2].

To my annoyance, rent has continued to rise as well.

[1]: https://www.thrillist.com/news/new-york/nyc-expects-61-milli...

[2]: https://www.cityguideny.com/article/summer-tourism-data-nyc-...

[CydeWeys]

Are you planning on owning commercial real estate? If not, why does this one particular metric matter?

NYC is booming in all senses of the word that apply to the daily experience of your typical person living here. The streets are PACKED with people out and about having a good time at all hours of day and night, and rents are at record highs because so many people want to live here. So what if not everyone is commuting into the office 5 days a week anymore? Don't buy an office building and you'll be good.

[SeanAnderson]

No, I am not planning on owning commercial, but I am interested in avoiding having taxes raised on me to fill a budget deficit. Taxes on commercial real estate generate a significant amount of revenue, commercial rental agreements are usually ~5-7 years, and so, at least in SF, there is a looming wave of devaluations which has yet to be realized. The city already has an estimated 800M budget shortfall without assuming commercial real estate devalues by 50%. When that happens the only quick fix is to bleed money from the populace. If commercial buildings aren't being used in NY then this will also occur there.

[CydeWeys]

I think you're being too speculative here. If you're really trying to minimize paying taxes, then you should be moving to a state with no income tax, don't buy property there (because states with no income tax tend to make up for it with high property taxes), and don't live in a city because cities will have local taxes. But you move to NYC, you do so because NYC is awesome and living here is great. I wouldn't pay less taxes to live in the middle of nowhere.

[sangnoir]

> ... you should be moving to a state with no income tax, don't buy property there (because states with no income tax tend to make up for it with high property taxes)

Remember not to rent too, otherwise landlords would passthrough the high property to you.

[SeanAnderson]

Yeah, I think you're right. Thanks for the feedback. :)

[baremetal]

I thought they had a surplus just a few years ago.

Odd.

[asah]

Can confirm: packed streets, packed theaters, restaurants, etc - even the subway is recovering. NYC is going great aside from older, overpriced midtown buildings that are failing to lease.

For (way) more details, I recommend Jonathan Miller's blog: https://millersamuel.com/blog/

[electriclove]

How do you get around? Are the subways safe for tourists, families, etc?

[CydeWeys]

I bike and walk most places, but I'm perfectly fine taking the subway for longer distances. Even that question itself sounds like it's out of the past from three decades ago.

[gnopgnip]

Because of prop 13 how much does the value of commercial real estate effect taxation?

[RC_ITR]

The problem everyone seems to miss is that SF is one of the few places that had a recession due to COVID (not necessarily a GDP recessions, but definitely a weak businesses closed en masse recession) and a lot of other places (illogically) boomed during COVID.

Given recent history (Phoenix MSA’s 2011 GDP was lower than 2007 GDP, whereas SF never went below 2007 levels), it’s not unreasonable to think that other cities are simply in artificial bubbles from the $3tn that was given to consumers over the past 3 years.

[foobiekr]

The recession was caused by fake tech startups built on ZIRP policies running into IPO difficulties after a bunch of them dumped on the market.

[warning26]

Exactly; the tech companies in SF didn't have the backbone to require RTO like the finance firms in NYC did.

The cities' respective recoveries show that the finance firms made the right call.

[bubblethink]

Right call for whom ? What's it got to do with backbone if it is just not in anyone (except landlords') interest to mandate RTO ?

[warning26]

I'd argue that people having to leave their house every day is better for society as a whole, even if it feels a bit inconvenient.

Having everyone lock themselves inside and exclusively interact via video chat is not a good thing, IMO.

[dumbotron]

> Having everyone lock themselves inside and exclusively interact via video chat is not a good thing, IMO.

Sounds like a Black Mirror episode.

[lisasays]

A better way of putting it would be:

NYC finance workers didn't have the backbone to resist RTO like SF tech workers did.

[surgical_fire]

lol people would just move jobs to keep working remote.

That's the beauty of working in tech. There's a lot of companies to move over to. Finance is a lot more restricted.

[CydeWeys]

And, interestingly enough, an increasing number of people have moved to NYC to work remotely from here. Living in NYC is a legitimate attraction in its own right, and is appealing to a lot of people even if they're not working here.

[surgical_fire]

As long as people are living where they can afford and enjoy, that's awesome news.

Personally, I prefer to live in smaller cities, but I lived in a huge metropolitan area for decades. I just grew tired of it. In that regard, remote work for me is a blessing.

[Ancalagon]

Is "backbone" the new moniker for "iron fist"?

[jntvjnvutnuvt]

Miami is booming but I do fear the Californian migrants there will just turn it into another San Francisco in due time.

[tempsy]

It's booming in the sense that wealthy people are buying up property.

That isn't the same as being a new hub for a lot of business creation and frankly haven't seen a lot of evidence established companies are eager to make it into a new hub or that there's a bunch of growing startups there with real traction.

[jntvjnvutnuvt]

Miami is the fastest growing tech hub in America [1]. Citadel is moving to Miami from Chicago and Guggenheim is about to do the same.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/12/silicon...

[alephnerd]

The Chicago to Miami move is primarily an income tax avoidance scheme common in the HFT industry within Illinois, especially after the state instituted a 5% income tax after the IL budget crisis in 2017-18.

[paulryanrogers]

In what way(s)?

[caycep]

LA...albeit housing is still expensive. The other thing is...SF downtown at least in real estate is having a downturn, but I have to imagine, the region in and of itself isn't doing too badly.

[imbnwa]

Chicago?

[halfmatthalfcat]

I think Chicago and IL are slept on in general but have a lot of long term positives. IL (thanks to Pritzker and a post-Magidan House) is starting to shore up fiscally, Lake Michigan (for both recreation and water supply) and a decent public transit system make it very appealing.

[ok_coo]

Chicago is a good choice but a lot of people wouldn't be able to tolerate the winter.

It can be brutal to get through. The bonus on the other side of it is that the summers are amazing with all of the public beaches and summer events going on.

[wenc]

Chicago is a great city.

Cold climate, warm people, actual downtown with actual transit, great food, great diversity, affordable, actual amenities and great intellectual life.

The cold climate isn’t too different from Toronto (and no it’s really not that windy).

[gautamcgoel]

Fun fact: Chicago became known as the windy city due to the "long-winded" speeches it's politicians were giving.

[SeanAnderson]

Down 22.7% in Work Trips to its metro area compared to SF's 32%. It's possible that it's less dependent on the foot traffic, though.

[refurb]

States change over time. Colorado used to be quite red a couple decades ago.

And states aren’t monolithic just because they “red” or “blue”. You’ll find liberals and conservatives in every state.

I understand not wanting to live in a state that has laws you can live under, whether abortion or gun control or marijuana, but remove those and there are still a ton of options.

[mc32]

San Diego perhaps?

[latchkey]

In terms of density, San Diego is like a stretched out San Francisco. The best places to live are along the coastline and an ocean view is very expensive. My tiny condo, with a view, has a higher cost per sq. foot than $3m victorians in San Francisco.

But you're right, at this point, I'd still rather be in SD than SF.

[kylehotchkiss]

Are you downtown? I can't think of any tiny condo that costs that much anywhere else.

[latchkey]

$1,762 per sqft.

No, I'm at the beach.

[kylehotchkiss]

+1 for San Diego. It's small enough you can be familiar with most of the neighborhoods and still big enough there's always an interesting event or new restaurant to check out. Apple has expansion plans in the region. The military/larger federal government presence is sort of nice, I sense that plus the large tourism numbers helps keep SD away from the extreme end of California politics.

The weather is a huge plus, and I anticipate the city will handle global warming a little better than other regions. The county has made a lot of good decisions with water management too, from keeping the reservoirs full to supplying almost 10% of the water supply from a desal plant.

I disagree that the coastline is the only "nice" place to get a house, the ocean is pretty accessible from most parts of the city due to the highway designs.

Of course, there's issues with homelessness, retail theft, poor public transit, expensive housing. But it all seems a little more tame to me than the same issues in LA/SF/Seattle.

[latchkey]

> I disagree that the coastline is the only "nice" place to get a house

Maybe it is just me, but if I'm going to move to a beach city, I'd want to live at the beach.

> it all seems a little more tame to me than the same issues in LA/SF/Seattle.

It is just more spread out. The police are a lot more on top of pushing the homeless around to different parts of town.

Here at the beach, the parking lots will get a few people living in their cars/vans/whatever, then it'll get more as word gets out... then all the sudden, the police will come in and hand out tickets. Over night, they will all be gone.