[LanzVonL]

Why do people still live in big, liberal cities? They're clearly trying to drive people out. Just sell up before your property values tank and move somewhere nice. Learn to entertain yourself, cook, etc. and pretty soon you won't need the amenities.

[kypro]

The good jobs are there. And if you have a good job you can live in a nice neighbourhood that doesn't have to worry about this stuff while benefiting from all the cheap labour that comes from having lots of poor people around – cheap restaurants, affordable delivery services, cheap taxis, etc.

It's win win if you avoid the bad areas and the bad areas don't grow too large. SF failed because its underclass grew too large and they stopped arresting the criminals among them. Now the people with the nice jobs in the nice houses don't want to live there because they increasingly need to live among the poor.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

You're forgetting that the majority of the people there are voting for the issues that cause the problems - so presumably they aren't as bothered as you might be.

There's a decent chunk of people living in SF that think it's the best place to live in the world BY FAR.

[epistasis]

> property values tank

The idea that SF property values are going to tank is, well, completely disconnected from reality.

If property values did tank, there would be a far better chance of solving SF's problems, but the root problem is that about 1.5x-5x people want to live in SF than they allow for homes to be built, creating massive inequality and misery.

The revulsion you feel at living in SF is quite similar to the feeling many have about not living in SF.

[LanzVonL]

Happened in Baltimore, Detroit, formerly nice places in Minneapolis, Chicago, New Orleans...

It's not "if" but "when."

[elzbardico]

If you have money you can get isolated from most of those problems. You can have an almost idilic life even in third world big cities if you have money enough actually.

And big liberal cities are the places where you can get money.

[mlrtime]

Mostly because that is where the high paying jobs are concentrated, after that I would guess family/familiarity. Politics would be lower on the list.

WFH showed us that if you give people options, they will take them.

[LanzVonL]

>get high paying job

>spend all your money on housing and property taxes and etc.

[seanmcdirmid]

If you get a job that pays 3X but your cost of living is also 3X, just remember that your disposable income is 3X as well. You are still economically out competing your Texan or Midwest colleagues.

If you can’t get that kind of job in SF, but still live in SF, things are really tough, leaving is a good option.

[LanzVonL]

Is this true though?

[AnimalMuppet]

Not entirely.

Let's say my salary is $100k/year, and my expenses are $90k/year. I have $10k/year to save (or blow). If I move to somewhere with 3x salary and 3x costs, then my salary goes to $300k/year and my expenses go to $270k/year, and so I now have $30k/year left over.

But it's not that simple, because of progressive tax rates. The federal income tax on $300k/year is more than 3x the tax on $100k/year. Or, to put it a different way, you get 3x the salary, but not 3x the take home pay. Out of that less-than-3x take home pay, you now get to pay the 3x expenses.

Now, it could be that when people say "3x the expenses", they're taking that into account. But I suspect they're not. I suspect they're looking at COL numbers, and I suspect that the published COL numbers are just housing, food, medical, and the like.

[seanmcdirmid]

Your taxes go up a bit because, yes, taxes are graduated. But it’s not as big a deal, and your SS is capped. A house hold making $450k/year in a high COL is still going to be doing much better than 200k in a low COL.

Lots of costs aren’t indexed to the area you live in. Computer, phones, trips to Mexico, and to some extent cars cost similar in SF as they do in Mississippi. Food prices don’t vary as much either, their might be a 20% difference, but not 3X, same with medical (really, housing is the main thing that is very much more expensive, everything else is slightly more expensive to the same price).

Your retirement savings include your house, so you have a career in SF and then retire to New Mexico, the locals will hate you and your crazy home equity you bring with you.

[efields]

And if you are happy with the deal, what’s the problem? Enough people seem to be that it keeps going…

[DudeOpotomus]

Why do people want to live in places that allow them to be free? Where freedom to live your life as you want as you choose, reigns? Instead of in places that not only attack one's rights to exist, they actively push their narrow and ignorant political and theological views onto people to control them?

Gee, I wonder...

Liberal literally means freedom.

[sp332]

Most cities are not as bad at this as SF. NYC has 10x as many homeless people but they are given shelter. Also NYC can build buildings over 4 stories tall.

[francisofascii]

Cities are more nuanced. Good parts/bad parts. Pacific Heights is pretty nice. Cities are fun when you are young, but I admit get less and less fun the older you get. Also, aren't all US cities liberal?

[joemazerino]

ThE FoOd ChOicEs BrO!