Hacker News Reader

Comment by Apocryphon | Hacker News Reader

"They’ve increased 38 percent in Seattle, 12 percent in Austin and 6 percent in Phoenix."

The article names the usual suspects for engineer emigrants (Austin, Portland, strangely no mention of NYC or Raleigh RTP), but why are people moving to Phoenix? Isn't living in the less sexy areas of South Bay (Sunnyvale, Milpitas, South San Jose) pretty much on par with urban life in Phoenix?

View on HN

http://www.zillow.com/phoenix-az/home-values/

http://www.zillow.com/sunnyvale-ca/home-values/

I wonder if the tech sprawl will force people to live further and further south. Coyote Valley, Morgan Hill, Gilroy?

Gilroy ... never again. That smell. Like someone boiled hades.

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_27809931/traffic...

It's interesting that Seattle's rent has raised 38 percent, but I am left wondering if some of that is related to their ~37% minimum wage increase in the last year.

What possible connection could there be? Does minimum wage now change property values? Are all housing units in Seattle occupied by minimum wage workers? The average rent in Seattle for a one bedroom apartment is around $1600, which is around 100% of what a minimum wage worker made there two years ago - coincidence or no?

It's all just so interesting, I think?

No need for the snark, friend. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that minimum wage increases (more money in the hands of lower-income earners) semi-proportionately increases localized prices?

Do you truly think it's necessary that all houses in Seattle must be occupied by minimum wage workers in order for it to affect the cost of living?

It's a lot easier for people to see this argument with basic income than with minimum wage, but the signaling on property owners ends up being the same whether you know for certain all your tenants now have an extra $x in funds or just some of them might now be getting a raise to the new minimum wage. From the property manager perspective, suddenly they're getting more demand on units than they were previously, so they balance that by increasing rents. An increased minimum wage can play a part in that rise in demand even if no single person can afford an apartment on their own at minimum wage. For instance perhaps there's a group of 4 people cramped in one apartment, but now with all of them getting more money, they can afford to split off into two groups of 2. Until the landlord raises rents, anyway, because they aren't enough units for everyone to do that and building new units takes time.

Unlikely. Someone earning minimum wage couldn't live there anyways. The more likely culprit are the hordes of tech people moving into every nook and cranny.

King County property taxes have been steadily going up, that's a bigger factor than minimum wage. Even in the sprawl around Seattle, prices have gone up, but I hope they'll see a regression since the commuting situation is if anything worse than it was even just a few years ago especially on the Eastside with the 405 toll lanes.

Quality of life is probably similar but the cost of living is much lower.

>but why are people moving to Phoenix? Isn't living in the less sexy areas of South Bay (Sunnyvale, Milpitas, South San Jose) pretty much on par with urban life in Phoenix?

No way. Phoenix is a wonderful place to live! The weather is beautiful! Forget that stuff you read about the heat; you'll get used to it. It's a dry heat!

Seriously, if you live in the Bay Area or Portland or Seattle, move to Phoenix! It's great! There's plenty of room for everyone there! They even have excellent public transit with the Light Rail!

Dry heat or not, it's still way too hot! I grew up in the desert and have absolutely no desire to ever live in one again.

Shut up! I'm trying to get people to free up some space in the west coast cities.

Do you somehow think those places are significantly cheaper than San Francisco? They're not.

... What?

Cost of living index compared to San Francisco according to WolframAlpha:

Seattle -20%

Phoenix -42%

Austin -43%

I have to say I was impressed to see that Manhattan is +29.6% to San Francisco. SF was certainly the most expensive place I've ever lived.

Possibly skewed because there's so much luxury housing in Manhattan? Anecdotally NYC has always been much cheaper for me than SF. You can still get one bedrooms for under 2k in the East Village and LES

Yeah, as someone running like hell from the Bay Area (to Manhattan), I think this is the key.

It's actually possible to get cheap, bad, but livable housing in NYC. It would be difficult to get a plot of floor with a roof over it of any quality at $2k in SF.

It's possible to get cheap, good, and liveable housing in NYC too. I just got a nice 1BR in the Bronx for $1525 that's in a great neighborhood and is less than a block from the express lines. As long as you're not in one of the top-10 trendy neighborhoods there are plenty of great apartments that are within 30-35 min of midtown.

No you can't. Those $1900 apartments of 2013 are now $2500+. But still, there are far more options in the NY metro including those with reasonable commutes. The Bay just seems like a big headache if you don't work near your home.

Austin cheaper than Phoenix???

Actually, they absolutely are. Cost of living in San Francisco is not even a comparison to any of those places. I live in Seattle in a kick-ass house in a great, walkable neighborhood for the same price that I paid for 650 sq ft apartment in Noe Valley 3 years ago.

Also funny: every time someone argues with this point, they'll put up a link to the most expensive condo in the hippest part of downtown Austin and say, "Look! Look, this apartment is $4000. Austin is expensive too!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com