Hacker News Reader

Comment by vostok | Hacker News Reader

I make good money. Why would you expect me to live in the middle of nowhere when I can live in the greatest cities of the world?

View on HN

I lived in big city and while I enjoy most of my time in them, most of what I got to show for is health problems related to living in a big city.

I understand some people enjoy it, I for one traded a 50% pay cut for the ability to live far from any big town with a smile on my face.

I can cycle without breathing exhaust fumes, I can go kayaking from my backyard, I can go fishing after work, I can grow my own food, I can have a dog without feeling like holding it prisoner in a town, I can offer a healthy and low stress environment to my family, I can watch the stars from my backyard,...

Just giving a bit of perspective, coming from a guy who made big money. In the end money is worthless if I'm dead from one of the many things that will end up killing me by living in a big town.

I agree that money is worthless in the end. I would rather live here than earn twice as much in a rural or suburban area.

I'll give you a reason, although it's a reason that's personal only to me, probably.

I love road cycling as a sport. IMHO cycling for pleasure sucks in cities, even ones with great cycling infrastructure.

The cycle paths are full of slow commuters calmly pootling their way to work|shops|date|whatever.

The roads in cities are full of distracted|incompetent|psychopathic drivers in motor vehicles all wanting to "punish" me for shaving my legs and wearing lycra.

The place for people like me is haring about in the lanes and hills of the sticks. :)

In my experience, I've found the best cycling to be in the LA and SD area....bike aware culture and weather permits you to ride over 300+ days a year. I imagine California in general has great year round cycling

I work remote from central Los Angeles. The biking is incredible here. I mainly do hills and the Santa Monica/San Gabriel mountains provide some excellent climbing. There is very little traffic in the hilly parts of the city.

From central/Downtown LA, you can take Venice all the way to the beach with a dedicated bike lane. I rarely go on trails, as I only have a road bike. My favorite trip is to take the bus to somewhere north of Malibu and ride along the PCH for about 20 miles.

Off-topic, but LA really does have great public transportation. It covers nearly the entire metro area such that you can get pretty much anywhere and only have to trek a few blocks to catch a connecting metro line (whether that be bus, rail, or subway). The problem is you're not going anywhere fast.

I never do trails either since all I have also is a road bike. There is a stretch of Mulholland, where it is a dirt road, that is technically passable with road tires, but I have yet to attempt it.

I like Ventura Blvd in the Valley to make it to the beach. It is congested at points earlier on (east), but then it clears out. Venice is busy almost the entire stretch.

Sounds like you just need to move to a more bike friendly city/country :)

Whilst that could be true (there's a distinct mountain shortage in these parts) it doesn't entirely solve the city road/bike path problem.

In cities that are renowned bike friendliness e.g. Amsterdam or Copenhagen most of the cycling is low speed on the excellent cycle paths. Most of the riders are on utility bikes in their everyday clothing (as opposed to dressing to go fast and get sweaty).

If people are just peacefully commuting at 20kph (12mph) I would feel a bit of an arse if I went hooning past on a time trial bike at 50kph (31 mph).

Editor's note: Actually I'd be over the moon if I could maintain a 31 mph average for 10 miles! :)

The small town I live in actually has pretty good segregated bike paths but I only use them when I'm commuting slowly and not when I'm training.

"I make good money. Why should I have to live in a cramped city when I can live in a 3000 sq.ft house on 10 acres of land and send my kid to an elementary school that doesn't need metal detectors and armed security guards?"

Oh, I have no question as to why others don't live in the city. I was explaining why I do live in the city.

For completeness, the elementary school that I went to and that my kids will go to does not have or need metal detectors. I believe the security guard is armed. Are security guards outside the city completely unarmed? I have no point of reference for this.

Yea, different priorities for different people. World is not one size fits all. Sorry if it looked like I was accusing you of implying that!

Surely private schools in SF don't have metal detectors.

Sure, but irrelevant. Who can afford private school for their kids? I bet executive jets offer great convenience and no security lines, but that doesn't have any bearing on my vacation plans.

Private school is popular in SF because there's nothing to stop your randomly assigned public school from being on the other side of the city, so anyone who fails the lottery goes private or moves out of the city. There are inexpensive private schools, like Catholic schools.

>Why would you expect me to live in the middle of nowhere when I can live in the greatest cities of the world?

I mean, I don't expect you to do it, but personally, I like to save aggressively so that I can reach financial independence sooner.

Then the best option is to live frugally on a high salary in an expensive COL location. Really only housing scales linearly. If you can save on that, your base salary can be doubl, which affects your 401k match %, your bonus %, any raises, etc. so even if your entire salary adjustment goes to rent in a couple years you would be saving way more.

Why do you think I'm not saving aggressively? I have saved at least a six figure quantity every year since my early 20s, which seems sufficiently aggressive to me. Being able to save is part of being able to afford living here.

You're right that I could take a higher paying job in the suburbs or in a rural area and save even more, but money isn't everything to me.

If you can live in NYC/SF and still save 6 figures a year, I think your current job would already qualify as "high paying", depending on your lifestyle and expenses.

I did say "higher paying" rather than "high paying".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com