Hacker News Reader

Comment by harimau777 | Hacker News Reader

I don't know if this is accurate or romanticized, but my perception is that in the past people who wanted to live as artists were able to do so as long as they were willing to give up some material comfort. For example, maybe they could work a day job (stereotypically waiting tables) and still make enough money for a studio in a bad part of town.

It doesn't seem like that's the case today. Unless you have a profession or work multiple jobs (both of which prohibit having enough time to seriously pursue art) you are completely priced out of America's cosmopolitan cities.

View on HN

>Unless you have a profession or work multiple jobs (both of which prohibit having enough time to seriously pursue art) you are completely priced out of America's cosmopolitan cities.

The bad parts of cities are still cheap. Within the last ~4yr I did a $1500/mo single bedroom in Boston and a $1300 single bedroom in Waltham (which is a nice but not "surgeons and lawyers buy houses here suburb of Boston). Yes there were mice but I think that is a pretty reasonable trade for the price.

Things start getting stupid expensive when you try to live how you think a white collar professional should live.

$1500 a month for an apartment is a ton. In most places, you’d need to make $60,000 to meet the minimum income requirement. That’s a lot of many for many people.

It'd be rough, but you could make $1500 rent work if you make $20 per hour. You might need a larger security deposit because of your income, but landlords might also not check.

That's for a single bedroom with parking which are always priced at a premium. You can do better. I just didn't. In the Boston area anyone with a flimsy wisp of a skill (or is able to pass a drug test) is making at least $20/hr and nobody is expecting the poor to be able to follow middle class budgeting rules.

> maybe they could work a day job (stereotypically waiting tables) and still make enough money for a studio in a bad part of town.

I respect this; they decided what's important to them, and I think this is a fair situation to be in.

> It doesn't seem like that's the case today

While I agree, at least in the Bay Area, I'm not super sympathetic to this because, and I'm guessing here, I bet a lot of the people who got priced-out or evicted in the last decade+ voted for supervisors in favor preservation and anti-landlord policies. There weren't artists saying "build new luxury condos so I'm not competing with engineers for a run-down studio."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com