Hacker News Reader

Comment by gbuk2013 | Hacker News Reader

gbuk2013

As someone living in SE London and having traveled to many places around the world, I’m not sure I can agree with the “significantly lower quality of life” part, although of course YMMV as to what you are looking for. London has its share of problems like anywhere else, and I would say things are in some ways not as good as they were (could just be me getting old) but it is still on balance a very privileged place to live in terms of access to work, facilities, entertainment, food options etc. I have not seen many places that can compare, let alone be better for my needs.

View on HN

I mean, it depends on what your life is like too, as priorities are different.

As I have a young child, and perhaps more children in the future, having good restaurants isn't as important as being able to afford a 3 or 4 bedroom house. And this is pretty unaffordable not just in London (which probably isn't the best place to raise children anyway) but across the entire South East.

I agree that it has excellent work opportunities though, which is partly the problem - the best jobs in the UK are all concentrated there.

It's a work camp, basically.

Nonsense. London was the city ranked third in 2024 for the number of international visitors. There is plenty to see and do besides work.

Yes, people come and see all the workers and their various works.

I guess you are not being serious, but obviously, they come for the usual sorts of attractions offered by large cosmopolitan international cities. London has its flaws, but to describe it as a “work camp” is just completely divorced from reality.

It's hyperbole, but I believe it's fundamentally a place to work and earn money, perhaps gain experience. It's not a place to grow and develop humans. Places like that are net sinks of human capital and basically vacuum up people from more provincial locations, extract their economic value, and people eventually leave when they get tired of it - possibly with some cash in their pocket.

If you remove the emotional coloring from this, you’re just saying that most people in London work for a living, and that many of them commute from less central locations to more central ones. The same could be said of many big cities. Not everyone likes big cities or wants to raise their children in one, but your original comment was a bad take.

I simply must rearrange the words: "most people live in a London for work".

But yes, personal taste etc etc.

The topic was about living there, which is the usual indicator of quality of life. Tourists do not influence directly the situation of the above family of three.

Maybe “work camp” suggests something radically different to you than it does to me. To me, it indicates that there is nothing to do in London besides work, and that more or less everything in London is work related.

Tourists visit London because there are lots of interesting things to see and do. People who live in London also get to see and do those things.

The various amenities have no value to QoL if you can't afford to use them.

There are a fair few free amenities in London - museums, art galleries, concerts sometimes. The parks and gardens are good too.

I thought it was funny how in London museums mostly have free entrance but you have to pay to visit some churches (St Paul's & Westminster Abbey).

The hard fact is that enough people can, if only judging by how over-subscribed many of these amenities are. Whether or not this is sustainable remains to be seen - I certainly have bones to pick with the IMHO unwise government policy decisions that are pricing essential service workers out of the area - London can not function on bankers, lawyers and techies alone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com