Comment by trenning | Hacker News Reader

Comment by trenning | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I can echo this statement. My mother is in a nursing home facility for the last 8 years.

She is located in the facility she worked in as a poor laborer before becoming a resident. The facility is over an hour from the nearest metro area.

The care she receives there is pretty good. The staff are mostly locals in the rural town and are comfortable being poor and living that life.

We considered moving her into the city to be close to family who have to drive almost 3 hours to see her but the care is so bad in the city it isn’t worth it.

We have had family members in city nursing homes and they’re abysmal. Which to some level I get. The people there like you stated are underpaid and overworked. They live in bad neighborhoods because of systemic poverty. They bring all the stress of being poor in a metro city with them to work. Quality of care plummets but there’s nothing that can be done because no one is going to pay more than bare minimum to reach mandatory staff minimums.

> locals in the rural town and are comfortable being poor and living that life

> all the stress of being poor in a metro city

Is it generally accepted that people in similar economic circumstances have improved life satisfaction in rural areas? It is counterintuitive to me given any city typically has better low cost amenities like museums, libraries, and parks than rural areas that I have observed.

Think about how often you got to a museum, library, or park compared to how often you eat and pay the monthly bills. The more expensive the area, the higher the routine bills and wages don't always track that, especially at the low end.

Both have significant advantages, shared walls reducing energy costs and the ability to live without a car can make a huge difference at the bottom.

It’s really suburbs that end up the most expensive. You combine higher housing and labor costs vs rural areas without any of the cost savings of cities.

Some people prefer space, privacy, and nature over cultural amenities. It's possible to survive on fairly little income if you own some land and are able to hunt, fish, and grow a bit of your own food. Being poor is still tough anywhere but people get by.

> It is counterintuitive to me given any city typically has better low cost amenities like museums, libraries, and parks

Indeed, one can also add availability of theaters, operas, music festivals, multi-cuisine restaurants and sport complexes too.

And the situation will get worse due to aging population demographics. This type of work is among the hardest to automate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com