←back to thread

526 points cactusplant7374 | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.658s | source
Show context
xeromal ◴[] No.44074588[source]
I've often felt this way about some of today's complaints. I grew up in area like what was mentioned in this article and I long for the day I can go back there. I would in a heartbeat if my partner shared the same mentality as me.

I don't really see a point in living a big city with the remote job I have and that many others have if I can live in a smaller area that still has humans but much cheaper way of living. Everyone claims it's about living in a city with available services but I see those same people decry how much the food costs and also that they have no friends and can't find someone to date. My thoughts aren't as articulate as I'd like them to be but I guess I'm ultimately trying to say is if I'm going to be miserable, why not do it on my own land for a lot cheaper.

replies(9): >>44075163 #>>44075351 #>>44075419 #>>44075646 #>>44076534 #>>44076640 #>>44077488 #>>44077540 #>>44081166 #
aaronbaugher ◴[] No.44075163[source]
I've lived most of my life in (or outside of) small towns, and some of it in a city. I've noticed that my small-town friends who moved to the city would often talk about all the culture and food choices, but when it comes right down to it, they mostly eat at chain restaurants and go to the movies, same as they could in a smallish town. They might occasionally go to a pro baseball game or the zoo or something that's only available in the city, but country people can make a day trip to do that too.

I'm sure some city people do take advantage of all the diverse options the city gives them, but it seems like a lot of them ended up there for other reasons and then use that as a rationalization for staying where everything costs so much more.

replies(7): >>44075333 #>>44075394 #>>44075604 #>>44075608 #>>44075838 #>>44077187 #>>44086224 #
keiferski ◴[] No.44075333[source]
I agree with you for the most part, and think a lot of people think they need to live in NYC/LA/London/etc. because of unstated social pressure, not because they actually utilize all of the megacity’s amenities.

However – I do think there is a sweet spot. If you can get a remote job that pays decently well and doesn’t require an excessive amount of time – and live in one of these cities – you can actually manage to see and do everything.

For example - I lived in New York for a while doing exactly this. I worked remotely and so could avoid rush hours on the subway, at restaurants, etc. and I had enough time and pocket money to explore the city.

replies(1): >>44077114 #
1. trollbridge ◴[] No.44077114[source]
I’ve never really been super confident with remote jobs - a recession hits and you can’t find another job.
replies(1): >>44077551 #
2. xp84 ◴[] No.44077551[source]
> remote jobs

> a recession hits and you can’t find another job.

Suppose you avoid all remote work. You live in San Francisco. If a recession hits and you're laid off, now there are 10,000 local unemployed tech workers trying to get 5,000 local jobs. Similar risk of unhappiness.

I don't believe that remote positions as a class are more likely to be eliminated than any other, so I just think of jobs located in "Remote" to be just like jobs in any other city, "Remote" just happens to have more jobs than any one city, and has unlimited housing for sale or rent at every price point.

I went remote in 2018 and couldn't be happier with my choice. I'm on my 3rd job, although Job #2 required me to be onsite for about a year starting in 2019.

replies(1): >>44089487 #
3. trollbridge ◴[] No.44089487[source]
I'm remote too (sort of), but I do sometimes dislike the fact that the kind of tech jobs I'm best suited for are all an hour+ away.