
Millennials Moving to Suburbs Will Change Economic Development - uptown
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-03/millennials-moving-to-suburbs-will-change-economic-development
======
j-c-hewitt
I live in the country remote working like some of the other commenters here
after being priced out of NYC (where I'm from) and the Bay Area (where I
worked for a few years). That I have great internet and wonderful amenities
are two key pieces.

However after having run small businesses and/or freelancing for 10 years I
can say that it is not something that everyone is cut out for.

The problem the cities have now is that they are not priced for people who
work for a living. They are priced for people with access to intergenerational
wealth and/or who don't work and just live off investments. Everything from
the cost of property to the tax structure penalizes people who work severely
and rewards people who own property and live off capital gains lavishly.
Everything in the laws screams out "YOU SHOULD NOT BE WORKING HERE/EARNING A
SALARY/STARTING A SMALL BUSINESS -- MOVE OUT, PEASANT."

People included in the "PEASANT" category include people earning low to mid
six figure salaries. There is only so much that people will tolerate working
hard to make their landlord rich. Other cities in the country that aren't the
big offenders that everyone complains about don't really have this problem.

It is a problem that there is a solution for, though: move out, buy property,
save money, work less, enjoy life more, get to keep the stuff that you used to
give up to your landlord for the privilege of a few square feet in a dirty,
stinky city with infrastructure that would humiliate someone from a country
that isn't as backwards as the US.

~~~
mistermann
Totally agree, and Canada is worse - we have very few major cities to choose
from, and the two major ones (Vancouver and Toronto) are insanely expensive to
live in on an affordability basis, due to the terrible wages Canadians enjoy
compared to the US.

And worse, our already large but planned to increase annually immigration
levels, much of which are wives and children of the world's 1%, who also
coincidentally choose to live in the two cities above, essentially guarantees
that working class people (by that I mean anyone that actually works for a
living) will be eventually pushed out, unless some sort of a public dorm
system is introduced.

~~~
j-c-hewitt
Right... and the conventional 'working class' as in service workers, some
factory workers, and the like have to live stacked up in probably-illegal
conditions while the white collar 'working class' lives in tiny apartments
paying as much in rent for a 1 bedroom as a guy with a lavish multi-hundred-
acre horse farm estate with 8 bedrooms pays for his mortgage in the country.

~~~
mistermann
And the cream on top: the white collar worker living in a shoebox is paying
40% income taxes while the estate owner has no taxable income, despite buying
a few new $100k+ cars per year. And the government "doesn't see" any of this
happening.

~~~
toasterlovin
To be fair, the accumulated wealth of the rich person has already been taxed.

~~~
dragonwriter
The accumulation of wealth (income) has been, the accumulated wealth
(property) has not (except insofar as they wealth is held in asset classes
subject to property taxes.)

Whether income alone, property alone, or some (and if so, what) particular
combination of those two _should_ be taxed is a matter of some debate.

~~~
toasterlovin
You have to buy assets. The income used to buy them has already been taxed.
Then, whenever those assets generate further income, that additional income
gets taxed.

You can quibble about what the tax rates should be, but I was responding to
somebody who made it sound like wealthy people pay no taxes, which is an utter
misrepresentation of the situation.

~~~
mistermann
> but I was responding to somebody who made it sound like wealthy people pay
> no taxes, which is an utter misrepresentation of the situation

I wish you were right, however:

[https://globalnews.ca/news/3773729/richmond-incomes-
downtown...](https://globalnews.ca/news/3773729/richmond-incomes-downtown-
eastside/)

A huge percentage of recent sales are to overseas investors (untaxed money),
most of the appreciation wealth is accumulated by people who bought > 10 years
ago, so no tax as it is their primary residence. So even though it seems hard
to believe, in fact the majority of the money in this system is untaxed.

And if you're not familiar with the downtown eastside:

[https://www.straight.com/news/847631/photos-three-months-
dow...](https://www.straight.com/news/847631/photos-three-months-downtown-
eastside-fentanyl-crisis-grows-bad-worse)

~~~
toasterlovin
I find it hard to complain too much about untaxed wealth in the form of
primary residences. This is a vehicle that is available to vast swathes of the
American & Canadian public. As such, it doesn’t really bolster the argument
that wealthy people somehow pay less taxes, which is what I was responding to.

~~~
mistermann
Does this bolster the argument?

[https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3ddbwb/vancouver-dirt-
now...](https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3ddbwb/vancouver-dirt-now-earns-
twice-as-much-as-all-of-the-citys-workers-combined)

In case the logic isn't obvious:

If you own a house, you are wealthy.

Houses earn more than wages.

No taxes are paid on capital gains of primary residence.

Why should I have to pay higher taxes because I worked my ass off in school
and continue to work my ass off, but someone who lucked into winning the
modern day Canadian lottery gets a free ride? The legislation wasn't written
with this scenario in mind I can tell you that for sure.

Our historic social contracts are starting to break down, if the state doesn't
uphold it's end of the bargain, I don't see why I should uphold my end.

~~~
toasterlovin
I know plenty of non-wealthy, middle and working class people (born to middle
and working class parents) who own houses. They aren't wealthy because they
still have a mortgage for most of the value of the house. They may be wealthy
in 30 years when their mortgage is paid off, but they aren't now.

Wealthy citizens of the U.S. and Canada all had to pay income taxes on the
money they used to buy the assets they own. People who are wealthy enough to
get by entirely on income generating assets were probably at one time in the
top income tax bracket, which means they forked over about 50% of their income
to the government. Which, btw, is a much higher percentage rate than people in
the lower tax brackets.

So, do wealthy people have it easier than non-wealthy people? Yes. But they
had to earn an unbelievable amount of money (since they had to pay half of it
in taxes) to get to that point. So maybe it's not actually _that_ unfair. And,
since high earners pay a higher tax rate, maybe it's actually kinda fair.

~~~
mistermann
> So, do wealthy people have it easier than non-wealthy people? Yes. But they
> had to earn an unbelievable amount of money (since they had to pay half of
> it in taxes) to get to that point.

Usually, but not always. _That 's the point_.

In some geographical regions in the world, ownership of real estate is
starting to trump everything. When it comes to net worth, your income is
largely a rounding error. Strangely, when this discussion is raised, a variety
of standard responses seem to be raised, in this case, "oh, you're saying that
this is the case _always and everywhere_ \- since that is obviously false,
therefore your entire premise if false, end of discussion".

Another common conversational diversion tactic (that worked for several years
in Canada) was shutting down any complaint by playing the race card. Since it
is usually people from mainland China (unsurprisingly, considering the scope
of new wealth in that country) who are involved in massive real estate
appreciation is most parts of the world, again and again in all Western
countries we've seen dissenting voices silenced by accusing them of racism,
_often by their very own governments who are supposed to be managing these
things and protecting the best interests of citizens_. And boy is it
effective, up to a point. Citizens in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are
finally getting fed up with their governments to brush off racism accusations,
but it's far too little, too late - things are so far gone, nothing can be
done without destroying the Frankenstein economies that the overall economy
depends on. I often wonder if that was the plan.

People living in the US probably don't notice this nearly as much, as you have
a large population and enjoy a massive and powerful economy, whereas foreign
entrance into our markets cause significant effects.

~~~
toasterlovin
I think we’re largely aligned here. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I’m
very open to restrictions on foreign purchases of residences. And I totally
agree with your remarks about charges of racism being used to shut down valid
complaints about a government not privileging the interests of its own
citizens over citizens of other countries.

I am a little more optimistic about things in general, though, for a couple of
reasons:

1\. I think Canada has a serious construction policy problem. My wife is from
Langley, BC (we were just there over the Easter weekend). There is tons of
land available to build on in BC. It’s incredulous that housing costs are so
high with so much undeveloped land.

2\. All it takes is a crash to flush all the investors out of the housing
market.

------
roymckenzie
I lived in San Francisco for the past seven years, but moved to Missoula,
Montana because living in the city and even surrounding places like Oakland,
South Bay was increasingly way too expensive. I count myself lucky that I am
self-employed and work in an industry that I can easily do remote work as the
job prospects in Missoula mostly center around low-wage service work.

At the end of the day, I moved to Missoula so I can do my part as a millennial
and start buying diamonds again.

~~~
op00to
Are you afraid that you won't be able to find quality remote work at some
point? As much as I'd love to go far off into the woods, my job prospects -
even as a confirmed, life-long remote employee - are so much better being
close to an urban center with solid transportation connections to major
cities.

~~~
aantix
I work remotely for Bay Area startups. Have for the past three years, been
consulting for six (lived in SF prior).

The burden of trust always falls on you, the developer. So you offer
concessions to mitigate risk and hustle in the beginning to establish trust:

0) Reach out directly to the prospective job. Show them how you can make a
remote arrangement work.

1) Offer a short term contract up front - if you're not "a good fit for each
other" the terms allow either party to walk with little notice.

2) Offer to fly out to meet the team personally (most other prospective
engineers won't do this). Factor this cost into your rate and _do not_ bother
them with additional travel expenses. Tell them you'll "foot the bill".

2a) Give them a single invoice with one number - make it easy for them to pay
you.

3) When you've finally joined the team remotely, quickly offer up cosmetic
suggestions on PR's, open up new PRs to improve the on-boarding documentation,
tackle a couple of simple stories and get a PR out within a few days.

4) Get the senior devs to do walk-throughs of the code on Slack. When you
encounter something semi-difficult that Google can't answer, that would
probably take you a couple of days to unravel but a senior dev already knows,
_call_ them on slack. Swallow your pride. Make a call.

5) Goes without saying - don't miss the standups. If you were in the office,
it's easy to see that you're doing something else. When you're 1500 miles
away, especially in the beginning, nightmares of the remote dev going MIA kick
in quick.

~~~
gm-conspiracy
Regarding your #2, in my experience as a remote dev., I have visited HQ
multiple time per year.

Would having the company coordinate your travel and expenses give you insight
into how the company functions?

~~~
aantix
Some of the startups in SF are pretty small, just ramping up in terms of head
counts and may not have someone in charge to deal with travel logistics (you
could be the first remote dev ever).

If you're trying to get a signal regarding whether the company is going to pay
you and pay on time, request a tighter payment schedule, e.g. net 10. That
reduces the risk a bit on your side (you won't end up working for two months
for free) and isn't much different on their end.

------
tjwds
> As millennials age into their 30s and homeownership is on the rise,
> demographics are now moving against urban landlords.

> We know how and what to build when we're dealing with an influx of young
> urban renters. But what will they want as they age into their next phase of
> life, and how can policy makers meet their needs?

A lot of this article seems to be pinned on an unwritten idea that the suburbs
are where you go when you want to grow up. This seems like a bit of a trap for
developers and speculators, to me: at least in the city I live in, there has
been some focus on urban development to provide services for families of all
sizes.

~~~
rayiner
The dealbreaker is schools. Without getting into a fight about why urban
schools are dysfunctional, they are, and that will drive families to suburbs.
While millenials are having kids somewhat later, it doesn’t look like there
will be a dramatic drop in the percentage of millenials who will ultimately
have kids.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Depends on the city. Millenials could also push for changes and upgrades in
urban school districts.

~~~
nervousvarun
They could, and some will...but the majority won't have time/inclination with
the obligations of work/family and will just move to the suburbs (if history
is any indication).

This is basically been the case for decades in the U.S.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It could be like that, but the new generation has proven to be very different
from the baby boomers, so who knows.

Other countries seem to get by just fine with living in cities and having
kids.

~~~
rayiner
> Other countries seem to get by just fine with living in cities and having
> kids.

Other countries don't concentrate all their disadvantaged people in the
cities.

------
jdlyga
When I lived in the subburbs in long island, millenials felt pretty left
behind. Home prices were over a million dollars with very little opportunities
for renting. Most people either rented semi-legal basement apartments or lived
with their parents. It wasn't till I moved to New York City that I started to
see people my age doing well. It's a very safe city, has a huge culture of
renting, and with higher wages. Unless you have the money to afford a home,
it's better to live in a city and rent.

~~~
magduf
Depending on the city, buying a house is a big liability too, and just doesn't
make any financial sense unless you're sure you're going to be there for at
least 8 years. What if you get a new job on the other side of town? What if
you want to move in with your significant other, and they work somewhere else?
As a renter, it's not that hard for you to pack up and move to a more
convenient location so your commute isn't so horrible (or to have a more
equitable commute between you and your partner), but when you own a house,
you're going to lose a huge amount of money just by selling it thanks to
ridiculous closing costs.

~~~
vonmoltke
> What if you get a new job on the other side of town?

For starters, I'm not moving. I hate moving and find it very stressful and
disruptive.

~~~
magduf
Ok, so you just got laid off at your job, and you can't find anyone on your
side of town to hire you. However, there's a company on the opposite side of
town that will. What are you going to do? Spend 45-60 minutes commuting each
way, or move?

~~~
ryandrake
Work on the other side of town? 45-60 minutes? LOL. My commute is 2 hours each
way. It’s not the end of the world and living this far from everything allows
me to own a home and put my kid in a good school. I’m not going to rent a
shoebox in a gang war zone just so I can get a 20-30 minute commute.

------
dahdum
I don’t understand how the article can bemoan high rents but then also say
urban cores are overbuilt? Overbuilding drives down rents, which isn’t great
for developers but not exactly a problem for the rest of us.

Miami is going through the same, so many condo towers are going up it’s
suppressing rents - in the most expensive area of the city. Yes, they are
premium units, but the supply drives down rents across the board.

~~~
Steltek
I'm guessing it's because many cities still strangle development. "Overbuilt"
could be concluded from a lack of feasible projects within a city.

There's also the nebulous problem of investors buying units in new luxury
buildings but not occupying or renting them. This could preserve high rent
prices as new units are not being faithfully put into the housing pool.
Stories about that pop up often but don't seem quantified as an issue.

------
josephpmay
OR millennials are moving to the exurbs not because they want to, but because
cities are too expensive when you have a family and don’t want roommates. Much
of the rest of the world is happy to raise families in cities... why not here?
The solution should be to build infrastructure and improve the schools in
urban cores, not invest in suburbs.

~~~
matte_black
IMO cities are crap if you have certain hobbies.

If you want to have a garden, or a wood shop, or race around RC cars or
drones, or big pets, a city just won’t work well for you.

Most people are happy in cities because their lives aren’t much more than
sleeping, eating, going to work, and then maybe going to some social events or
watching tv, which is a perfect description of millennial life so far.

~~~
notfromhere
If you live in Midtown Manhattan or the Loop in Chicago, I can see why you'd
believe that. But if you live in the outer neighborhoods/boroughs, thats not
in the slightest bit true.

~~~
lazerpants
I live in Brooklyn. The hobbies I cannot participate in, mostly due to not
having a car, that I once enjoyed:

Autocross/Track days

Sporting clays

Golf (dragging clubs on the subway is not fun)

Kayaking

Camping

There are other things to do, but NYC is a bad place for a person making less
than 6 figures to participate in a lot of outdoor activities.

------
rhexs
With housing inventory at an all time low, and the market at higher highs than
peak bubble in 2006 (in most markets), this doesn't seem like a problem anyone
needs to worry about at the moment.

Perhaps the solution to the 2006 mortgage crisis shouldn't have been to
immediately and urgently reinflate the bubble. Oh well. Same story, different
year. Maybe the fed can finally play with negative interest rates during the
next downturn!

------
ixtli
It's funny because this article thinks we can find jobs outside of cities...

~~~
chrisseaton
> It's funny because this article thinks we can find jobs outside of cities...

But it's an article about living in suburbs... suburbs of cities... where the
jobs are. You can catch a train (or take a company bus or drive in the US I
guess) from a suburb into the city for your job. That's what suburbs are.

~~~
ghaff
And that's even assuming the jobs are actually in the city. While tech jobs in
urban cores have increased in recent years, in a lot of places the majority
are still out in the exurbs and suburbs--including in the case of the Bay
Area. (The difference being that in regions like Massachusetts, housing prices
are a lot more reasonable in many towns outside of the urban core.)

~~~
notfromhere
I mean that's kinda a given about the Bay Area. Outside of SF, its just
suburbia on steroids

------
Karrot_Kream
Important to note that Urban areas continue to grow, but the rate at which
they've been growing is decreasing, while suburban growth rates are increasing
again. To me, the comparison feels a bit dodgy, as a much smaller change in
suburban population will move the growth rate for those areas compared to
Urban areas, due to lower populations, and Urban centers continue to grow,
just slower than before.

~~~
majormajor
I don't think that's right:

[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-suburban-are-big-
am...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-suburban-are-big-american-
cities/)

> Nationally, 26 percent of Americans described where they live as urban, 53
> percent said suburban and 21 percent said rural. (This comes close to the
> census estimate that 81 percent of the population is urban if “urban” is
> understood to include suburban areas.)

Of course, that's response-based, but if you look at the character of most
American cities, there's very little truly dense urban areas. Though even the
definition of suburban itself can cover a wide range, since "suburban" Los
Angeles has a lot of 8-10K person/sqmile areas and "suburban" Dallas generally
is more like 4K, and then others are even less.

------
acconrad
I don't know if this chain of events actually lines up. The way I see it,
autonomous vehicles will allow anyone (not just millennials) to reclaim that
lost time commuting, which can be used for work and thus make the idea of
commuting from the suburbs not all that bad. Then people won't mind moving far
away from the city centers given that the commute is no longer a fruitless
activity. Personally I'd be very happy to live an hour away from a city if it
meant that I could use the 2 hours round-trip to do work (if I still had to
work in an office).

~~~
Unkechaug
I think that wish would be corrupted quickly.

Oh so you commute all the way out to the suburbs? Hey since we know you'll
have nothing to do anyway please complete these additional tasks. If you work
on the way home we won't bother you after you actually arrive there.

~~~
jstarfish
Just say no.

Exploitative behavior only becomes an expectation when enough employees prove
willing to do it.

------
xutopia
The first paragraph has an assumption that might be proven wrong. This
generation might not have children like the previous generation did, at least
not in the same numbers.

~~~
sampleinajar
Good point. Depends on the generation you are referring to. Gen X? Child rates
have been slowly decreasing since the 70s. I imagine most expect that trend to
continue, but I"m not sure that it would be enough to preclude a substantial
desire to move into the suburbs.

------
siruncledrew
As an aside, I wish articles would just put the age ranges in the title for
the group they are referring to, rather than a blanket term like
"millennials". For example, if millennials [0] includes anyone 22-37, the
image in a person's mind of "a millennial" could greatly vary from someone
fresh out of college to a a young couple with a baby. That creates a
disconnect from actuality if the article is referring to a specific subset in
their late 20s-early 30s.

[0]: [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/defining-
gen...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/defining-generations-
where-millennials-end-and-post-millennials-begin/)

~~~
RhysU
Up to folks with teenagers, you mean. Many couples have more than a baby by
age 37.

------
pnathan
after moving from seattle to a smaller city , my wife and I regret it a great
deal and plan to move to an urban location permanently, with our young child.
It was a voyage of self-discovery.

~~~
otoburb
Can you elaborate why? Based on the reference to your young child, is your
regret based on daycare and school choices?

~~~
pnathan
* Terrible transit.

* Anti-tax attitude

* Limited multi-cultural experience

* Less forward-looking attitude (this is hard to verbally pin down).

With respect to the child, it'll be more difficult in the city. But I want to
stress that as a gestalt system, the big city is a better place to live for
all of us. If we had the opportunity work out, we would live in Manhattan (but
the relocation is a substantial logistical problem at present). Opportunities
exist in the big city that are not present in smaller cities or suburbs.

------
arcaster
As someone on the younger end of what seems to be considered "millennial"
(graduating from uni in May), I hope this means cheaper rent in cities like
New York, Austin and Boston?

~~~
lambda_lover
I know that rents in those places has plateaued, but there's so much demand
that even a steady outstream of new parents might not make a dent in housing
prices. NYC rents dipped recently for the first time in years, but as somebody
who's currently shopping around for apartments in NYC, the changes aren't
really substantial to the end renter.

~~~
lazerpants
It appears to me, based on looking last year and this year, that the L train
shutdown is starting to distort rents in desirable neighborhoods outside of
Wburg. People are fleeing Wburg in favor of places like LIC, Astoria, and
Downtown Brooklyn before L service is suspended. Probably a great time to look
in Wburg if you can commute via ferry or stay in the neighborhood though.

Edit: I should add that people aren't just leaving Wburg, anywhere along the L
line is impacted. I suspect it's creating a rental price floor in other parts
of the city, at all price points.

~~~
istorical
As someone whose current lease on the L doesn't end until this
October/November, this scares me.

I've been wondering how many 100's of dollars average rent for a bedroom will
rise (100, 200, 300?) in the other BK neighborhoods that young, childless,
salaried people tend to live. I've found that one of the biggest benefits of
NYC is the salary to rent ratio (compared to other major American cities) if
you're OK with roommates and a 30-45 minute commute on the subway. I wonder
how much the L shutdown changes the math.

------
eliaspro
We'll, I would have loved to stay in the beautiful green and generally family
friendly city I lived in, but once you're at a point where one has to spend
around 2/3 of the income on rent to have sufficient room for kids there's
simply no other choice than moving to a village. Nearly everyone of my friends
with kids did exactly the same.

------
niftich
Yet another article which attempts to use Millennials as a homogeneous cohort
to paint some broad-strokes policy questions to ponder. In fact, the
generational cohorts are significantly less relevant than income [1] in
correlating with where and how Americans live and work. Urban revival is
driven by high-earning, middle-aged adults, working in downtown jobs that have
seen the highest percentages of wage growth. But most population growth and
job growth happens in the suburbs, where people with lower incomes fall,
Millennial or otherwise.

The much talked-about phenomenon of urban cores gaining jobs faster than their
suburbs was confined to certain cities [2], and was entirely untrue in others.
In the general case, suburbs have consistently posted higher rates of
employment growth [3][4], and command a higher absolute number of jobs. In
fact, some of the highest growth areas are metropolitan areas that hardly even
have an urban core that stands apart from its suburbs [5].

Suburbs everywhere are living on borrowed time, because as their
infrastructure ages, they will develop the same problems circling back to lack
of funding as the big cities that gave rise to them in the first place, but
without the political and business clout that big cities mustered up to retain
their relevance. As the infrastructure ages, the taxes will rise,
discretionary funding on quality-of-live services like schools will be
reduced, and the most wealthy will begin to move out into a new ring of exurbs
(or edge cities), or back to the urban core, leaving progressively poorer
people to remain and take their place.

Only suburbs which can successfully pivot to being employment centers can
avoid this painful demographic crunch.

[1] [http://jedkolko.com/2016/03/30/urban-revival-not-for-most-
am...](http://jedkolko.com/2016/03/30/urban-revival-not-for-most-americans/)
[2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/upshot/more-new-jobs-
are-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/upshot/more-new-jobs-are-in-city-
centers-while-employment-growth-shrinks-in-the-suburbs.html) [3]
[https://www.brookings.edu/research/where-are-the-jobs-
cities...](https://www.brookings.edu/research/where-are-the-jobs-cities-
suburbs-and-the-competition-for-employment/) [4]
[http://www.newgeography.com/content/005264-suburbs-
continue-...](http://www.newgeography.com/content/005264-suburbs-continue-
dominate-jobs-and-job-growth) [5]
[http://blog.indeed.com/2017/03/08/bounceback-for-job-and-
wag...](http://blog.indeed.com/2017/03/08/bounceback-for-job-and-wage-growth/)

------
calebm
Just today on Reddit, there was a "shower thought" that being a Millennial is
like starting to play monopoly where there is a hotel on every property. My
response is that, of course all the properties in the major cities have hotels
and are expensive, but there are many properties still up for sale for cheap
if you move out a little. The first rule of negotiation is being willing to
walk away.

