... imagine living in a place as inexpensive as a medium-sized Midwestern city, but with Silicon Valley salaries.
I'm imagining myself waking up every morning wondering what good it is to be making $XX0,000 if I have to live in this place. My cousin makes ~$220,000 in Yakima WA as a doctor -- her main expenses are weekly flights to NYC.
The reason why people want to be in big cities is because other people are there -- supply and demand explains the high prices. I came from Sacramento, but I wouldn't live there for even double my salary because nobody is doing anything interesting there. The startup scene is non-existent and there are no major universities turning out bright minds. Just more fat people having kids at age 22.
Or are you asking why a SF-style city can't be as inexpensive as Topeka? To that, I would answer: because nobody wants to be in Topeka.
SF isn't a mega-city by any means. It's the 14th largest in the country (between Austin and Columbus). An SF-style city can't be as inexpensive as Topeka. But it could be as inexpensive as Philadelphia or Boston.
San Francisco is the only major city in the US where you a) don't need a car and b) there's no snow. Apparently, lots of people highly value these (and other) factors, enough so that it cannot be as cheap as Philadelphia or Boston.
It's not a question of what would be nice. It's a question of supply and demand.
It is a matter of supply and demand, and while demand in SF is high, it's nothing like say NYC or LA where there are millions of people looking for housing. SF is a medium-sized city as far as cities go. It's a growing city, unlike many, but in the last ten years it grew slower than Boston, DC, Portland, Seattle, San Diego, and Miami. It's not like developers can't build housing quickly enough to keep up with all the demand. It's that the city won't let them.
Perhaps very few readers of HN would like to be in Topeka, but there are also families that have lived there for generations and all kinds of people who I'm sure absolutely love Topeka.
In fact, I suspect they would tell you that you can take NYC or SF and have it (or worse.) The bottom line is to each their own - no reason to disparage other's interests and life choices because you choose to live in a big city and have found a community of like-minded people, it just makes you sound like a pompous jerk.
Perhaps very few readers of HN would like to be in Topeka, but there are also families that have lived there for generations and all kinds of people who I'm sure absolutely love Topeka.
As an additional note, there are also families that have lived in New York City for generations and all kinds of people who absolutely love New York.
Then they get priced out, too. This is why my family moved us to New Jersey at age 5: between crime and school zoning, my parents couldn't stay in their home city of New York and raise children. So to the suburbs we went (in roughly 1994) and by even the mid-2000s we were completely priced out of the city all four of us were born in and very much feel culturally attached to (what with our families having lived there for 100 years or so).
And both my parents had white-collar, professional jobs with salaries and benefits packages!
The point is not NYC > Topeka for everyone -- that is a subjective judgment and you have to pick what's best for you. The point is, for many more people, larger cities have more to offer than small towns. Additionally, on many objective scales that matter to many people -- mainly measures having to do with economic mobility and opportunity -- NYC and other large cities outperform Topeka and the rest of the midwest.
It's not as if I want to live in the Bay Area and spend 1.5X+ on living merely because the population is larger. It's because I have a chance to work for 5-10 years, collect options at some up and coming companies, network with many very successful people, build a career and then retire at age 40 with a 7+ digit net worth. And if I fail to achieve that, I can still land somewhere on a spectrum of outcomes bookended by that goal. The opportunity to do this is very small in Topeka and elsewhere.
So when you say "... no reason to disparage other's interests and life choices because you choose to live in a big city and have found a community of like-minded people, it just makes you sound like a pompous jerk," you're missing the point. I'm not "disparaging" Topeka because there is a community of like-minded people. I'm disparaging the idea that a town like Topeka could just become like SF, only cheaper.
Such a notion embodies no understanding of the reasons why SF is objectively better than Topeka. You are confusing my comparison of the cities on objective criteria with a claim about certain subjective qualities of the places. Yes, some people don't want to put up with the cost, noise, filth etc. involved with big city life and they don't highly value the opportunities we have here -- in my personal opinion, those people have poorly chosen their life's priorities, but objectively stated, they will not enjoy living in SF.
Yakima WA is also where Raymond Carver chose to live & write. Maybe you shouldn't disparage a place just because it's small. I'm sure there are plenty of "fat people having kids at age 22" in Houston, Texas even with the Major Universities turning out bright minds.
I'm imagining myself waking up every morning wondering what good it is to be making $XX0,000 if I have to live in this place. My cousin makes ~$220,000 in Yakima WA as a doctor -- her main expenses are weekly flights to NYC.
The reason why people want to be in big cities is because other people are there -- supply and demand explains the high prices. I came from Sacramento, but I wouldn't live there for even double my salary because nobody is doing anything interesting there. The startup scene is non-existent and there are no major universities turning out bright minds. Just more fat people having kids at age 22.
Or are you asking why a SF-style city can't be as inexpensive as Topeka? To that, I would answer: because nobody wants to be in Topeka.