Remix.run Logo
comrade1234 3 hours ago

I feel like wealthy americans live like poor Europeans - they live far outside the city in crowded suburbs, no amenities walking distance so they have to drive everywhere, having to commute an hour to their job, eating bad manufactured food... I'm American but moved to Europe years ago. It may be even better being poor here because at least you might live in a village and you'll have healthcare and your government won't be trying to kill you with polluted air and dangerous food standards.

conductr 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As an American, I don’t think of the suburbs when I think of rich people. I think of what’s left of our middle class just trying to do their best. Many of them probably have negative net worth when debt is considered. But they need public schools, they need big (relatively) affordable housing, they need strip centers with the same 5 restaurants every exit of the highway. When I think of wealth, I think of mostly inner city old money areas or neighborhoods that have had gentrification (not underway). They live near their work/business, near poverty even, but they don’t commute far because they value their time and they will pay for private schools and create their own sports leagues and stuff for their kids and private security to keep out the riff raff. These areas were probably a far out suburb 50-100 years ago but a city grew around them but their wealth was enough to isolate themselves. That’s where the wealthy people live.

ericmay 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It varies by location and by what we mean by rich. In New York, for example, you're totally right. But for most of America the model is country club + suburb, 6,000 sqft house with a pool, big public school district that is very well funded, SUVs, &c. for the "rich".

And in some cities you actually have both. Where I live we have these big, wealthy suburbs (New Albany for example), Delaware County in central Ohio is one of the top countries by income in the whole country - all suburban. Yet we also have some absolutely fantastic and premier neighborhoods in the Columbus area with prices to reasonably match given the scarcity of actual neighborhoods and such, though I actually think the homes in these areas are a bit under-priced and the large suburban homes a bit over-priced.

cmiles8 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Have you been to NY? It’s both. There are wealthy folks in the city but also some of suburbs are also some of the wealthiest places on the planet. Folks forget that you drive 30 minutes from the city center and you’re basically driving through neighborhoods of $1M+ homes that go on for miles and miles. It flies below the radar, which is precisely why so many wealthy folks hang out there.

mancerayder 2 hours ago | parent [-]

1M is not a lot of money for a home in the NYC suburbs, at least where the schools are OK. I'm referring to the nice NJ towns, Westchester, etc.

1M is also the price of a one bedroom apartment in the city of 8.6M. That is, if you don't want a 45 minute one way commute.

lanthissa 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

in new york you're not remotely right.

the suburbs around new york are some of the richest in the world. Scardsale, every town near the ct border, rye, huge parts of li, montclair nj and the towns around it.

the average household net worth in westchester which is a huge county is $1m, thats on the same tier as wealthy parts of any major city.

Sames true of the suburban sprawl of the bay area and dc.

ghaff 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure you're contradicting the parent. There are "elite" suburbs/coastal towns surrounding a lot of "elite" cities. There's something of a preference (and life stage) whether someone has a nice condo in a city or a nice suburban/exurban home (or admittedly both in some cases). The balance doubtless varies depending on the locale; there are some cities that aren't generally considered very desirable while some of thee suburbs/exurbs/nearby smaller cities are.

lotsofpulp 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Net worth means little when you have to spend 2+ hours commuting via public transit 5 out of 7 days per week, so that you basically only live for weekends. Obviously, it's a choice to give up your 30s/40s for a secure 50s/60s or whatever, but the definition of "wealth" is not so clear to me in that scenario.

RajT88 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The suburban wealthy are a little more McMansion/nouveau riche.

Some of these people meet a certain definition of "rich", as in they never have to worry about money. Most suburbanites are not rich by that definition, there's a mix of negative net worth "keeping up with the joneses" types and the single digit millionaires who are a little less flashy and careful with their money.

A useful example - I knew a guy who lived in Naperville and owned an insurance company, drove a hot Jaguar and lived in a huge house. When the housing market crashed, he gutted it and sold off all the parts he could before the bank foreclosed on it.

karlgkk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

As a SDM, something about being able to retire immediately changes you. That violently brings into focus a new most important aspect of wealth.

I’m still working (I enjoy it!). But, having a job is no longer stressful. Small stuff completely doesn’t matter and big stuff barely moves the needle.

I screw up at work? What are they gonna do, fire me? lol who cares.

Doing salary or raise negotiations? Max the band out. What are they gonna do, not hire me? lol who cares.

Rumors of layoffs? lol who cares.

ranger_danger 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What is SDM?

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
karlgkk 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Single digit millionaire

linguae 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s even more extreme in the Bay Area. While San Francisco is a job center, there are also major suburban job centers such as Palo Alto, Cupertino, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. The problem is living close to work is painfully expensive for all but the most well-off employees. A Google executive could comfortably afford a nice house in Los Altos or Palo Alto and have an easy commute. A Google engineer could commute from Fremont or Pleasanton, which would be grueling in a car, but is comfortable on a Google shuttle bus with leather seats and WiFi. But if you’re a teacher working for a school in Mountain View, my condolences. If you want to afford to buy, you’re looking at a grueling commute from either a middle-class exurb like Tracy or from a high-crime, impoverished area like East Oakland. Even renting an apartment closer to work would be daunting in terms of cost.

reducesuffering 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Eh, the wealthiest in America mostly live in spacious suburbs. They aren't very city-like, but they're not the same suburbs as GP mentioned either. In every wealthy metro, there will be a couple areas that the wealthiest coalesce around.

Think Hillsborough/Atherton/Palo Alto, Carmel IN, Newton/Brookline MA, Beverly Hills, Greenwich County CT, River Oaks in Houston, Boulder CO, Scottsdale AZ, etc

conductr 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I’m from Houston originally and tried to describe River Oaks exactly. It’s an old money suburb that is now “in the loop” before 40 miles of sprawl in every direction.

This and a few other places like it are where most wealthy people in Houston live. A suburb like Katy is great for a “rich” petroleum engineer and what not. But wealth is something else.

reducesuffering 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah, when I reread it, your description is fairly aligned. I think it was the description of "inner-city" that threw me off. I don't think people think "inner-city" when thinking of these wealthy suburban enclaves. I thought you were implying a more dense and urban environment, when these suburban enclaves are barely walkable at all.

9rx 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the wealthiest in America mostly live in spacious suburbs.

The wealthiest people I see don't live in any particular place. They have houses everywhere — inner city, the spacious suburbs you mention, rural, and everything in between. They don't limit themselves to living in just one country either.

Having one home and seeing your entire life revolve around it is what poor people do.

reducesuffering 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, they have their city pied-a-terre and rural chateau, but they spend most of their time in their suburban Beverly Hills-esque mansion

subsideuropa 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

reducesuffering 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean, there's still plenty of very wealthy people in SF and NYC. Less likely to get stabbed than the wealthy suburb enjoyer dying in a car accident

kcb 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This reads a lot like "the way I choose to live is the best and everyone else is sad." Anyone in a dense suburb is getting all the fresh food they want from a choice of 6 different grocery stores. And it's silly to complain about suburbs being crowded in comparison to cities.

gpt5 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Especially since America is happier than most European countries [1]. And the ones that are happier are the Nordics and Ireland which are more suburban and less dense.

[1] https://data.worldhappiness.report/table

sealthedeal 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I live in a nice suburb outside of Austin in the hills, and it's incredible. If I moved to Europe, I would still live outside of the city with some land where I have privacy. Living in a dense area is cool for some people, but not others.

samarthr1 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Exactly!

Having a house that is large enough to support whatever hobby(/ies) one takes up is an underappreciated aspect of suburban living.

Growing up, (moderately wealthy) in a comparatively decent sized apartment, in a decent area, the biggest reason to not take up something like woodworking, or say working on a car, or for that matter gardening.

So, as soon as I graduated, I moved out of the city, into a suburb. I get 80% of the benefits of the density (there is a denser suburb 1km away), so I get walkable shops, and all the hep places to eat/drink are just 30 minutes away by car :)

Did I mention the ability to stretch my arms without punching someone in the face while travelling? (because public transport when successful (highly utilized) is crowded, and that is just plain painful)

hattmall 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you implying 30 minutes away by car is a short / good thing? That's adding an hour to anything you want to do. Assuming you work 8 hours and sleep 8 hours that's taking like 15% of your free time just in getting somewhere.

linkregister 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I totally agree with your analysis of suburban Americans' lifestyles! Social isolation is endemic in suburbs.

> eating bad manufactured food

Things have changed dramatically in the last two decades. Food quality has never been better in suburban areas. Every Publix and Kroger has oat milk (I'm using this as a proxy for variety). Produce is fresher and longer-lasting. Consolidation and urbanization has left many rural towns without a local grocery store, requiring longer trips to get food, but suburbia has great variety. Overall food quality and access is better.

blipvert 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You might use oat milk as a proxy for ultra-processed food. I used to live next door to a farm and I know how milking works - don’t ask me to milk an oat, though.

danielbln 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

At least oats don't have to be perpetually kept pregnant while taking their offspring away from their mothers. See, snide comments cut both ways.

eitally 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I would suggest that grocery quality is higher in the suburbs than in the city, but restaurant quality typically isn't.

ghaff 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That's probably true but a lot of people don't really eat out at restaurants regularly.

asdfman123 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Young people with good jobs who live in dense urban areas seem uniquely unhappy, though.

cucumber3732842 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So then the obvious follow up question is whether it's the young, the job or the urban area (or all three) that's making them unhappy?

hattmall 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's the combination, young people are supposed to be doing fun stuff, and the idea was you needed to live in the city to do it. And you went for a less desirable living situation because it was cheap but near the fun stuff which was also cheap. Now the amount of fun stuff in cities is drastically reduced, it costs way more to live and the fun stuff is unreasonably expensive.

Just going off of my personal experience, the same highrise I used to rent is roughly 50% more. 2k to 3k. Two of the entire nightlife districts that were very close are completely gone, torn down and converted to high rise buildings with very boring very expensive ground level retail. The few places that remain are expensive, $12 for a drink is normal, maybe a draft beer is $8. In contrast, I could go out any night and find $2-3 drinks. $5 pitcher of beer, and get a solid meal for under $10. Almost all of the sports leagues at the park next to the highrise are gone. The only festivals that can afford to operate depend on high ticket sales and drawing people from out of town which makes huge annoying crowds.

And I'm not even going back 10 years, this was like 7-8 years ago. If you go back to like 2010 things were even cheaper and more fun.

subsideuropa 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

bluedino 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Plenty of wealthy Americans live in big cities

MisterTea 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> they live far outside the city in crowded suburbs

Suburbs more crowded than a city? Is this for real?

stackghost 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The suburb move is sort of a nouveau-riche/upper middle class thing.

It's like that here in Canada too. Poor people rent apartments in places with easy access to transit, and if they "make it" then the next step is to buy a house in a bedroom community where if you want to do literally anything you need to pile into the car, but hey at least your kids have a yard to play in.

The next step up is being able to afford either a detached home in a upscale desirable neighbourhood, or a nice condo downtown in Toronto/Vancouver, and then again the next step after that is giant mansions outside the city centres.

80% of Canada's population lives along the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and the bulk of that is in suburbs.

cucumber3732842 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>The suburb move is sort of a nouveau-riche/upper middle class thing.

Used to just be a middle class thing.

nsxwolf 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Counterpoint, suburbs are awesome. Can’t wait to watch all my fruit trees about to bloom.

slopinthebag 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's similar in Canada as well, I think that is simply the outcome of massive countries. Not everyone can afford to live in the big cities, whereas in Europe it's much harder to even find a place to live that isn't either a big city or right next to one.

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
subsideuropa 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

bombcar 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Whenever I'm feeling down, I go read how Europeans think I live and I feel much better that I'm not that guy.

Whenever I'm feeling too good, I go read what Americans think about Europeans and wish I was that guy.

patall 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It also helps that America just made fuel more expensive, making walkability, bikeability and short distances in general more lucrative.

wing-_-nuts 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Quibble, Europe has worse air quality than the US. Not sure what 'dangerous food standards' you're referring to either. A lot of European food regs serve more as protectionist schemes for their local industry than things that actually have an impact on public health.