Is it time to just give up on Boston? (Worcester: renters, crime)

[simplexsimon]

OP's core argument seems to be cost of living and ignores/doesn't value what one gets for that cost.

You can be sure that if college roommates living in Springfield created the next Apple they would be leaving the area even if everybody they hired was going to be working remote.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by simplexsimon

OP's core argument seems to be cost of living and ignores/doesn't value what one gets for that cost.

You can be sure that if college roommates living in Springfield created the next Apple they would be leaving the area even if everybody they hired was going to be working remote.

Right but you are aware how apple is formed right? Steve Jobs worked at Atari any largely took the 8-Bit computer from it back in the late 1970s it's not like he really did any work independently. The vast majority of the tech sector is made from people that left companies and started their own and it's been like that for at least 50 or so years. Recently Activision Blizzard was bought out by Microsoft activism by itself started from former Atari personnel in 1979. In fact actually they had a significant lawsuit about third party software development. And ever since they've been arguments about open and closed systems.

Boston by itself does not really have factories so if it's non-physical work that can be pretty much put anywhere. You can run a lawyer's office from anywhere in the state and you still have a lawyer. Your teacher licenses are the same and every other license there's no real specific local license. If you call or email somebody you don't really know specifically where that's going.

Just think of this on the surface if the businesses don't like spending extra and if people don't like spending extra to live there then why would either party want to be there? It's like inviting people to a party okay I get it the more people that go the more that you could probably charge and pretty soon you have a major event I get that. It cost much more money to go to the Super Bowl than it does for a pub down the street.

But eventually the image changes. We can call gentrification which I don't technically mind but that also has an impact in small businesses as well.

It's funny you mention Hartford as well because that's largely an empty City at this point. My girlfriend's son is about to get an actuary job and they're right about to just tell him to stay at home. Legal offices in Hartford have been significantly downsized if you don't have to be there then why go in.

As for state jobs not being virtual well certain amount are hybrid.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/al...e-work-options

Further south in Connecticut it's here to stay

https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/...k-17008145.php

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Just think of this on the surface if the businesses don't like spending extra and if people don't like spending extra to live there then why would either party want to be there?

Because the benefits of living or locating there outweigh the costs for enough people and companies. You seem to think people HAVE to live there, as opposed to WANT to live there because what they get for living there outweighs the added costs. It's not rocket science. It's true of almost all high price areas.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Because the benefits of living or locating there outweigh the costs for enough people and companies. You seem to think people HAVE to live there, as opposed to WANT to live there because what they get for living there outweighs the added costs. It's not rocket science. It's true of almost all high price areas.

In some cases they do have to live there the city of Boston has a residency requirement for Municipal Employees. According to the Boston Herald back in January the city of Boston has 18,000 city employees. If you make an argument for at least a family of three per employee you're literally looking at approximately 60,000 people that have to live in Boston.

So yes there is actual evidence that some people live in Boston that don't want to live there. How many people would leave out of that 60,000 if the requirement was taken off? Residents of requirements do not work in helping the economy. The city of Hartford already did a study that was less than 1/10 of 1% of the budget. Making an extra $150,000 based on a budget that's in the hundreds of millions is not statistically significant.


At the same point there are those that advocate for affordable housing but that becomes contradictory to having a residency requirement. If you want to hire top talent that's fine but that comes with the price as we've said here. But then where's the housing for everybody else? This leads people to either become high in professionals or end up in poverty traps.

[msRB311]

I don't think some of you are getting it with choices. If someone is in Boston for a specific job and that jobs is not in Springfield or Worcester there is no choice other than to stay in Boston. Sure they could move to another city but if it's a specific job that there aren't many of then they can't.

At the end of the day this isnt really something to argue over with the OP. they are stating that they wish there were more jobs in places like Worcester and Springfield. Why is that problem to many of you?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Sure they could move to another city but if it's a specific job that there aren't many of then they can't.

There aren't many jobs like this at all. If someone is so skilled that they are qualified to get one of these highly specialized jobs in a high cost, very competitive market, they're almost certainly qualified (or overqualified) for other jobs as well. They may not pay near as well, and they may not have the same career enhancements, but they are qualified for them and could get them. This is true for law, biotech, academia, engineering, specialized medical professions, fortune 100 C level exec positions... nearly everything. I'm sure there must be some example of of a few out there, but they're exceedingly rare.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by mdovell

In some cases they do have to live there the city of Boston has a residency requirement for Municipal Employees. According to the Boston Herald back in January the city of Boston has 18,000 city employees. If you make an argument for at least a family of three per employee you're literally looking at approximately 60,000 people that have to live in Boston.

So yes there is actual evidence that some people live in Boston that don't want to live there .

No there isn't. You haven't shown they DO NOT want to live there. You're assuming it because there is a residency requirement. Those people want to work for the City of Boston. If you think a person working for the City of Boston can't get a job working, say for the City of Detroit, or Pittsburg, Worcester, Brockton, or any number of other cities, I don't know what to tell you.

There ARE people that are trapped. They're generally the very poor. They have no assets, not ability to move at all. They're stuck in a cycle. Not too many City of Boston civil service employees are in that bucket.

[massnative71]

I am somebody who can't just go "anywhere". If I could go somewhere 1-2 hours away from Boston AND also has some sort of appeal to me, I would be gone in a heartbeat. NOT to Springfield though. I would have to gain something from the move.

[JacksonPanther]

Back in the 70s and 80s the computer companies were in the suburbs, not Boston.
Back in the 80s thru the 2000s the telecom companies were in the suburbs, not Boston.

Both of these industries were populated by really smart, well educated people, who lived outside 495, southern NH, and other far flung suburban areas.

Can someone explain what's so special about today's technologies, that they absolutely MUST be located in or near Boston?

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

Back in the 70s and 80s the computer companies were in the suburbs, not Boston.
Back in the 80s thru the 2000s the telecom companies were in the suburbs, not Boston.

Both of these industries were populated by really smart, well educated people, who lived outside 495, southern NH, and other far flung suburban areas.

Can someone explain what's so special about today's technologies, that they absolutely MUST be located in or near Boston?

495 was an 80 mph road in 1985. There wasn’t much commute penalty for having a 30 mile drive.

Edited:
I worked in Andover next to 495 in 1982. I worked in Marlborough after that. I was between startups at Data General in Westborough in 1988. I was in Chelmsford after that. I worked in Nagog Park for a bit in 1999. By 1999, 495 was a disaster. My point is that Massachusetts road infrastructure didn’t keep up so it became better to take public transportation into the city.