| > Outside of this strange vocal minority that shows up here, very few people would actually prefer to live in an urban area If that was really true it would create a huge arbitrage opportunity for people to make billions of dollars by building their businesses out in cheaper areas. > The high paying/skilled jobs are there Yes, but the question is why? If most people don't want to be in cities as you say, that would also include business owners, who could save a ton of money by moving their businesses into cheaper areas and paying lower rents and wages. But that's not happening, on net. We're seeing the reverse. Businesses that fled to the suburbs 60 years ago are steadily moving back into cities. https://www.economist.com/news/business/21706285-lots-promin...
http://fortune.com/2011/07/14/companies-head-back-downtown/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/business/economy/why-corp... Many of these are sober, fortune 500 companies that wouldn't be moving if they didn't see a clear economic reason to do it. It's not some "strange vocal minority" position. We are returning to the long-term average for civilization since the first cities began 6000 years ago: cities are the centers of economic activity and power. America went through a weird inversion for two generations where that wasn't true. We're now reverting to the mean. |
If the desirable employees, and the capitalists who want to actively oversee their investments weren't already in the more expensive areas, or if there weren't costs to both associated with regular travel or relocation (which taken together negates the short term opportunity), or if jobs moving to the new place wouldn't actually turn it into a more expensive, denser place (removing the long-term opportunity), that would be true.