[rmuesi]

The arguments in this article seem extremely dramatic, simplistic and unsupported.

Just one example out of many I found in the article: jobs in big cities are the highest paying. Thus, the article quickly announces then moves on, living in a big city equals a “winner takes all” situation, which leads to dramatic inequality.

How does that remotely support such a dramatic conclusion? Does having a bit less paying job mean you have nothing? Do people not commute into the city for work? Do the lower costs of living outside big cities not offset the lower wages? How does this translate into high inequality? Where does all that inequal wealth go when these “childless couples” die? Etc, etc.

I haven’t read the Atlantic in awhile, but this seemed like something I’d find in the opinion section of my local newspaper. So many poorly supported points in this article.

[alltakendamned]

> Do the lower costs of living outside big cities not offset the lower wages?

At least in Europe I have found that while salaries can be a bit higher in cities (maybe 10-20%) compared to rural areas, the housing cost can be massively higher (200-500% higher). The difference between regional and capital cities is smaller, but can still be important.

This doesn't take into account other costs such as food (supermarkets are cheaper) and entertainment (mostly because there's less of it and mountainbiking in the forest is largely free).

I'm always surprised so few people seem to realize and take advantage of this.

[closeparen]

>Does having a bit less paying job mean you have nothing? Do the lower costs of living outside big cities not offset the lower wages?

The word inequality (as opposed to poverty or standard of living) explicitly registers disinterest in this kind of argument. The important thing is that the distribution is too wide; the objective conditions at its midpoint are irrelevant.