[dahfizz]

> There are very strong network effects of educated cities.

According to the research you mentioned[1], the "network effect" you mentioned raises wages moderately for uneducated people and a little for educated people. But still nowhere near enough to account for the astronomical rent prices in a city.

They also show that educated cities grow faster than uneducated cities, but don't make a comparison to smaller towns and suburbs.

I see no reason why cities are objectively better. They are convenient for some segment of the population, and they are very unenjoyable for some segment of the population.

[1]https://gulzar05.blogspot.com/2011/02/ode-to-cities.html?m=1

[rmah]

The business network effect is mostly beneficial to the companies, not to the employees. The employees are simply attracted because of the better employment opportunities.

[imtringued]

Most of it is centralization. Google is in the bay area so everyone must go there if they want a job. Now apply this to a hundred different companies. Now that major city is absolutely essential if you want a high salary.

Rent prices are just a matter of greed. Cities make themselves business friendly to bring in more taxes but do not pay attention of how to house workers. If they wanted to prevent gentrification they'd start by kicking out companies, not the people that have lived there for decades. The reality is that all this bullshit is about making money. Land owners want a higher ROI so kicking out companies is a no go but building more housing is a no go too.