[slymon99]

Cities have jobs. Cities have opportunity. Cities have diversity. Why should we expect, encourage, or even desire that young people sacrifice economic and social opportunity and mobility?

Why is the response to high housing cost in cities lecturing "current generations" about their choices? There are glaringly obvious problems in many of our cities that make housing so expensive. Is it so outrageous to try to solve those problems, and allow people to be able to live where they want to live?

[4death4]

But why do cities have all the opportunity? Most likely because the capital owning class lives in cities and has been systematically draining wealth from more rural areas via globalization and the erosion of workers' rights. I'm not saying young professionals need to concern themselves with such lofty ideals, but I do think it's a valid to question why there are only a few pockets of opportunity left in the country.

[slymon99]

Exactly what wealth are cities draining from rural America?

Is it possible there's a simpler explanation? That the economy of the twenty-first century is dominated by information and technology, and that these demands are better matched to the agglomeration affects of true urban density, where the best and brightest can learn from each other?

[4death4]

> Exactly what wealth are cities draining from rural America?

Obviously it's not the cities themselves draining the wealth, but rather a spiral of excess capital accumulation. It just so happens that many of the people perpetuating this cycle live in cities. Generally, increasing one's capital is done by taking money that was being funneled one place, and funneling it to yourself instead. For example, CVS can open a pharmacy and undercut local competition. Once the local pharmacies close, cash flows that were once destined for local pharmacies go to CVS instead. Local pharmacies would have kept the profits locally, but CVS siphons them from the community into the pockets of shareholders, most of whom happen to live in cities. These city-dwelling shareholders can they pay others to perpetuate this cycle.

> Is it possible there's a simpler explanation? That the economy of the twenty-first century is dominated by information and technology.

Is it, though? Consumer spending is about 70% of GDP. What is your personal spending on tech vs. non-tech items? Personally, I spend vastly more money on non-tech items compared to tech items. The margins are obviously much lower, so they don't have splashy stock tickers.

[JumpCrisscross]

Density increases exchange of ideas and promoted specialisation, which increases productivity. This has been true throughout history and may as well be the zeroth law of economics.

[4death4]

The actual 0th law of economics is the law of decreasing marginal utility. You can't expect specialization and productivity to increase indefinitely as density increases. Clearly, we're at an inflection point. How can people specialize and be productive if they can't even afford a place to live?

[JumpCrisscross]

The actual zeroth law would be a corollary of the second law of thermodynamics: scarcity.

> Clearly, we're at an inflection point

This has been claimed repeatedly throughout history. Without knowledge of the future, it is impossible to know whether we are at an inflection local or global. With resepct to any American city, we know we are far from the inflection point because we have counterexamples abroad.

[paulmd]

The simple explanation is that many of these communities are the proverbial railroad towns that the train no longer stops at. Their key industries have dried up, and the infrastructure costs are unsustainable for the remaining population and economic activity.

The US overbuilt in rural areas during the late 1800s and early 1900s as the railroads pushed west, others had a major industry that has dried up, and a lot of these areas just aren’t sustainable anymore. But America doesn’t have a system for handling de-ruralization gracefully, you still have to deliver power and phone regardless of whether someone wants to live in the middle of Wyoming. We rarely ever rip up a road, etc. Infrastructure is a one-way ratchet.

On top of that most of americas infrastructure is aging in general and we have a general crisis of insufficient revenue to maintain let alone fully replace it. Everything is built on the assumption that it will catch traction and grow, and when it shrinks then there’s no money to maintain or replace it. This is a general crisis across our whole infrastructure - even apart from de-ruralization we’d have overbuilt infrastructure in most places relative to sustainable revenue.

[nobodyandproud]

I cannot find this reference now—I want to say ancient, possibly Roman—but cities have a brain-drain effect and lead specialization; whereas rural individuals have to do many things in order survive.

[randomdata]

Cities offer opportunity at the extreme end of the spectrum due to the concentration of people offering scalability. A professional spots team in the city, for example, can attract tens of thousands of paying spectators. "Field of Dreams" might attract a half dozen spectators on a good night. That's the difference between making millions and not being able to put food on the table.

But for the average Joe who will never leverage themselves into those extremes, I'm not sure the data actually shows greater opportunity. My read from the data is the average Joe is generally worse off in the city with respect to job prospects and compensation.

[throwaway2037]

    But why do cities have all the opportunity?

This is an overstatement. In large parts of Midwest United States (and Canada), you can be middle class by farming. That is "opportunity" -- not amazing, but a good, middle class life in a small, safe town. Also, it is easy to own your home in a farming community -- much easier than large city or suburbs. It would better to ask why do cities have so much more opportunity in the 21st Century? Probably due to the structure of a highly advanced economy. Most of the (economically) valuable work in services is done in and around large cities.

[financltravsty]

As soon as your middle-class farmer children finish high school they will be 1 of 3 (descending, from most likely to least):

- Leaving for the big city/college

- Staying in your small town, but slowly becoming helpless as they fall into bad crowds, bad habits, or both

- Staying in your small town, but successfully continuing the way of life

It is unsustainable in its current form, unless you inoculate your children against modern ideas and technology (like the Amish) or make it more desirable for people to stay. I will point to European villages as a counter example. And then I will point to: lack of cultural homogeneity, the tenuous nature of living in the United States without a stable and growing source of income, and a lack of spiritually-enriching outlets as reasons why people move out of small U.S. towns towards cities.

The first leads to unstable communities. The second leads to subconscious unease and anxiety. The last leads to a restlessness which to leads to various mental ailments like consumerism, that can only be fulfilled by staying on the hedonic treadmill.

I posit that it is not cities that have all the opportunities, but that it is small communities that lack them.

[earthling8118]

You can't just move to the midwest and become a farmer. Particularly if you don't have incredible financial mobility in the first place. The cost of land alone is immense and that isn't factoring in equipment.

Having come from such a town, I would not describe it as safe. Things are cheap and most of the people who are there are stuck there because they have no economic mobility. Yes, there are plenty who choose to and enjoy it but that isn't the bulk of the population.

[janalsncm]

Network effects. If you want to hire 5 good software engineers, it’s easier to find them where they already are.

> the capital owning class lives in cities

Cities are desirable places to live, so the capital owning class will buy and develop land there.

[paulmd]

Eh. Largely society transfers money from urban areas to subsidize rural ones. Thousands of miles of road and power and other services to sparse populations would not be sustainable without these transfers. And far from everyone who lives out there is a farmer, plenty of people just live on a mountain somewhere, 30 miles from the nearest grocery store, I remember this doing some driving in the Santa Barbara mountains.

[threeseed]

Housing prices in cities are rising across the world.

And it's all driven by simple economics. Demand is increasing faster than supply.

Now if young people want to participate in this market then all the best to them. I'm not stopping them. But statistically they have less purchasing power and demanding that the entire world ignore that fact is not realistic.

[janalsncm]

Hell it’s not even just trendy neighborhoods that are out of reach. Wages have stagnated while housing prices continue to rise. The upshot is that fewer and fewer people can afford a house no matter where they are.

[rurp]

I think the answer is both. We should work to improve city conditions but the reality is that there is a supply/demand mismatch and not everyone gets to live comfortably wherever they want.

The city I grew up in is too expensive for me to afford as an adult. It would be nice if I could, but I've never felt like the world owed it to me to live there because I want to. People moving to cheaper and less crowded areas to try and improve their quality of life is a story as old as time.