[adolph]

> locals in the rural town and are comfortable being poor and living that life

> all the stress of being poor in a metro city

Is it generally accepted that people in similar economic circumstances have improved life satisfaction in rural areas? It is counterintuitive to me given any city typically has better low cost amenities like museums, libraries, and parks than rural areas that I have observed.

[pjmorris]

Think about how often you got to a museum, library, or park compared to how often you eat and pay the monthly bills. The more expensive the area, the higher the routine bills and wages don't always track that, especially at the low end.

[Retric]

Both have significant advantages, shared walls reducing energy costs and the ability to live without a car can make a huge difference at the bottom.

It’s really suburbs that end up the most expensive. You combine higher housing and labor costs vs rural areas without any of the cost savings of cities.

[nradov]

Some people prefer space, privacy, and nature over cultural amenities. It's possible to survive on fairly little income if you own some land and are able to hunt, fish, and grow a bit of your own food. Being poor is still tough anywhere but people get by.

[geodel]

> It is counterintuitive to me given any city typically has better low cost amenities like museums, libraries, and parks

Indeed, one can also add availability of theaters, operas, music festivals, multi-cuisine restaurants and sport complexes too.