I really don’t think that’s how any of this works, dude
You need to invest in areas if you want them to be “developed” so people want to live in them. If you force poor people to leave places where there are more opportunities (e.g. economic, educational, occupational, etc.) for them, you’re basically dooming them and their following generations to poverty. This is why I said you support low social mobility and high income inequality.
Now just think of who the poorest people are in cities - it’s a lot of minorities, single parents, people in debt, etc. That should immediately tell you “city people” don’t have more wealth than most people elsewhere. As far as I can tell, the working class anywhere serve mainly to enrich the wealthy class.
I’ve always looked at it this way: should the people that scrub toilets in NY or SF or LA be paid enough to live in the same city? Everything I’ve seen tells me the average American answers this question with a resounding “No!” People in those areas have to make hour-long commutes to put food on the table for their family. I don’t see why we should accept essential workers being paid less than they deserve.
That’s exactly how it works. Why do you think it’s more expensive to live in major cities than outside of them? Supply and demand. There’s more demand and less supply. Why is there more demand? Because more people would prefer to live there.
Why should we invest in major cities that have already reached diminishing returns on their investments instead of spreading out to make more places attractive to more people? Entitlement. Life outside of major cities isn’t good enough for some, and they think people living in major cities should get more before everyone else who has less.
I really don’t think that’s how any of this works, dude
You need to invest in areas if you want them to be “developed” so people want to live in them. If you force poor people to leave places where there are more opportunities (e.g. economic, educational, occupational, etc.) for them, you’re basically dooming them and their following generations to poverty. This is why I said you support low social mobility and high income inequality.
Now just think of who the poorest people are in cities - it’s a lot of minorities, single parents, people in debt, etc. That should immediately tell you “city people” don’t have more wealth than most people elsewhere. As far as I can tell, the working class anywhere serve mainly to enrich the wealthy class.
I’ve always looked at it this way: should the people that scrub toilets in NY or SF or LA be paid enough to live in the same city? Everything I’ve seen tells me the average American answers this question with a resounding “No!” People in those areas have to make hour-long commutes to put food on the table for their family. I don’t see why we should accept essential workers being paid less than they deserve.
That’s exactly how it works. Why do you think it’s more expensive to live in major cities than outside of them? Supply and demand. There’s more demand and less supply. Why is there more demand? Because more people would prefer to live there.
Why should we invest in major cities that have already reached diminishing returns on their investments instead of spreading out to make more places attractive to more people? Entitlement. Life outside of major cities isn’t good enough for some, and they think people living in major cities should get more before everyone else who has less.