4 ms·
>extras usually in the form of various culture and activities Note that the average local more or less intentionally can't afford the time or money to visit th
by VLM 11y ago
>extras usually in the form of various culture and activities
Note that the average local more or less intentionally can't afford the time or money to visit the tourist traps. If you are not rich and want to visit the museums and galleries of Chicago, or attend a Bears game at the stadium, or a music concert, you can't live in Chicago because then you'd be too poor, you have to live elsewhere and visit.
What dense, expensive, low standard of living areas provide, is extremely dense employment. No matter how unique your job is, there's dozens to thousands of positions within walking distance of your current employer. In the more rural areas you'll see a lot more sinecure behavior, retired in place, people who've worked the same place for 20 years, nobody (such as yourself) gets promoted because the company doesn't grow and nobody quits, etc. Long term relationships are comfortable and lower stress on average, yet also less exciting and less adventurous, just like with love life.
There are also minor behavior constraints. If there's 50 companies all doing the same thing in a big city, then stack ranking basically wastes a lot of HR money pointlessly shuffling people every year, but at least its possible, whereas in a rural area especially if its a company town, stack ranking would rapidly destroy the company because the applicant pool is too small to sustain bad behavior. As a gross generalization people tend to spend far less time commuting in rural areas than urban, but the rural commute has more (high speed) miles so it is more expensive, in the city a twice a day rush hour commute might waste more than two hours of precious life per day, but at least its short therefore cheap, whereas in the country it'll be a comparatively lightning fast 30 minutes each way, but at 80 MPH and 50 cents per mile, that'll be an expensive 40 mile daily commute. City people are amazed how much rural people spend on their commute, rural people are amazed how much time city people spend on their commute.
- jahewson 11y ago> Note that the average local more or less intentionally can't afford the time or money to visit the tourist traps. If you are not rich and want to visit the museums and galleries of Chicago, or attend a Bears game at the stadium, or a music concert, you can't live in Chicago because then you'd be too poor, you have to live elsewhere and visit. Ah, but that's an American perspective. In Britain museums and art galleries are generally free, for exactly this reason.
- VLM 11y agoMaybe it varies. Last time I was in Dublin, it cost 10e to see the book of kells, the Guiness tour was 20e, etc. Almost nothing was free in Dublin. Admittedly the national art gallery was free although there was a shakedown for "donations". Yes I know Dublin isn't a suburb of London or whatever, but culturally its not that far away.
- theoh 11y agoIn London most major museums are free (with a "shakedown") and have been for about 15 or 20 years. Special exhibitions tend to be charged for. Ireland's economy and cultural sector is distinct from the UK's and much smaller. The Guinness Brewery and Book of Kells are really exceptional cases which cater to wealthy international tourists. They have little to do with local cultural life.
- cableshaft 11y agoAs someone who lives near Chicago, the museums have a few free admission days for Chicago residents pretty much every month (and some libraries around here let you "check out" free passes). However, the free days are often during the weekdays and I think during work hours, so lots of working people can't really take advantage of them very often.
- ild 11y agoChicagoland is kinda affordable though, not cheap, but compared to the other major metros is cheaper.