3 ms·

North Charleston isn't exactly a large metropolis with a high cost of living. $12 isn't terrible for an job with almost no requirement except a warm body and tw

North Charleston isn't exactly a large metropolis with a high cost of living. $12 isn't terrible for an job with almost no requirement except a warm body and two arms.

sgnelson 10y ago
And you're exactly right, but these days, that now works two ways. What I mean by this: Previously, economic theory theorized that people would move to where the jobs are. These days, it looks like more and more millennial (and read more educated, more sociopolitical advantaged specifically) want to move to a place they would like to live, and then find a job there. Cities are becoming larger, small towns are disappearing. Agglomeration is playing an ever larger role in where people live and work. People are tending to cities which have more opportunities, entertainment, etc. So my point is this, why would you want to live in North Charleston? Of course as I alluded too in my brief definition of advantaged millennial, not everyone has the choice/ability to move to wherever they want. But given that choice, why not move to another larger city where you have more options for better jobs with better pay? I think in some places, even thouguh cost of living is low, employers will need to sometimes pay more to attract the talent they need, and not just say, "cost of livng is low, live with the $12/hr wage and like it." But of course, that's how capitalism is supposed to work. If you can't find employees, it simply means you're not paying enough. Literally Economics 101. Granted, all of the above argument is a bit simple, and there's a lot of nuance involved in reality. Especially when it comes to peoples decision making about what job they choose and where they live. I also have little evidence to support my contention about less desirable places to live meaning higher wages, but it applies to jobs, so I don't see how it won't apply to places in the near future (well I do, it may never happen, but I think it's an interesting thing to keep an eye on).

North Charleston isn't exactly a large metropolis with a high cost of living. $12 isn't terrible for an job with almost no requirement except a warm body and two arms.

sgnelson 10y ago

And you're exactly right, but these days, that now works two ways. What I mean by this: Previously, economic theory theorized that people would move to where the jobs are. These days, it looks like more and more millennial (and read more educated, more sociopolitical advantaged specifically) want to move to a place they would like to live, and then find a job there. Cities are becoming larger, small towns are disappearing. Agglomeration is playing an ever larger role in where people live and work. People are tending to cities which have more opportunities, entertainment, etc. So my point is this, why would you want to live in North Charleston? Of course as I alluded too in my brief definition of advantaged millennial, not everyone has the choice/ability to move to wherever they want. But given that choice, why not move to another larger city where you have more options for better jobs with better pay? I think in some places, even thouguh cost of living is low, employers will need to sometimes pay more to attract the talent they need, and not just say, "cost of livng is low, live with the $12/hr wage and like it." But of course, that's how capitalism is supposed to work. If you can't find employees, it simply means you're not paying enough. Literally Economics 101. Granted, all of the above argument is a bit simple, and there's a lot of nuance involved in reality. Especially when it comes to peoples decision making about what job they choose and where they live. I also have little evidence to support my contention about less desirable places to live meaning higher wages, but it applies to jobs, so I don't see how it won't apply to places in the near future (well I do, it may never happen, but I think it's an interesting thing to keep an eye on).