5 ms·
Because people need to be located where they are most efficiently utilized in the economy. Everyone wants to live in New York or San Francisco, but the jobs ar
by mozumder 8y ago
Because people need to be located where they are most efficiently utilized in the economy.
Everyone wants to live in New York or San Francisco, but the jobs are going to be distributed around the country.
How are people going to construct a bridge in Ohio if everyone is in New York City?
Jobs are still a local thing.
- ben_w 8y agoIf everyone lived in New York or San Francisco, there wouldn’t be any need to construct a bridge in Ohio in exactly the same way there’s no need to build one over the Onyx River in Antarctica.
- mozumder 8y agoDoesn't work that way, since jobs are independent of labor pool location. A good example would be tourism, where companies draw people to places with no population. Also, companies that decide to build a factory in the middle of nowhere to take advantage of something else, like cheaper land or electricity. And suddenly you need to build a bridge in Ohio to get to that factory.
- stale2002 8y agoIf those jobs are "needed" then wages will rise, and the market will solve the problem. If wages don't rise for those jobs, then they weren't needed.
- mozumder 8y agoRight, and now you just raised inflation, raising prices for everyone and punishing most the poor and elderly on fixed income, since they rely disproportionately on commodity goods and services. If you want a successful economy, you have to plan for it: find where resources are going to be utilized, and build from there.
- stale2002 8y agoYou've increased prices for SOME goods, but you've massively massively reduced prices for all others. Urban sprawl is extremely expensive, and the high costs on infrastructure effects the poor the most. If housing and infrastructure were cheaper, because we've built more stuff in cities, then the poor beneift the most due to the lower housing costs (which makes up most of their expenses).
- mozumder 8y agoSo, do people not understand that all jobs, and demand for people, aren't going to be located in a single point in space? Why have two cities of New York and San Francisco? Why not just one city of New York? Increasing commodity prices raises the price of all good, not just some goods, because that's how economics works. Every cost is transferred somewhere else. So, not sure why you want to raise the price of all goods...
- stale2002 8y agoNo, we don't need only a singular city. But the status quo of what we are currently in is way way to far on the wrong end of thing. So once San Francisco and new york rent prices aren't literally 5 time larger than rent prices in the countryside THEN we can worry about the issues you bring up. But as long as rent prices ARE 5 times larger in the city, I will not worry a single ounce about the issues you brought up. You are engaging in the extremism fallacy. It would be like if a bunch of people were in the desert, and everyone was dieing due to dehydration, and then you came along and said "Well, you know, if you drink too much water, then you can die of water poisoning! Why aren't you worried about water poisoning!?!?!?". Yes, water poising can kill people if you drink 10 gallons of water every day. But we are in a freaking desert and people are dying due to dehydration, so why the hell are you talking about something so ridiculously as water poisoning!?!
- mozumder 8y agoYah but you're raising prices on everything anyways by making everyone live in the city where they are unneeded instead of more efficiently where the jobs are.
- markkanof 8y agoEveryone wants to live in New York or San Francisco? This is not true.