3 ms·
"Even if high-paid populations are being shifted around, it's better for the region as a whole to have more highly-paid people." No, that's not at all axiomati
by timr 8y ago
"Even if high-paid populations are being shifted around, it's better for the region as a whole to have more highly-paid people."
No, that's not at all axiomatic. Consider a place like Aspen: formerly a small mountain town, now an enclave of incredibly wealthy people. People who support the area have to make a treacherous daily commute from nearby towns, because none can afford to live in the area.
Sure, some people become wealthy from owning land in Aspen before it became famous. Most residents did not.
If all you focus on is tax revenue, median income, etc., everything looks peachy, but that's a myopic view. One can easily argue the same thing is happening in San Francisco.
- jogjayr 8y agoIn SF current residents are blocking new construction and driving up the cost of housing. I assume that Aspen can't grow denser even if its rich residents wanted it, because of its location on a mountain. But that's largely not true for SF and its surrounding cities and suburbs. Even in the case of Aspen, now that the town is an enclave of incredibly wealthy people, there are presumably more jobs in town for locals (largely in the tourism and service industry, but still). If it wasn't a world-renowned ski destination it would be a sleepy mountain town with a limited economy. Most of its young people would have to leave the area entirely to build their lives and careers. So there is still some good with the bad. Some old residents will say things were better before, others will say they're better now. To the point you made at the end, are you thinking of "average income" rather than "median income"? If median income goes up it means most people are now making more money.