8 ms·

Couple this along with the fact that millennials are largely choosing to live in cities which have seen the most dramatic cost of living/rent inflation.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
Which is the economically optimal choice considering the increased volatility in labor markets.
ryanSrich 7y ago
Not sure it’s a true choice. It’s either live in the city and earn a 6 figure salary or literally go jobless. Small towns and cities don’t have jobs. If they did we’d see less people living in cities.
- dev_dull 7y ago
  I think they do have jobs, just not jobs suited for the typical degrees/training that millennials are obtaining.
- bdcravens 7y ago
  Yes but not all cities are equivalent. I can sling code in Houston the same as in San Francisco or New York. While someone always calls out the extremes (as if everyone in SF is a $400k engineer), in general the economics work out in my favor in a cheaper city.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  > Small towns and cities don’t have jobs. The unemployment rate in the USA is at 3,6%. Small towns and cities would be deserted if they had no jobs.
- burfog 7y ago
  They sure do have jobs, but you can't land in a random small city and expect to find a specific pair of specialist jobs. Small cities work great for single-income families that aren't picky about which particular city they end up in. Non-specialist second income is fine too. Example: There are lots of small cities with openings for librarians, and lots of cities with openings for CNC programmers. It is far more difficult to find a small city with both, so insisting on that sort of two-income situation in a small city isn't going to go well. The same goes for nearly any kind of skilled employment. The jobs are there, but you can't throw a dart at a map of America and expect to find two very specific job openings in one spot. This may be one factor driving the urban-rural political split. Single-income families are different from two-income families.
  - watwut 7y ago
    I don't think librarian salary is enough to pay for effectively trailing spouse. Single income has very real consequences for both spouses (the one giving up work experience and the one being sole provider) and very real risks. It has consequences on familly dynamics and ressentments, especially when bad times hit and money are not to buy what both wants. Moving wherever philosophy has also very real consequences on relationships and community that forms or rather does not form.
    - burfog 7y ago
      I know a librarian making around $100k in a small city. The job involves knowing ancient Greek and Latin, which surely affects pay. Perhaps it wasn't the greatest example. It's what popped into mind as a skilled job that isn't just software or finance. Maybe a better example would be a dermatologist, an air traffic controller, a fire investigator, or a civil engineer. Dual income also has very real consequences for both spouses. It causes plenty of resentment. Typically the woman ends up doing most housework, even if the man intends to do half of it. That right there is a huge source of resentment. Risk of divorce goes up greatly if the woman earns more. Finding affordable child care and ensuring that it is never interrupted becomes a source of stress. While it is relatively important for the small-city people to be prepared to move, it is normal to stay in one place. Job hopping is less common. Small cities also often specialize in an industry, with several possible employers, so staying put while changing employer is often possible. The urban environment has its own very real consequences on relationships and community. Residents are typically renters who can find themselves evicted. Because there is such a large mass of anonymous people, relationships are throw-away from the start.
      - watwut 7y ago
        Me being woman, I take dual income over single one in part due to consequences. The negotiation over household work is much better with dual income anyway. So is any other conflict situation, especially those about money. The risk of divorce with woman earning real money is in part larger, because she has that option. See, the spouse that did not worked for six years have hard time in job market which compels her to stay in bad relationship. Does not even have to be abusive, just a bad one. And I am picking woman here as example, because it is woman who areore often in that situation - and you framed comparatively must smaller female problem as example for some reason. I do more household work is less of a sux then "I would leave if my confidence was not so low and if I had real job options" sux. Divorces do not happen magically. They happen because someone decided it is best solution for their present situation. The "I am earning money and she does not understand and just do nothing whole day" resentment is real too.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

Which is the economically optimal choice considering the increased volatility in labor markets.

ryanSrich 7y ago

Not sure it’s a true choice. It’s either live in the city and earn a 6 figure salary or literally go jobless. Small towns and cities don’t have jobs. If they did we’d see less people living in cities.

dev_dull 7y ago
I think they do have jobs, just not jobs suited for the typical degrees/training that millennials are obtaining.
bdcravens 7y ago
Yes but not all cities are equivalent. I can sling code in Houston the same as in San Francisco or New York. While someone always calls out the extremes (as if everyone in SF is a $400k engineer), in general the economics work out in my favor in a cheaper city.
lazyjones 7y ago
> Small towns and cities don’t have jobs. The unemployment rate in the USA is at 3,6%. Small towns and cities would be deserted if they had no jobs.
burfog 7y ago
They sure do have jobs, but you can't land in a random small city and expect to find a specific pair of specialist jobs. Small cities work great for single-income families that aren't picky about which particular city they end up in. Non-specialist second income is fine too. Example: There are lots of small cities with openings for librarians, and lots of cities with openings for CNC programmers. It is far more difficult to find a small city with both, so insisting on that sort of two-income situation in a small city isn't going to go well. The same goes for nearly any kind of skilled employment. The jobs are there, but you can't throw a dart at a map of America and expect to find two very specific job openings in one spot. This may be one factor driving the urban-rural political split. Single-income families are different from two-income families.
- watwut 7y ago
  I don't think librarian salary is enough to pay for effectively trailing spouse. Single income has very real consequences for both spouses (the one giving up work experience and the one being sole provider) and very real risks. It has consequences on familly dynamics and ressentments, especially when bad times hit and money are not to buy what both wants. Moving wherever philosophy has also very real consequences on relationships and community that forms or rather does not form.
  - burfog 7y ago
    I know a librarian making around $100k in a small city. The job involves knowing ancient Greek and Latin, which surely affects pay. Perhaps it wasn't the greatest example. It's what popped into mind as a skilled job that isn't just software or finance. Maybe a better example would be a dermatologist, an air traffic controller, a fire investigator, or a civil engineer. Dual income also has very real consequences for both spouses. It causes plenty of resentment. Typically the woman ends up doing most housework, even if the man intends to do half of it. That right there is a huge source of resentment. Risk of divorce goes up greatly if the woman earns more. Finding affordable child care and ensuring that it is never interrupted becomes a source of stress. While it is relatively important for the small-city people to be prepared to move, it is normal to stay in one place. Job hopping is less common. Small cities also often specialize in an industry, with several possible employers, so staying put while changing employer is often possible. The urban environment has its own very real consequences on relationships and community. Residents are typically renters who can find themselves evicted. Because there is such a large mass of anonymous people, relationships are throw-away from the start.
    - watwut 7y ago
      Me being woman, I take dual income over single one in part due to consequences. The negotiation over household work is much better with dual income anyway. So is any other conflict situation, especially those about money. The risk of divorce with woman earning real money is in part larger, because she has that option. See, the spouse that did not worked for six years have hard time in job market which compels her to stay in bad relationship. Does not even have to be abusive, just a bad one. And I am picking woman here as example, because it is woman who areore often in that situation - and you framed comparatively must smaller female problem as example for some reason. I do more household work is less of a sux then "I would leave if my confidence was not so low and if I had real job options" sux. Divorces do not happen magically. They happen because someone decided it is best solution for their present situation. The "I am earning money and she does not understand and just do nothing whole day" resentment is real too.