4 ms·

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-inco

by 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.
    - burfog 7y ago
      Those are not the words of someone who intends to stay together. Relationships are not automatic. They require stubborn commitment. If you are planning for an exit, you're going to get one. It is certain that there will be conflict, and you're ready to hit the eject button at the first sign of it. Infatuation does not last, and is thus not a suitable foundation for a mature relationship. Responsible people of integrity do not plan to abandon their commitments. You plan for divorce from day 1, you unsurprisingly get one, and then you can justify your planning because it happened. This is circular. I dearly hope you are at least honest about your intentions, and that you pair up with people who are like yourself, and that you have permanent birth control. Anything else would be extremely cruel and selfish. I suspect you're leaving a trail of shattered lives, broken homes, uprooted yet spoiled children, and suicidal exes.
      - watwut 7y ago
        You twisted "I want to have options if this turn bad and want to be on equal footing" to "plan to run away at first small conflict". Nice try to make it personal and recommend me to not have kids. So yes, I need the eject button in case I would marry someone like you and found out only too late. Of course it is good for you when partner does not have option to leave, because then you can respond to conflict the way you responded here and she can only shut up and take insult. Over time, it will affect her in negative way. It just so happens that kids whose parents stay in bad relationship, whether verbally abusive or violent are not better off. It just so happen that these are more likely to appear when women dont have jobs. Also, men dies and it is good to have the options in that case. Responsible people do not put themselves into massively vulnerable situation. Lastly, it was you who tried to make it about women first by "in dual income men often don't pull their weight and therefore in marriage with such men it is better for her to have no income". I guess that assumption is that men who don't listen to her concerns when on dual income will somehow listen to them better in single income situation.
isostatic 7y ago
Secondary problem with small cities is that while there may be a CNC opening today, if that company goes bust you’re stuck.
- burfog 7y ago
  I won't claim that that would be perfectly fine, but I don't think it is much different from a megacity dweller being evicted from an apartment. It's not the end of the world to have to move. This shouldn't be so scary. I've done it more than once, and I still prefer the small cities.

by burfog 7y ago

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.
  - burfog 7y ago
    Those are not the words of someone who intends to stay together. Relationships are not automatic. They require stubborn commitment. If you are planning for an exit, you're going to get one. It is certain that there will be conflict, and you're ready to hit the eject button at the first sign of it. Infatuation does not last, and is thus not a suitable foundation for a mature relationship. Responsible people of integrity do not plan to abandon their commitments. You plan for divorce from day 1, you unsurprisingly get one, and then you can justify your planning because it happened. This is circular. I dearly hope you are at least honest about your intentions, and that you pair up with people who are like yourself, and that you have permanent birth control. Anything else would be extremely cruel and selfish. I suspect you're leaving a trail of shattered lives, broken homes, uprooted yet spoiled children, and suicidal exes.
    - watwut 7y ago
      You twisted "I want to have options if this turn bad and want to be on equal footing" to "plan to run away at first small conflict". Nice try to make it personal and recommend me to not have kids. So yes, I need the eject button in case I would marry someone like you and found out only too late. Of course it is good for you when partner does not have option to leave, because then you can respond to conflict the way you responded here and she can only shut up and take insult. Over time, it will affect her in negative way. It just so happens that kids whose parents stay in bad relationship, whether verbally abusive or violent are not better off. It just so happen that these are more likely to appear when women dont have jobs. Also, men dies and it is good to have the options in that case. Responsible people do not put themselves into massively vulnerable situation. Lastly, it was you who tried to make it about women first by "in dual income men often don't pull their weight and therefore in marriage with such men it is better for her to have no income". I guess that assumption is that men who don't listen to her concerns when on dual income will somehow listen to them better in single income situation.

isostatic 7y ago

Secondary problem with small cities is that while there may be a CNC opening today, if that company goes bust you’re stuck.

burfog 7y ago
I won't claim that that would be perfectly fine, but I don't think it is much different from a megacity dweller being evicted from an apartment. It's not the end of the world to have to move. This shouldn't be so scary. I've done it more than once, and I still prefer the small cities.