39 ms·

It’s largely internal migration driving that effect in the UK, not external migration or financialisation. Children go to university and never come back. The go

It’s largely internal migration driving that effect in the UK, not external migration or financialisation. Children go to university and never come back. The good jobs ARE largely in London and the South East, and people follow their friends creating a network effect too. It’s also not new - it’s been going on since the end of the Second World War pretty much.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
The jobs are in London, but so are the costs. In terms of living expenses, the cost/benefit ratio for other cities is much higher. The real benefit of London is the networking and the culture. There's a lot of both - more so than elsewhere. Whether it's worth the insane housing costs is debatable.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  Housing costs aren’t insane in the commuter belt if you have a decent job in London. Most people working in London don’t live in London. Good job in London, house in the South East, commute by train, still looks better to a lot of people than poor job in a rural area of the North or Wales and getting a less good house. Of course there are some professions where the equation works the other way - medicine being one obvious example.
pjc50 7y ago
London's population dropped for a long period after the war: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07/chart-londons-population-is-finally-about-to-return-to-its-1939-peak/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07... > The good jobs ARE largely in London Well, yes. Each individual is only doing what's best for their circumstances. What I'm questioning is whether this is how it has to be, this centralisation, and whether good jobs could be distributed round the country a bit more by some policy choices.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  Yes, London’s population shrunk into the late 80s as people moved out of city centres but the South East grew very quickly in the postwar era - more than offsetting this effect. Since the 90s, both have been growing.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

The jobs are in London, but so are the costs. In terms of living expenses, the cost/benefit ratio for other cities is much higher. The real benefit of London is the networking and the culture. There's a lot of both - more so than elsewhere. Whether it's worth the insane housing costs is debatable.

tomatocracy 7y ago
Housing costs aren’t insane in the commuter belt if you have a decent job in London. Most people working in London don’t live in London. Good job in London, house in the South East, commute by train, still looks better to a lot of people than poor job in a rural area of the North or Wales and getting a less good house. Of course there are some professions where the equation works the other way - medicine being one obvious example.

pjc50 7y ago

London's population dropped for a long period after the war: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07/chart-londons-population-is-finally-about-to-return-to-its-1939-peak/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07... > The good jobs ARE largely in London Well, yes. Each individual is only doing what's best for their circumstances. What I'm questioning is whether this is how it has to be, this centralisation, and whether good jobs could be distributed round the country a bit more by some policy choices.

tomatocracy 7y ago
Yes, London’s population shrunk into the late 80s as people moved out of city centres but the South East grew very quickly in the postwar era - more than offsetting this effect. Since the 90s, both have been growing.