> If you live in a city it's because you want to. Noone forces you to get an excruciating job for little money in the concrete jungle, it's a choice you made.

> If you live in a city it's because you want to. Noone forces you to get an excruciating job for little money in the concrete jungle, it's a choice you made. Respectfully, I disagree. It may be a choice somebody made at one point in time, but for the poor it's not a decision they have the luxury to fix. Some can't afford to take a day or several off of work to move, or even to look for somewhere else to live and another job, or they don't put food on the table. Even if they can, without time and money, and a good job, nobody is going to rent a home to them outside of the big city. Cities like London make it extremely difficult for these people to live, but at the same time make it possible, and even then it's in conditions most would be unhappy to live in, all because someone will give them a space in a room for cash without any credit checks or all of the red-tape that would be required anywhere more laid back; things are possible in the city purely because of volume, and rules are relaxed to keep the pace. Getting out of being poor in a country with an economy like ours is difficult. Having space to grow food is no good if nobody will let you use it, or if you work such long hours you don't have the time to do it, what about having the energy to do it? poorer people tend to work more physically demanding jobs. I've seen your textbook system work, in less developed countries where people have the luxury of time and space because their cost of living isn't an overbearing demand and specialisation is lower. You can't argue we're specialised, then at the same time say everyone should grow their own food, that's the farmer's job. I'm not sure what the solution is, but finding a way as a society to take some of the strain off of people who are struggling just to feed themselves is a good start.