12 ms·

People move to a neighbourhood because of the way it is. Outside forces want to change the way the neighbourhood is. People in the neighbourhood resist the chan

by 99_00 6y ago

People move to a neighbourhood because of the way it is. Outside forces want to change the way the neighbourhood is. People in the neighbourhood resist the change. Why does this situation invite pejorative terms and scorn from people who have no skin in the game?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tqi 6y ago
What outside force - the people who want to move in?
Kalium 6y ago
My neighborhood did not stop changing when I moved in. I don't see why it should stop because someone else moved in. A neighborhood is not a fixed, static thing. I understand that this is an unusual, uncommon, and perhaps even uniquely privileged perspective. When my neighbors resist change in a way that forces change elsewhere or affects our entire city, those effects are real. These outcomes affect other people's real lives in real ways. It's very much their skin in the game. Or maybe the people downwind of a coal-burning plant have no skin in the game.
- munificent 6y ago
  > My neighborhood did not stop changing when I moved in. I don't see why it should stop because someone else moved in. This is true, but that doesn't strictly imply that you have no participation in how it changes. The way a neighborhood changes is the sum of all of the people exerting forces upon it. This is an iterative system that you are embedded in as well.
  - Kalium 6y ago
    Oh, I'm well aware that I participate in how it changes. My neighborhood also changes due to forces around it, around the city, the county, and so on. My point is merely that change in a neighborhood is a natural and normal thing. A great many of the forces involved will be external, as it is rare that a neighborhood is in fact completely isolated from the world in every way. I am attempting to set this up in opposition to the idea that we were presented with: that people have a right to hold their neighborhoods static against all things and we are obligated to honor that. In my opinion, neither is true.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
0xB31B1B 6y ago
This isn't how things have been working in areas that are sufficating under NIMBYism. "Outside forces want to change the way the neighbourhood is", no, its most frequently the children who grew up in the neighborhood want to stay, but they can't because there isn't enough housing being built so they are displaced. "People in the neighbourhood resist the change" The people who resist the change tend to be retired property owners who's children have long left the house and they experience no negative effects from NIMBYism. There are a ton of disempowered neighbors who don't have the time or the wherewithall to politically organize the way NIMBYs do. "Why does this situation invite pejorative terms and scorn from people who have no skin in the game?" Because the large balance of data we have shows that pretty much everywhere NIMBYs are a minority of the population, and this is once again an example of the minority rule issues that the US is struggling with. Also, pretty strange to throw in the "skin in the game" comment there. Who has more skin in the game, a renter who is paying 1800/month for their housing or someone who inherited a house and does not pay a monthly fee to have a place to live?
- fossuser 6y ago
  In California with prop13 it’s even worse. Not only do they not have “skin in the game” they barely contribute any property tax. I think this article is a good example of what makes fixing housing so hard. If you have dumb NIMBY arguments on the left and the right, it's impossible to build a coalition of people large enough to argue for increasing supply. You end up trapped in the worst outcome. For people that may not believe there are those on the left making the NIMBY arguments described here, see: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1351373540298170368?s=21 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1351373540298170368?s=... (specifically all the comments from @buildbackbettercities)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - manfredo 6y ago
    Oh, proposition 13 is even worse than that. People get to pass on their privileged tax status onto their heirs. A hereditary class of people that get to own property at preferential rates.
sampo 6y ago
> Why does this situation invite pejorative terms and scorn from people who have no skin in the game? Cities have been growing for hundreds of years. People want to move to cities for better economic opportunities. They very much have a skin in the game. Blocking the growth of the economically most important cities hurts the economy of the whole state/country, so in this way every citizen who wants economic growth has a skin in the game. Cities are not independent city states, but they should serve what's best for the whole country. In case of globally important economic hubs, even foreigners want to move to those cities for better opportunities, so even people outside of the country have a skin in the game. Also, in a growing city, majority of people are first or second generation immigrants to the city themselves. They or their parents had the opportunity to move to the city, but now they want to prevent others having the same opportunity they themselves have enjoyed.
epistasis 6y ago
People live. People die. Children are born. Children grow up, move out, and need places to live. Neighborhoods change whether the buildings change or not, because of the natural cycle of life. Why should we place a premium on preserving buildings over preserving the quality of human life? Neighborhoods must change to fit the needs of the people, and not just the wealthiest or the ones who have been there the longest. > no skin in the game What does this mean? It seems rather pejorative towards those who haven't been born into massive wealth or have massive incomes that allow them to purchase property.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  It seems to me that residents of a town or city should have more say in their town/city affairs than non-residents. If you and I live in different towns, I should have more say in mine and you in yours. At least that’s how I interpret “no skin in the game”.
CuriouslyC 6y ago
Sometimes people want to move to a neighborhood because it's near their work, or the school they want to attend, or what have you. The pejorative terms come because people are putting property values and "feel" ahead of baseline viability of other people's lives. That's selfish as fuck and worthy of scorn.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  You're trivializing one person's values as a "feel" and elevating others' entitlement as "baseline viability". There are all kinds of cities and viable jobs all over the country. People don't HAVE to live and work in the most desirable places on the planet, and they don't have any right to expect that. And yet, they repeatedly complain about SF, Seattle, or whatever not accommodating them the way they want. Guess what - you're not owed anything. People have the freedom to move to a smaller city or a "second tier" city. They have opportunity to thrive in those locations as well, and can help turn those cities into equally desirable places. Likewise, people don't have to live and work in the same neighborhood. They can commute, or they can decide the commute is not worth it, and get a different job elsewhere. People also don't have a right to attend whichever school they want. If they can't make it work, there are other options in life. Sure people may not have the exact job they want, or environment they want, or lifestyle they want, or whatever. But life is not perfect and you don't get to have everything you want. You have to trade off between these different things. > That's selfish as fuck and worthy of scorn. Everyone is selfish. You're just arbitrary placing one person's desires above others. People living in a city owe nothing to newcomers who want to come there and change they very things that made the location desirable in the first place.
  - Kalium 6y ago
    > Guess what - you're not owed anything. Right on! Nobody here is owed anything. New residents are not owed the right to reshape things arbitrarily. Neither are incumbent residents owed an enduring hammerlock on the future of a place.
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
scythe 6y ago
>Why does this situation invite pejorative terms and scorn from people who have no skin in the game? I try to avoid pejoratives. It usually isn't helpful in any political dispute. But we all have skin in the game. Look at satellite images. Compare how much space the US takes up for houses and lawns to the pattern in Japan or Germany. Everyone laments living surrounded by concrete. But it's our own determination to each get our personal patch of grass that leads to the unending expanse of roads and driveways and parking lots. Kant said that an action is immoral if it when realized contradicts the rational ideal ("an action is derived from a rule...") that motivates it in the first place. If our desire for minimum lot sizes and detached single-family houses is a result of our revulsion at the jungle of artificial infrastructure we find ourselves lost in, and our desire to reduce its impact on our health and comfort, shouldn't that qualify?
- munificent 6y ago
  > But it's our own determination to each get our personal patch of grass that leads to the unending expanse of roads and driveways and parking lots. The US is large enough to give each individual (person, not household!) 7.4 acres all to themselves. There is plenty of space here. The problem is that the collapse of manufacturing and automation of agriculture in the US has eliminated many of the jobs that were prevalent in small and mid-sized cities. We have all the space we need. What we lack is a uniform distribution of work that lets people use it effectively.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    I think a big factor is also a generation or two (Millennials and Gen Z) that only are willing to do certain jobs. This is in part because they attended college in great numbers, often studying degrees that have limited economic value, and now they want a desk job. There are plenty of jobs that pay well and provide great benefits - things you might not expect like working in manufacturing, or as a garbage truck driver, or in the oil industry, and so on. We do have work available - the BLS data shows 6.5 million openings (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm). Many of the cities and towns across America that are often ignored in our societal discourse and in discussions like this one have both available, affordable housing and economic opportunity. It is simply not the opportunity that this generation wants. And instead, they complain that they don't have the type of job, the pricing conditions, and the type of pay that enables them to live in some of the most desirable cities on the planet, like San Francisco. I find it hard to see this as anything but entitlement and envy.
api 6y ago
I don't know where you live, so this is a meta-point, but... If you don't want density, move to the country or to the suburbs of a medium-sized city that does not have a housing shortage (thus far less pressure to increase density). In the post-COVID telecommuting age this is easier than ever before, at least for people in the industries that are popular on this site. If you decide to move to a top-tier city or a rapidly growing boom-town, you do not get to complain about density.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  > If you don't want density, move to the country or to the suburbs of a medium-sized city If you don't like the existing density of a city, then move somewhere else. You don't have a right to live wherever you want at whatever price point you want, just like I don't have a right to demand a beachfront villa in Hawaii. > If you decide to move to a top-tier city or a rapidly growing boom-town, you do not get to complain about density If you choose to move to a city that incumbent residents have built up and love, you do not get to complain that they don't want to increase their density to accommodate you. You can move to some other city instead of taking away from others who have built something you now covet and find desirable.
woopwoop 6y ago
Usually because they use the power of the state to veto development on land they don't own. You have the skin in the game question backwards.
georgeecollins 6y ago
I would say because neighborhoods are always changing and what people really want is what they "remember" about what they liked about a neighborhood. And for old people memory is kind. I live in California where almost by definition everyone came here from somewhere else. In a very nice neighborhood I lived a former strip mall was getting developed. Keep in mind, it wasn't that nice when it was created in the '40 and '50s --hence strip malls-- but now it is nose bleed expensive. What did these neighbors want? Not housing, god forbid they build multiple unit housing! But a Whole Foods or a Trader Joe's would be nice. Yes the traffic was getting worse and density was increasing. Things were changing. But did these people want there houses to be worth 1/5th of what they were worth twenty years ago? Did they want to get paid what they got paid in those days? No, they just didn't want new neighbors.
wernercd 6y ago
> outside forces Life changes things through natural forces. It's not all "evil outsiders". > no skin in the game Because progress is hindered by those who's "skin in the game" is holding back progress at any cost.
Igelau 6y ago
Name-calling never changed anyone's mind, but then if these markets were healthy, economists wouldn't have anything to write about. Ergo, piss people off.
handmodel 6y ago
In a lot of people's minds, including mine, these laws are very similar to attitudes at the beginning of the country that said that only land-owning males could vote. Essentially, local planning meetings are like that. Anyone can talk but people who own are given priority over renters and people who own are obviously going to be more aggressive in protecting their position than we could expect renters to organize. On the surface it doesn't matter but the net effect is pretty clear (lots of single family houses, little apartments, expensive land and expensive housing)
closeparen 6y ago
Young people from the area trying to form households have skin in the game. Renters in the area hoping to own have skin in the game. Super-commuters transiting the area for hours each day have skin in the game. People stuck outside the area and denied access to its opportunities have skin in the game. People breathing the air polluted by cars driving around sprawl have skin in the game. People sharing the planet that is being destroyed by cars driving around sprawl have skin in the game. "Outside forces" want to tell the owner of a parcel what he can't do with his own land. And they should! Decisions about land use at the parcel level affect the neighbors. Correspondingly, decisions about land use at the city level affect the region.
imtringued 6y ago
Why make your neighborhood attractive to new residents but inattractive for existing ones? I honestly don't understand this logic. Prop 13 basically means commercial real estate pays most of the taxes so the government would bankrupt itself if it didn't build more commercial real estate. The thing is, the locals actually banked on this. If they want the value of their home to go up they need the economic growth to justify it. You can bank on it again by making sure they have to buy your house. Basically, by buying their house these people started an informal business and the easiest way to make sure you stay in business is to make sure there is no competition. >Why does this situation invite pejorative terms and scorn from people who have no skin in the game? It's incredibly selfish. External factors like globalization make a lot of communities redundant and cause economic decline which drives far more economic displacement than gentrification does. The thing is, you can trivially fight against these external factors by restructuring the economy, mostly through college education. You will have to leave your hometown and go somewhere with more opportunities. Every city with a housing shortage is dangling a golden carrot in front of you and then punches you in the stomach. That software developer making $150k or more didn't start off at that salary in his hometown. He probably would have gotten $60k at most in the place his parents live in. $150k is enough to displace some stubborn local so he probably doesn't care about your stupid ideas. However, what about a teacher in the middle of nowhere who lost their job because of economic decline? Well, they could probably work in city X for $70k. Better than no job but how are they going to afford rent? They don't. They are stuck in poverty limbo. Can't leave the old place, can't join the new place.

by 99_00 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tqi 6y ago

What outside force - the people who want to move in?

Kalium 6y ago

My neighborhood did not stop changing when I moved in. I don't see why it should stop because someone else moved in. A neighborhood is not a fixed, static thing. I understand that this is an unusual, uncommon, and perhaps even uniquely privileged perspective. When my neighbors resist change in a way that forces change elsewhere or affects our entire city, those effects are real. These outcomes affect other people's real lives in real ways. It's very much their skin in the game. Or maybe the people downwind of a coal-burning plant have no skin in the game.

munificent 6y ago
> My neighborhood did not stop changing when I moved in. I don't see why it should stop because someone else moved in. This is true, but that doesn't strictly imply that you have no participation in how it changes. The way a neighborhood changes is the sum of all of the people exerting forces upon it. This is an iterative system that you are embedded in as well.
- Kalium 6y ago
  Oh, I'm well aware that I participate in how it changes. My neighborhood also changes due to forces around it, around the city, the county, and so on. My point is merely that change in a neighborhood is a natural and normal thing. A great many of the forces involved will be external, as it is rare that a neighborhood is in fact completely isolated from the world in every way. I am attempting to set this up in opposition to the idea that we were presented with: that people have a right to hold their neighborhoods static against all things and we are obligated to honor that. In my opinion, neither is true.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

0xB31B1B 6y ago

This isn't how things have been working in areas that are sufficating under NIMBYism. "Outside forces want to change the way the neighbourhood is", no, its most frequently the children who grew up in the neighborhood want to stay, but they can't because there isn't enough housing being built so they are displaced. "People in the neighbourhood resist the change" The people who resist the change tend to be retired property owners who's children have long left the house and they experience no negative effects from NIMBYism. There are a ton of disempowered neighbors who don't have the time or the wherewithall to politically organize the way NIMBYs do. "Why does this situation invite pejorative terms and scorn from people who have no skin in the game?" Because the large balance of data we have shows that pretty much everywhere NIMBYs are a minority of the population, and this is once again an example of the minority rule issues that the US is struggling with. Also, pretty strange to throw in the "skin in the game" comment there. Who has more skin in the game, a renter who is paying 1800/month for their housing or someone who inherited a house and does not pay a monthly fee to have a place to live?

fossuser 6y ago
In California with prop13 it’s even worse. Not only do they not have “skin in the game” they barely contribute any property tax. I think this article is a good example of what makes fixing housing so hard. If you have dumb NIMBY arguments on the left and the right, it's impossible to build a coalition of people large enough to argue for increasing supply. You end up trapped in the worst outcome. For people that may not believe there are those on the left making the NIMBY arguments described here, see: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1351373540298170368?s=21 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1351373540298170368?s=... (specifically all the comments from @buildbackbettercities)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- manfredo 6y ago
  Oh, proposition 13 is even worse than that. People get to pass on their privileged tax status onto their heirs. A hereditary class of people that get to own property at preferential rates.

sampo 6y ago

> Why does this situation invite pejorative terms and scorn from people who have no skin in the game? Cities have been growing for hundreds of years. People want to move to cities for better economic opportunities. They very much have a skin in the game. Blocking the growth of the economically most important cities hurts the economy of the whole state/country, so in this way every citizen who wants economic growth has a skin in the game. Cities are not independent city states, but they should serve what's best for the whole country. In case of globally important economic hubs, even foreigners want to move to those cities for better opportunities, so even people outside of the country have a skin in the game. Also, in a growing city, majority of people are first or second generation immigrants to the city themselves. They or their parents had the opportunity to move to the city, but now they want to prevent others having the same opportunity they themselves have enjoyed.

epistasis 6y ago

People live. People die. Children are born. Children grow up, move out, and need places to live. Neighborhoods change whether the buildings change or not, because of the natural cycle of life. Why should we place a premium on preserving buildings over preserving the quality of human life? Neighborhoods must change to fit the needs of the people, and not just the wealthiest or the ones who have been there the longest. > no skin in the game What does this mean? It seems rather pejorative towards those who haven't been born into massive wealth or have massive incomes that allow them to purchase property.

sokoloff 6y ago
It seems to me that residents of a town or city should have more say in their town/city affairs than non-residents. If you and I live in different towns, I should have more say in mine and you in yours. At least that’s how I interpret “no skin in the game”.

CuriouslyC 6y ago

Sometimes people want to move to a neighborhood because it's near their work, or the school they want to attend, or what have you. The pejorative terms come because people are putting property values and "feel" ahead of baseline viability of other people's lives. That's selfish as fuck and worthy of scorn.

throwawaysea 6y ago
You're trivializing one person's values as a "feel" and elevating others' entitlement as "baseline viability". There are all kinds of cities and viable jobs all over the country. People don't HAVE to live and work in the most desirable places on the planet, and they don't have any right to expect that. And yet, they repeatedly complain about SF, Seattle, or whatever not accommodating them the way they want. Guess what - you're not owed anything. People have the freedom to move to a smaller city or a "second tier" city. They have opportunity to thrive in those locations as well, and can help turn those cities into equally desirable places. Likewise, people don't have to live and work in the same neighborhood. They can commute, or they can decide the commute is not worth it, and get a different job elsewhere. People also don't have a right to attend whichever school they want. If they can't make it work, there are other options in life. Sure people may not have the exact job they want, or environment they want, or lifestyle they want, or whatever. But life is not perfect and you don't get to have everything you want. You have to trade off between these different things. > That's selfish as fuck and worthy of scorn. Everyone is selfish. You're just arbitrary placing one person's desires above others. People living in a city owe nothing to newcomers who want to come there and change they very things that made the location desirable in the first place.
- Kalium 6y ago
  > Guess what - you're not owed anything. Right on! Nobody here is owed anything. New residents are not owed the right to reshape things arbitrarily. Neither are incumbent residents owed an enduring hammerlock on the future of a place.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago

scythe 6y ago

>Why does this situation invite pejorative terms and scorn from people who have no skin in the game? I try to avoid pejoratives. It usually isn't helpful in any political dispute. But we all have skin in the game. Look at satellite images. Compare how much space the US takes up for houses and lawns to the pattern in Japan or Germany. Everyone laments living surrounded by concrete. But it's our own determination to each get our personal patch of grass that leads to the unending expanse of roads and driveways and parking lots. Kant said that an action is immoral if it when realized contradicts the rational ideal ("an action is derived from a rule...") that motivates it in the first place. If our desire for minimum lot sizes and detached single-family houses is a result of our revulsion at the jungle of artificial infrastructure we find ourselves lost in, and our desire to reduce its impact on our health and comfort, shouldn't that qualify?

munificent 6y ago
> But it's our own determination to each get our personal patch of grass that leads to the unending expanse of roads and driveways and parking lots. The US is large enough to give each individual (person, not household!) 7.4 acres all to themselves. There is plenty of space here. The problem is that the collapse of manufacturing and automation of agriculture in the US has eliminated many of the jobs that were prevalent in small and mid-sized cities. We have all the space we need. What we lack is a uniform distribution of work that lets people use it effectively.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I think a big factor is also a generation or two (Millennials and Gen Z) that only are willing to do certain jobs. This is in part because they attended college in great numbers, often studying degrees that have limited economic value, and now they want a desk job. There are plenty of jobs that pay well and provide great benefits - things you might not expect like working in manufacturing, or as a garbage truck driver, or in the oil industry, and so on. We do have work available - the BLS data shows 6.5 million openings (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm). Many of the cities and towns across America that are often ignored in our societal discourse and in discussions like this one have both available, affordable housing and economic opportunity. It is simply not the opportunity that this generation wants. And instead, they complain that they don't have the type of job, the pricing conditions, and the type of pay that enables them to live in some of the most desirable cities on the planet, like San Francisco. I find it hard to see this as anything but entitlement and envy.

api 6y ago

I don't know where you live, so this is a meta-point, but... If you don't want density, move to the country or to the suburbs of a medium-sized city that does not have a housing shortage (thus far less pressure to increase density). In the post-COVID telecommuting age this is easier than ever before, at least for people in the industries that are popular on this site. If you decide to move to a top-tier city or a rapidly growing boom-town, you do not get to complain about density.

throwawaysea 6y ago
> If you don't want density, move to the country or to the suburbs of a medium-sized city If you don't like the existing density of a city, then move somewhere else. You don't have a right to live wherever you want at whatever price point you want, just like I don't have a right to demand a beachfront villa in Hawaii. > If you decide to move to a top-tier city or a rapidly growing boom-town, you do not get to complain about density If you choose to move to a city that incumbent residents have built up and love, you do not get to complain that they don't want to increase their density to accommodate you. You can move to some other city instead of taking away from others who have built something you now covet and find desirable.

woopwoop 6y ago

Usually because they use the power of the state to veto development on land they don't own. You have the skin in the game question backwards.

georgeecollins 6y ago

I would say because neighborhoods are always changing and what people really want is what they "remember" about what they liked about a neighborhood. And for old people memory is kind. I live in California where almost by definition everyone came here from somewhere else. In a very nice neighborhood I lived a former strip mall was getting developed. Keep in mind, it wasn't that nice when it was created in the '40 and '50s --hence strip malls-- but now it is nose bleed expensive. What did these neighbors want? Not housing, god forbid they build multiple unit housing! But a Whole Foods or a Trader Joe's would be nice. Yes the traffic was getting worse and density was increasing. Things were changing. But did these people want there houses to be worth 1/5th of what they were worth twenty years ago? Did they want to get paid what they got paid in those days? No, they just didn't want new neighbors.

wernercd 6y ago

> outside forces Life changes things through natural forces. It's not all "evil outsiders". > no skin in the game Because progress is hindered by those who's "skin in the game" is holding back progress at any cost.

Igelau 6y ago

Name-calling never changed anyone's mind, but then if these markets were healthy, economists wouldn't have anything to write about. Ergo, piss people off.

handmodel 6y ago

In a lot of people's minds, including mine, these laws are very similar to attitudes at the beginning of the country that said that only land-owning males could vote. Essentially, local planning meetings are like that. Anyone can talk but people who own are given priority over renters and people who own are obviously going to be more aggressive in protecting their position than we could expect renters to organize. On the surface it doesn't matter but the net effect is pretty clear (lots of single family houses, little apartments, expensive land and expensive housing)

closeparen 6y ago

Young people from the area trying to form households have skin in the game. Renters in the area hoping to own have skin in the game. Super-commuters transiting the area for hours each day have skin in the game. People stuck outside the area and denied access to its opportunities have skin in the game. People breathing the air polluted by cars driving around sprawl have skin in the game. People sharing the planet that is being destroyed by cars driving around sprawl have skin in the game. "Outside forces" want to tell the owner of a parcel what he can't do with his own land. And they should! Decisions about land use at the parcel level affect the neighbors. Correspondingly, decisions about land use at the city level affect the region.

imtringued 6y ago

Why make your neighborhood attractive to new residents but inattractive for existing ones? I honestly don't understand this logic. Prop 13 basically means commercial real estate pays most of the taxes so the government would bankrupt itself if it didn't build more commercial real estate. The thing is, the locals actually banked on this. If they want the value of their home to go up they need the economic growth to justify it. You can bank on it again by making sure they have to buy your house. Basically, by buying their house these people started an informal business and the easiest way to make sure you stay in business is to make sure there is no competition. >Why does this situation invite pejorative terms and scorn from people who have no skin in the game? It's incredibly selfish. External factors like globalization make a lot of communities redundant and cause economic decline which drives far more economic displacement than gentrification does. The thing is, you can trivially fight against these external factors by restructuring the economy, mostly through college education. You will have to leave your hometown and go somewhere with more opportunities. Every city with a housing shortage is dangling a golden carrot in front of you and then punches you in the stomach. That software developer making $150k or more didn't start off at that salary in his hometown. He probably would have gotten $60k at most in the place his parents live in. $150k is enough to displace some stubborn local so he probably doesn't care about your stupid ideas. However, what about a teacher in the middle of nowhere who lost their job because of economic decline? Well, they could probably work in city X for $70k. Better than no job but how are they going to afford rent? They don't. They are stuck in poverty limbo. Can't leave the old place, can't join the new place.