4 ms·

To be fair, it's not just the monopoly money that changes things but also long term changes in economics. I'm old enough that I remember my home town (which ha

To be fair, it's not just the monopoly money that changes things but also long term changes in economics. I'm old enough that I remember my home town (which has been inundated by California retirees) as having 100% family-owned grocery stores, drug/general/hardware stores, distributorships, all of which started shifting heavily to chain and corporate dominance by sometime in the late 1970's. Since the modern concept of retiree and tourism based economies hadn't taken hold, towns of that type had to be mostly independent in terms of income for money inflow....small factories, mining, farming and ranching, etc. I'd say that this movement of people who can afford it just another side effect of something bigger. The irony that a lifestyle of living in a nicer small town with a Powerwall and a Model 3 is both less sustainable and less diverse is not lost on me.

vailprogrammer 6y ago
> towns of that type had to be mostly independent in terms of income for money inflow....small factories, mining, farming and ranching, etc. > I'd say that this movement of people who can afford it just another side effect of something bigger. It sort of sounds like you answer your own question (/hypothesis): consolidation of industry. Which also seems to be a pretty big driver in wealth inequality. I've no idea what the correct response is here -- greater regulation to increase competition, so that there are more smaller players across any given industry? Who knows.
- kingsuper20 6y ago
  It was definitely more hypothesis than question. There's always the chance that the past is viewed with the optimism of youth of course. There's certainly a difference in social glue in a world where everyone is either self-employed or has a single layer of management above them. Plus, truly local companies are better local citizens (sports teams sponsors, money for charities, build decent and long-lasting buildings). Dunno what the answer is besides accumulate a financial warchest, live where you like, watch the battle at a distance.
pettusftw 6y ago
Do you believe the alternative is the town dying? I come from a place that is the furthest from a tourist destination you can imagine, and it was booming with local businesses in the 70's and 80's and they died all the same, they just weren't replaced by anything.

vailprogrammer 6y ago

> towns of that type had to be mostly independent in terms of income for money inflow....small factories, mining, farming and ranching, etc. > I'd say that this movement of people who can afford it just another side effect of something bigger. It sort of sounds like you answer your own question (/hypothesis): consolidation of industry. Which also seems to be a pretty big driver in wealth inequality. I've no idea what the correct response is here -- greater regulation to increase competition, so that there are more smaller players across any given industry? Who knows.

kingsuper20 6y ago
It was definitely more hypothesis than question. There's always the chance that the past is viewed with the optimism of youth of course. There's certainly a difference in social glue in a world where everyone is either self-employed or has a single layer of management above them. Plus, truly local companies are better local citizens (sports teams sponsors, money for charities, build decent and long-lasting buildings). Dunno what the answer is besides accumulate a financial warchest, live where you like, watch the battle at a distance.

pettusftw 6y ago

Do you believe the alternative is the town dying? I come from a place that is the furthest from a tourist destination you can imagine, and it was booming with local businesses in the 70's and 80's and they died all the same, they just weren't replaced by anything.