4 ms·
For a good laugh, read the conclusion of the paper, which sounds like it was written in the year 1960, when inner cities were crumbing, and imagines that rural
by akamaka 4y ago
For a good laugh, read the conclusion of the paper, which sounds like it was written in the year 1960, when inner cities were crumbing, and imagines that rural areas will get better public transit when the poor escape the cities they are “trapped in”:
There is a literature that asks why the poor live in cities. One answer provided is that transportation options are much better in cities than rural areas and small towns. But what stops public transportation from expanding upon the arrival of new residents?
A more important reason for why the poor live in cities, it seems, is that many low-income households are “trapped” in cities by the high cost of constructing housing in rural areas and small towns.
- xyzzyz 4y agoThe entire paper is a joke. Monopoly in the construction market? Dude, there are multiple competing contractors in every field even in smallest towns. In fact, I’d endeavor to say that construction is probably the least centralized major industry in US, certainly less centralized than, say, farming.
- someguydave 4y agoConstruction is very decentralized but land developers tend to have local monopolies or oligopolies supported by local politicians.
- shuckles 4y agoIn fairness, there isn’t that much competition between large subdivision developers, and an even smaller number of firms that are able to navigate the gauntlet of gatekeepers in major urban areas.
- whimsicalism 4y agoLarge developers, there is absolutely not. Farmers in most industries are basically price-takers.