3 ms·
I believe it. It's also going to lead to much more developed suburbs IMO. When you don't have to travel into a city, it's a much less compelling argument to liv
by brightball 3y ago
I believe it. It's also going to lead to much more developed suburbs IMO. When you don't have to travel into a city, it's a much less compelling argument to live in one.
I think we're all going to find out that the inflated costs of living that are regularly discussed on here are more a result of people being forced to move to these cities than NIMBYism that's it has often been attributed too. Some people like the idea of moving for work, but I have to imagine that many would prefer to stay closer to their families. This only gets more pronounced when you have kids, especially young kids.
Every mainstream issue that is talked about from parental leave to child care cost is amplified because so many people have moved away from their own parents for work. My in-laws moved near us when our oldest was 7 years old and the before and after was life changing in how much easier it made everything.
I greatly prefer space and trees to the alternatives.
- carlosjobim 3y agoProperty "values" are extremely inflated in the countryside as well, that's why people move to the cities to work in the first place, because they can get better paid there. The average person born in a rural area has a really hard time affording a place to live there, unless they get help from the landed gentry (usually their parents) - no matter how hard he or she works. Meanwhile, somebody born into rural property will never have to work in their entire life, unless they prefer to. They can rent out productive land, or sell it in small pieces to people who work. And this they can do for generations.