4 ms·
And even if the population decreases, still (almost) everybody has to live in one of the big cities or centers of tourism to get a job. The irony is that only w
by ReleaseCandidat 2y ago
And even if the population decreases, still (almost) everybody has to live in one of the big cities or centers of tourism to get a job. The irony is that only wealthier people, who can work remotely, can afford to live in villages where living costs are low. Because there is (almost) no work and (almost) no young people live there (any more).
- nradov 2y agoThere are plenty of jobs for oil and gas workers in North Dakota. Plastics manufacturing is booming in rural Ohio.
- applied_heat 2y agoNobody wants to live in those places, we just complain that it is too expensive in San Francisco and Vancouver
- ReleaseCandidat 2y agoEven if somebody would have been talking about the US, I would call neither "North Dakota" nor "Ohio" villages. Both are bigger than many european countries, and you certainly are going to find regions were the population increases and some where it decreases.
- jelkand 2y agoWell, North Dakota is pretty close. It is indeed very large but its population is only slightly larger than Luxembourg.
- appplication 2y agoAs rural jobs grow, so too do prices[1]. I don’t think this trend is still there, but that’s also because the job market is not as strong as it was during the fracking boom. If there were meaningful numbers of well paying jobs in inexpensive rural places, they would cease to be either rural or inexpensive. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/19/5425040/williston-north-dakota-most-expensive-place-to-rent-in-us https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/19/5425040/williston-north-d...