4 ms·

Intuitively, something has to put a limit on number of people residing in mega-cities, and everyone wants to live in a mega-city but not everyone can, or should

Intuitively, something has to put a limit on number of people residing in mega-cities, and everyone wants to live in a mega-city but not everyone can, or should be able to. It is either cost of housing (because buying is pricier than renting, it will be a price to rent), or commute time. I see nothing wrong with it. Just like "cancer is something that kills you if nothing else does", so high percentage of cancer deaths is an indicator of healthy population because everything that can be treated or prevented, is treated or prevented, housing being a choke point for a large proportion, or majority of people, is a sign of healthy economy - because housing in the age of hyper-urbanisation is a positioning good that can't be abundant - people want to live somewhere where most people can't be and the only reason why they want is exactly that - because most can't be there - so there is less competition for the amazing opportunities they offer. If housing in hyper-centers was somehow "solved", they won't work as hyper-centers anymore, and those opportunities won't exist, as labour markets there will be saturated.

BobaFloutist 2y ago
> not everyone can, or should be able to. Why not? I'm not sure I'm willing to just take that as a given.
- anovikov 2y ago
  If a labor market somewhere is allowed to saturate, opportunities will end and centers of innovation, will be no more: they get this way because of course, to begin with, there are some condensation nuclei like a good uni doing research or a bunch of government contractors, but these are present in many places - and then, it needs some limitation on supply of labor. If it is present, people get to make a lot, raising cost of living and property, which pushes mediocre people out and attracts the best (increasing net benefit for the best and reducing, then making it negative for the mediocre ones), so you get a place where there is a high concentration of good people and thus high S/N ratio. Remove limitation and you just stay in the mediocriland and these condensation nuclei result in no rain. Increased buying power of the newly forming local industry does not transpire in (sustained) higher wages because enough new people flock in to fill all the space, as a result there is no ripple effect, no higher SNR, and no reason for others to move in there (just because why, you don't get any benefits either as a worker nor as a business). Labour limitation and making people compete to get in the pool of candidates, is the key. As a simple analogy, imagine a uni with a 100% acceptance rate. Even if it has some initial advantage like a few famous professors, it is bound to be a useless piece of shit and any initial advantage will quickly dissipate. Filter is the key.

BobaFloutist 2y ago

> not everyone can, or should be able to. Why not? I'm not sure I'm willing to just take that as a given.

anovikov 2y ago
If a labor market somewhere is allowed to saturate, opportunities will end and centers of innovation, will be no more: they get this way because of course, to begin with, there are some condensation nuclei like a good uni doing research or a bunch of government contractors, but these are present in many places - and then, it needs some limitation on supply of labor. If it is present, people get to make a lot, raising cost of living and property, which pushes mediocre people out and attracts the best (increasing net benefit for the best and reducing, then making it negative for the mediocre ones), so you get a place where there is a high concentration of good people and thus high S/N ratio. Remove limitation and you just stay in the mediocriland and these condensation nuclei result in no rain. Increased buying power of the newly forming local industry does not transpire in (sustained) higher wages because enough new people flock in to fill all the space, as a result there is no ripple effect, no higher SNR, and no reason for others to move in there (just because why, you don't get any benefits either as a worker nor as a business). Labour limitation and making people compete to get in the pool of candidates, is the key. As a simple analogy, imagine a uni with a 100% acceptance rate. Even if it has some initial advantage like a few famous professors, it is bound to be a useless piece of shit and any initial advantage will quickly dissipate. Filter is the key.