3 ms·
This is nicely worded but I'm not sure what to make of it. No offense, but doesn't make a lot of sense. Younger populations tend to get attracted to cities, to
by numpad0 2y ago
This is nicely worded but I'm not sure what to make of it. No offense, but doesn't make a lot of sense.
Younger populations tend to get attracted to cities, tolerating worse living standards in exchange for better wages and shorter commutes. But higher commodity prices negate benefits, and also lower standards of life suppress offspring, which is politically highly problematic. Isn't that the fundamental defect in concept of a city since the industrial revolution?
A typical luxury condo in Tokyo costs $1m, offer 100m^2(1k sqft) of single floor dwelling, with 300 individual properties on average spanning couple dozen floors. That might be a 0.1% lifestyle, relatively speaking, but objectively and especially in comparison with historical descriptions of opulent life, I can't exactly see how it compares.
- bobthepanda 2y agoCities did not use to suppress offspring. When countries were developing, and even in developing countries today, cities had high-fertility slums. Look at pictures of New York in the 1900s with multigenerational families sharing a room. If anything higher standards of living (and higher expectations of what children should get) suppress offspring. Easier access to medical care and family planning in cities also plays a factor.