4 ms·

I think you've got causality twisted here. People prefer having a job, the higher paying the better. High paying jobs exist mostly in metro areas, so folks move

I think you've got causality twisted here. People prefer having a job, the higher paying the better. High paying jobs exist mostly in metro areas, so folks move there for work. Preference for the suburbs is just folks exercising their perfectly natural tendency to want as much space/land/house as they can afford while maintaining access to services and proximity to work. I'm quite confident the majority of suburbanites would strongly prefer living on 20 acres if they could still get to work in 20 minutes and the grocery store in 10.

vineyardmike 2y ago
> People prefer having a job, the higher paying the better. High paying jobs exist mostly in metro areas, so folks move there for work. People work minimum-wage jobs and choose to live in cities. These individuals are not preferencing a city for the wage, but rather the lifestyle, access to amenities, the lower cost options it offers, car-free life, etc. I think it's super disingenuous to claim that people only live in cities for work. There are tons of social options in cities, tons of civic amenities, and tons of lifestyle differences that draw people to a city. > their perfectly natural tendency to want as much space/land/house as they can afford Is this a natural tendency? I don't think this "natural" tendency holds true globally, and I'm even skeptical it actually holds true in America, where suburbs are unusually popular. > I'm quite confident the majority of suburbanites would strongly prefer living on 20 acres if they could still get to work in 20 minutes and the grocery store in 10. I'm quite confident that the majority of people (ie city dwellers, which are the majority of humans) would preferentially prefer the access and amenities of a city home at the expense of 20 acres. Which is the reality we see globally. But it's of course a ridiculously illogical claim that people would prefer rural living if only it had all the benefits of city living. What are the benefits people derive from the hypothetical 20 acres? What does it even mean in this context, because it's incompatible the whole premise of this argument. People prefer "grocery store in 10 [minutes]" more than 20 acres, and that's why cities exist.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  > People work minimum-wage jobs and choose to live in cities. People working minimum wage jobs have very little choice in their lives and certainly can't afford to move arbitrarily. > I think it's super disingenuous to claim that people only live in cities for work. There are tons of social options in cities, tons of civic amenities, and tons of lifestyle differences that draw people to a city. All of which is available to people that don't live in the city. We have various forms of transportation options. Hell I once flew halfway across the country just to catch KMFDM in concert. At no point during that trip did I feel the urge to move to Denver. > I'm quite confident that the majority of people (ie city dwellers, which are the majority of humans) would preferentially prefer the access and amenities of a city home at the expense of 20 acres. I'm dead-ass certain that's your own biases speaking. Of course we could settle this if either of us can be assed to put together a poll and go flog it on social media. Want to co-author a paper?
  - watwut 2y ago
    > All of which is available to people that don't live in the city. We have various forms of transportation options. Not really. It is a big difference between having mat 30 min to gym, school, whatever or whatever and not even needing a car and having to drive almost an hour to get anywhere. It is difference between "I can and will actually do it" vs "nope, cant do it". > Hell I once flew halfway across the country just to catch KMFDM in concert. That is definitely not something an average person would do on the regular.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      > Not really. It is a big difference between having mat 30 min to gym, school, whatever or whatever and not even needing a car and having to drive almost an hour to get anywhere. It is difference between "I can and will actually do it" vs "nope, cant do it". Man if you think adult humans are that helpless I really don't know what to tell you. They aren't, but apparently you'd need some convincing. > That is definitely not something an average person would do on the regular. Sure, it's a pretty extreme example. It's nothing for folks to drive up the eastern seaboard between Atlanta and Baltimore to catch shows though. Anyway point stands, none of the entertainment and cultural experiences that folks who are stuck in major urban areas use to tout the experience are denied to folks who don't live in the city.

vineyardmike 2y ago

> People prefer having a job, the higher paying the better. High paying jobs exist mostly in metro areas, so folks move there for work. People work minimum-wage jobs and choose to live in cities. These individuals are not preferencing a city for the wage, but rather the lifestyle, access to amenities, the lower cost options it offers, car-free life, etc. I think it's super disingenuous to claim that people only live in cities for work. There are tons of social options in cities, tons of civic amenities, and tons of lifestyle differences that draw people to a city. > their perfectly natural tendency to want as much space/land/house as they can afford Is this a natural tendency? I don't think this "natural" tendency holds true globally, and I'm even skeptical it actually holds true in America, where suburbs are unusually popular. > I'm quite confident the majority of suburbanites would strongly prefer living on 20 acres if they could still get to work in 20 minutes and the grocery store in 10. I'm quite confident that the majority of people (ie city dwellers, which are the majority of humans) would preferentially prefer the access and amenities of a city home at the expense of 20 acres. Which is the reality we see globally. But it's of course a ridiculously illogical claim that people would prefer rural living if only it had all the benefits of city living. What are the benefits people derive from the hypothetical 20 acres? What does it even mean in this context, because it's incompatible the whole premise of this argument. People prefer "grocery store in 10 [minutes]" more than 20 acres, and that's why cities exist.

forgetfreeman 2y ago
> People work minimum-wage jobs and choose to live in cities. People working minimum wage jobs have very little choice in their lives and certainly can't afford to move arbitrarily. > I think it's super disingenuous to claim that people only live in cities for work. There are tons of social options in cities, tons of civic amenities, and tons of lifestyle differences that draw people to a city. All of which is available to people that don't live in the city. We have various forms of transportation options. Hell I once flew halfway across the country just to catch KMFDM in concert. At no point during that trip did I feel the urge to move to Denver. > I'm quite confident that the majority of people (ie city dwellers, which are the majority of humans) would preferentially prefer the access and amenities of a city home at the expense of 20 acres. I'm dead-ass certain that's your own biases speaking. Of course we could settle this if either of us can be assed to put together a poll and go flog it on social media. Want to co-author a paper?
- watwut 2y ago
  > All of which is available to people that don't live in the city. We have various forms of transportation options. Not really. It is a big difference between having mat 30 min to gym, school, whatever or whatever and not even needing a car and having to drive almost an hour to get anywhere. It is difference between "I can and will actually do it" vs "nope, cant do it". > Hell I once flew halfway across the country just to catch KMFDM in concert. That is definitely not something an average person would do on the regular.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    > Not really. It is a big difference between having mat 30 min to gym, school, whatever or whatever and not even needing a car and having to drive almost an hour to get anywhere. It is difference between "I can and will actually do it" vs "nope, cant do it". Man if you think adult humans are that helpless I really don't know what to tell you. They aren't, but apparently you'd need some convincing. > That is definitely not something an average person would do on the regular. Sure, it's a pretty extreme example. It's nothing for folks to drive up the eastern seaboard between Atlanta and Baltimore to catch shows though. Anyway point stands, none of the entertainment and cultural experiences that folks who are stuck in major urban areas use to tout the experience are denied to folks who don't live in the city.