5 ms·

The problem is rural flight, across the Western societies. Rural areas have a lot of empty housing, urban areas have a severe shortage that sends purchase and r

The problem is rural flight, across the Western societies. Rural areas have a lot of empty housing, urban areas have a severe shortage that sends purchase and rental prices through the roof. Defenders of urbanism and dense settlements in general love to point out that it is more efficient to serve urban populations with infrastructure, which is true, but completely neglecting the fact that it creates an insane wealth disparity in these urban areas (aka, those who have housing and those who have not), a corresponding death of rental markets (old people can't move out to smaller dwellings because an apartment half the size costs thrice the money or more, and young people with families can't afford sizing up either), and a massive financial pressure on local governments to build out all the infrastructure that dense settlement needs.

tpm 1y ago
It's not just Western societies, it's an issue across the globe. But then it does not begin with rural flight, that's only the consequence of.. I don't know, there is not enough opportunity/resources for people on the land. And that's happenning since the start of industrialisation, as Marx noticed, and then he wrote Communist Manifesto when he wanted to build industry outside of the cities but that was tried and didn't work, some communist leaders even sent people from cities into the countryside to 'reeducate', that didn't work either. So everyone is moving into the cities (or to the nearby suburbia) and there is no remedy, even WFH doesn't really solve this. Anyway just wanted to note there is no known policy that would stop rural flight.
- mschuster91 1y ago
  > Anyway just wanted to note there is no known policy that would stop rural flight. Actually, there is. Industry steering politics... Look at Eastern Germany for example. After the 90s people fled in droves (and neo-Nazis moved in to pursue their dreams of "national befreite Zonen" settlements that they couldn't have in Western Germany), but "Silicon Saxony" is a lighthouse that attracts industries and talent from all over the world, even if Intel's fab plans shattered due to Intel's often-described internal issues. The thing is, for this to work, governments and especially their politicians have to be willing to think decades in the future - and they have to put money where their mouth is, and build the surrounding infrastructure as well: roads, rail, high speed internet, schools and universities. That, however, is where many Western governments utterly and completely failed ever since Thatcher and the emergence of rabid unchecked capitalism, tax races to the bottom, "trickle down" and "small state" ideology. When the government doesn't have funds to invest into developing the industries of the future, you'll get the issues that almost all Western societies have. China in contrast has used the shitload of money they got from the Western countries over the last quarter century (when they joined the WTO) to do exactly this. For all that I hate the CCP for various reasons, their way of thinking in five-year plans plus even longer macroeconomic planning has proven to be incredibly successful.
  - tpm 1y ago
    > Actually, there is. You can build new cities. But it will be a city, not countryside. Maybe it will be just suburbs without a clear central zone, but it will still be a city. Anyway, Silicon Saxony is centered in Dresden, which is a city. > China in contrast has used the shitload of money they got from the Western countries over the last quarter century (when they joined the WTO) to do exactly this. What exactly do you mean by 'this'? They certainly didn't in any way stop rural flight, quite the opposite.
    - mschuster91 1y ago
      > What exactly do you mean by 'this'? Building up strategically vital industries. The fact that no place in any Western country can offer anything close to what bunnie described in Shenzhen many years ago is damning in itself, and that's what keeps holding our industries back massively. [1] https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2019/essential-guide-to-shenzhen-web-edition/ https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2019/essential-guide-to-s...
- vladvasiliu 1y ago
  > even WFH doesn't really solve this I'm convinced that it could help, but at least here in France this is half-assed, and many companies are even looking to end it altogether. I would definitely move to a smaller town if I didn't have to come in to the city a set number of days a week. But there's no way I'll endure a multiple-hour commute, so I'll just keep bidding on the limited amount of housing and take up space in the metro, just so I can sit on a worse chair to take my video calls. Of course you won't just up and leave your city apartment if you're not sure how long you'll be able to WFH. Now I don't think it will actually fully solve all our housing woes, but even if it helped a bit it would still be better.
  - tpm 1y ago
    I'm 100% WFH. But I still live in the centre of our capital, partly by accident (bought the flat shortly before Covid hit to shorten the commute), partly because the infrastructure in other parts is quite lacking. And as you note, nobody knows when the WFH ends. But the infra part is why I think WFH does not solve rural flight. Yeah enabled consequently it would help a bit, but not that much I think.
    - 9rx 1y ago
      > the infrastructure in other parts is quite lacking. Meaning, passenger trains? I can't think of anything else that might be lacking in any rural area you'd reasonably consider living in. While that did go out of fashion in rural areas some 100 years ago, even that infrastructure is still more or less there and could be resurrected if people really wanted to use it. The old train station around here became the clubhouse for the lawn bowling club, but I'm sure you could turn it back into the train station if the will was there. But if you are working from home, how much do you really need a train anyway?
      - vladvasiliu 1y ago
        > I can't think of anything else that might be lacking in any rural area you'd reasonably consider living in. Also reasonable bus service to anywhere "intersting". I was actually thinking about that, and I think it comes down to what you do outside of work. If you only hang around the house or similar, yeah, it doesn't matter much. My mom loves gardening, so she doesn't need "infrastructure" to "travel" to the back of her house. But I do like going out, having a drink or two with friends, go dancing. Activities that can end late at night, possibly with some amount of alcohol in the blood. If alcohol's involved, I can't drive, so it's either an expensive taxi to the suburbs or some form of transit, hence infrastructure. Driving is a pain, because these activities happen in the city, and the mayor's policy is to make it as painful as possible to drive - and she's good at it. However, I figured I didn't do those things that often, so with the difference in housing price, I could pay for a taxi fare now and then if I lived in the 'burbs. I also ride a motorbike, which somewhat mitigates the driving issue if I'm not intoxicated - but that's a separate hassle of its own when going out. Depending on the activities, these may very well also exist in smaller, more affordable cities, which also helps with the infrastructure issue since you don't have to travel as far and are more likely to be able to bike or similar. I don't have kids, so I don't need a big house. Which means that, aside from my work, which holds me in the big city, I could move to one of those smaller, cheaper ones and not live in the boonies.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > Anyway just wanted to note there is no known policy that would stop rural flight. High prices will do the trick, though. In Canada — which is said to have the most out of control housing market in the world — the urban population between the latest and previous census only increased by 4.8%, while the rural population grew by 6.5%. Due to periods of data collection, there could some COVID influence in there[1], but a similar trend was also seen in earlier censuses. [1] If there is, that would be policy-driven, which you suggested isn't a factor, so...
  - tpm 1y ago
    > the urban population between the latest and previous census only increased by 4.8%, while the rural population grew by 6.5%. One immediate question would be, how are the suburbs classified, urban or rural?
    - 9rx 1y ago
      Canada defines urban as: A population center with at least 1,000 people and a population density of at least 400 people per square kilometer. Anything falling short of that is considered rural.
harimau777 1y ago
I think that part of the problem is that life in rural areas tends to be worse than life in cities. Rural communities tend to be intollerant of people who don't match their ideal of acceptable humanity. Even if that could be fixed, you have the problem that rural areas simply can't have the concentration of amenities that cities do. Certainly there will always be a certain percentage of the population that likes living in rural areas, but all things being equal I think that most people would rather live in cities.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- 9rx 1y ago
  > Rural communities tend to be intollerant of people who don't match their ideal of acceptable humanity. Not exactly. Intolerance is more visible, but that's simply because you end up getting to know everyone. Imagine that 1% of the population is intolerant. In a city with 1 million people, it is incredibly unlikely that you will ever encounter the 10,000 people who are intolerant. In a village with 100 people, you are almost guaranteed to bump into the 1 intolerant person on a daily basis. > rural areas simply can't have the concentration of amenities that cities do. What amenities are found in city homes that are not found in rural homes? High speed internet, maybe, but even that isn't true very often anymore. Hell, the rural areas around here have access to considerably better internet service than my urban home does. Once you leave the home, there is no difference. It is not like cities of today are built with walls around them. > all things being equal I think that most people would rather live in cities. People like what is in fashion. City living is currently in fashion. It hasn't always been and it most likely won't be again at some point in the future. Fair to say that right now people generally prefer living in the city. That is why they have no qualms about paying so much to be there.
  - S_Bear 1y ago
    The Internet thing is true. I live in a town of 2,000 in what would be considered the middle of nowhere, and have a local ISP that's better than anything I had available in the large metros I lived in prior.

tpm 1y ago

It's not just Western societies, it's an issue across the globe. But then it does not begin with rural flight, that's only the consequence of.. I don't know, there is not enough opportunity/resources for people on the land. And that's happenning since the start of industrialisation, as Marx noticed, and then he wrote Communist Manifesto when he wanted to build industry outside of the cities but that was tried and didn't work, some communist leaders even sent people from cities into the countryside to 'reeducate', that didn't work either. So everyone is moving into the cities (or to the nearby suburbia) and there is no remedy, even WFH doesn't really solve this. Anyway just wanted to note there is no known policy that would stop rural flight.

mschuster91 1y ago
> Anyway just wanted to note there is no known policy that would stop rural flight. Actually, there is. Industry steering politics... Look at Eastern Germany for example. After the 90s people fled in droves (and neo-Nazis moved in to pursue their dreams of "national befreite Zonen" settlements that they couldn't have in Western Germany), but "Silicon Saxony" is a lighthouse that attracts industries and talent from all over the world, even if Intel's fab plans shattered due to Intel's often-described internal issues. The thing is, for this to work, governments and especially their politicians have to be willing to think decades in the future - and they have to put money where their mouth is, and build the surrounding infrastructure as well: roads, rail, high speed internet, schools and universities. That, however, is where many Western governments utterly and completely failed ever since Thatcher and the emergence of rabid unchecked capitalism, tax races to the bottom, "trickle down" and "small state" ideology. When the government doesn't have funds to invest into developing the industries of the future, you'll get the issues that almost all Western societies have. China in contrast has used the shitload of money they got from the Western countries over the last quarter century (when they joined the WTO) to do exactly this. For all that I hate the CCP for various reasons, their way of thinking in five-year plans plus even longer macroeconomic planning has proven to be incredibly successful.
- tpm 1y ago
  > Actually, there is. You can build new cities. But it will be a city, not countryside. Maybe it will be just suburbs without a clear central zone, but it will still be a city. Anyway, Silicon Saxony is centered in Dresden, which is a city. > China in contrast has used the shitload of money they got from the Western countries over the last quarter century (when they joined the WTO) to do exactly this. What exactly do you mean by 'this'? They certainly didn't in any way stop rural flight, quite the opposite.
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    > What exactly do you mean by 'this'? Building up strategically vital industries. The fact that no place in any Western country can offer anything close to what bunnie described in Shenzhen many years ago is damning in itself, and that's what keeps holding our industries back massively. [1] https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2019/essential-guide-to-shenzhen-web-edition/ https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2019/essential-guide-to-s...
vladvasiliu 1y ago
> even WFH doesn't really solve this I'm convinced that it could help, but at least here in France this is half-assed, and many companies are even looking to end it altogether. I would definitely move to a smaller town if I didn't have to come in to the city a set number of days a week. But there's no way I'll endure a multiple-hour commute, so I'll just keep bidding on the limited amount of housing and take up space in the metro, just so I can sit on a worse chair to take my video calls. Of course you won't just up and leave your city apartment if you're not sure how long you'll be able to WFH. Now I don't think it will actually fully solve all our housing woes, but even if it helped a bit it would still be better.
- tpm 1y ago
  I'm 100% WFH. But I still live in the centre of our capital, partly by accident (bought the flat shortly before Covid hit to shorten the commute), partly because the infrastructure in other parts is quite lacking. And as you note, nobody knows when the WFH ends. But the infra part is why I think WFH does not solve rural flight. Yeah enabled consequently it would help a bit, but not that much I think.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > the infrastructure in other parts is quite lacking. Meaning, passenger trains? I can't think of anything else that might be lacking in any rural area you'd reasonably consider living in. While that did go out of fashion in rural areas some 100 years ago, even that infrastructure is still more or less there and could be resurrected if people really wanted to use it. The old train station around here became the clubhouse for the lawn bowling club, but I'm sure you could turn it back into the train station if the will was there. But if you are working from home, how much do you really need a train anyway?
    - vladvasiliu 1y ago
      > I can't think of anything else that might be lacking in any rural area you'd reasonably consider living in. Also reasonable bus service to anywhere "intersting". I was actually thinking about that, and I think it comes down to what you do outside of work. If you only hang around the house or similar, yeah, it doesn't matter much. My mom loves gardening, so she doesn't need "infrastructure" to "travel" to the back of her house. But I do like going out, having a drink or two with friends, go dancing. Activities that can end late at night, possibly with some amount of alcohol in the blood. If alcohol's involved, I can't drive, so it's either an expensive taxi to the suburbs or some form of transit, hence infrastructure. Driving is a pain, because these activities happen in the city, and the mayor's policy is to make it as painful as possible to drive - and she's good at it. However, I figured I didn't do those things that often, so with the difference in housing price, I could pay for a taxi fare now and then if I lived in the 'burbs. I also ride a motorbike, which somewhat mitigates the driving issue if I'm not intoxicated - but that's a separate hassle of its own when going out. Depending on the activities, these may very well also exist in smaller, more affordable cities, which also helps with the infrastructure issue since you don't have to travel as far and are more likely to be able to bike or similar. I don't have kids, so I don't need a big house. Which means that, aside from my work, which holds me in the big city, I could move to one of those smaller, cheaper ones and not live in the boonies.
9rx 1y ago
> Anyway just wanted to note there is no known policy that would stop rural flight. High prices will do the trick, though. In Canada — which is said to have the most out of control housing market in the world — the urban population between the latest and previous census only increased by 4.8%, while the rural population grew by 6.5%. Due to periods of data collection, there could some COVID influence in there[1], but a similar trend was also seen in earlier censuses. [1] If there is, that would be policy-driven, which you suggested isn't a factor, so...
- tpm 1y ago
  > the urban population between the latest and previous census only increased by 4.8%, while the rural population grew by 6.5%. One immediate question would be, how are the suburbs classified, urban or rural?
  - 9rx 1y ago
    Canada defines urban as: A population center with at least 1,000 people and a population density of at least 400 people per square kilometer. Anything falling short of that is considered rural.

harimau777 1y ago

I think that part of the problem is that life in rural areas tends to be worse than life in cities. Rural communities tend to be intollerant of people who don't match their ideal of acceptable humanity. Even if that could be fixed, you have the problem that rural areas simply can't have the concentration of amenities that cities do. Certainly there will always be a certain percentage of the population that likes living in rural areas, but all things being equal I think that most people would rather live in cities.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
9rx 1y ago
> Rural communities tend to be intollerant of people who don't match their ideal of acceptable humanity. Not exactly. Intolerance is more visible, but that's simply because you end up getting to know everyone. Imagine that 1% of the population is intolerant. In a city with 1 million people, it is incredibly unlikely that you will ever encounter the 10,000 people who are intolerant. In a village with 100 people, you are almost guaranteed to bump into the 1 intolerant person on a daily basis. > rural areas simply can't have the concentration of amenities that cities do. What amenities are found in city homes that are not found in rural homes? High speed internet, maybe, but even that isn't true very often anymore. Hell, the rural areas around here have access to considerably better internet service than my urban home does. Once you leave the home, there is no difference. It is not like cities of today are built with walls around them. > all things being equal I think that most people would rather live in cities. People like what is in fashion. City living is currently in fashion. It hasn't always been and it most likely won't be again at some point in the future. Fair to say that right now people generally prefer living in the city. That is why they have no qualms about paying so much to be there.
- S_Bear 1y ago
  The Internet thing is true. I live in a town of 2,000 in what would be considered the middle of nowhere, and have a local ISP that's better than anything I had available in the large metros I lived in prior.