I suppose it means that—assuming infinite flexibility of humans—as long as the life at some place is better than at other places, people will keep moving there. (Here, “better” includes quality of living, costs, job opportunities, etc.) The movement will only stop when the balance is achieved, that is, each place is equally good. Or when there are artificial barriers.
In other words, imagine Bay Area with cheap rents, and ask yourself why wouldn’t at least 5% of USA move there.
Currently the answer is: because they couldn’t afford the rent, or at least their potential income minus the rent isn’t worth moving there. There are many potential answers for the future, but many of them would also apply to people already living there, such as you. (For example: collapse of transit, or high crime.)
I would expect that getting rents down would generally let people to move from rural areas into cities, and within cities into denser downtown areas, because high rents currently keep people out. But:
Some people don’t want to live in cities. Proximity to nature, not wanting to have to worry about neighbors, liking having lots of open space, working in farming or another fundamentally rural occupation, etc.
Different industries are big in different cities. Software in SF, TV in LA, finance in NYC, commodities in Chicago, biotech in Boston, insurance in Hartford, etc. Depending on what sort of work you want to do different cities make sense. Similar patterns apply for subcultures.
Some people have strong roots and wouldn’t move just for better economic opportunity. A big reason I’m in Boston!
Cities compete, and the fastest growing cities are ones that are trying to make themselves more desirable.
So “the movement will only stop when the balance is achieved, that is, each place is equally good” doesn’t mean “everywhere is terrible” but instead “everywhere keeps getting better, for the people who decide to live there”.
Overall, though, since the Bay Area already has 2.4% of the US population, getting to 5% with lower rents sounds pretty reasonable. They would need to build better transit in the areas that became dense, but they would have the tax revenues to support it.
I suppose it means that—assuming infinite flexibility of humans—as long as the life at some place is better than at other places, people will keep moving there. (Here, “better” includes quality of living, costs, job opportunities, etc.) The movement will only stop when the balance is achieved, that is, each place is equally good. Or when there are artificial barriers.
In other words, imagine Bay Area with cheap rents, and ask yourself why wouldn’t at least 5% of USA move there.
Currently the answer is: because they couldn’t afford the rent, or at least their potential income minus the rent isn’t worth moving there. There are many potential answers for the future, but many of them would also apply to people already living there, such as you. (For example: collapse of transit, or high crime.)
I would expect that getting rents down would generally let people to move from rural areas into cities, and within cities into denser downtown areas, because high rents currently keep people out. But:
Some people don’t want to live in cities. Proximity to nature, not wanting to have to worry about neighbors, liking having lots of open space, working in farming or another fundamentally rural occupation, etc.
Different industries are big in different cities. Software in SF, TV in LA, finance in NYC, commodities in Chicago, biotech in Boston, insurance in Hartford, etc. Depending on what sort of work you want to do different cities make sense. Similar patterns apply for subcultures.
Some people have strong roots and wouldn’t move just for better economic opportunity. A big reason I’m in Boston!
Cities compete, and the fastest growing cities are ones that are trying to make themselves more desirable.
So “the movement will only stop when the balance is achieved, that is, each place is equally good” doesn’t mean “everywhere is terrible” but instead “everywhere keeps getting better, for the people who decide to live there”.
Overall, though, since the Bay Area already has 2.4% of the US population, getting to 5% with lower rents sounds pretty reasonable. They would need to build better transit in the areas that became dense, but they would have the tax revenues to support it.