Demographic impact of urban exodus

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

It's also objectively true that there are plenty of shitty, working-class small towns and rural sprawl in the Southwest, West, Northwest, North, North East, East, and Southeast. Anyway, we get it; you won't be moving to Arkansas anytime soon. No worries.

Yes, but that's not my point. It sounds like you agree with me, actually. My original argument was that if high income professionals capable of working from home decide to move from major metropolitan areas to rural areas, then the subsequent movement of working class service industry employees following them and their personal spending is going to be marooned in places that aren't going to be nice to them.

Not all major cities are necessary good to the working class of course, a dishwasher living in The Bronx might be better off somewhere else. But if you expand urban to mean any metro area, like, say, Phoenix, then its hard to say if someone living in a place thats both affordable and has a lot of jobs would want to go live in a trailer park in a red state and drive 30 miles to work daily.

The Arkansas reference came from comments before I posted. I used it as an example.

To be fair though, anyone on SSP should be knowledgeable enough about American geography to know that outside of the large metropolitan areas, there are regional disparities in economic opportunity and individual well being which can be traced to history, politics, culture, etc. I would never ever live in a small town in Arkansas or Mississippi, ever, but if I was offered a really good job in a small town in Minnesota I would consider it.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by RST500

This was discussed in the Bay Area tech thread but what will be the impacts of mass migrations and exoduses on different urban areas' class and demographic structures.

Rents in SF and the Peninsula are plunging.

Bye bye techies, dont come back!#deuces

[jd3189]

^^^Hopefully the housing market value there becomes at least what it should be, nothing more, nothing less. A mansion in Pacific Heights will still be in the millions, but renting in Oakland, Mission District, and Silicon Valley should have to take up more of 50% of anyone’s income.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by jd3189

^^^Hopefully the housing market value there becomes at least what it should be, nothing more, nothing less. A mansion in Pacific Heights will still be in the millions, but renting in Oakland, Mission District, and Silicon Valley should have to take up more of 50% of anyone’s income.

Yup. For the Bay Area, it's always been about high demand that nimbys refused to accomodate.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Rents in SF and the Peninsula are plunging.

Bye bye techies, dont come back!#deuces

According to this site, studios in the Bay area are now more expensive than 1 bedrooms. And in some places more expensive or not much cheaper than 2 bedrooms. How can that be? Families moving but singles staying?

https://www.renthop.com/average-rent...co-bay-area-ca

[jtown,man]

Arkansas, if you are looking at a topological map, has a *clear demarcation of change from west to east. Eastern Arkansas has it's moments, no doubt, but overall it is flat, farms, and dying towns. There is some beauty in that to be sure. However, the western part of the state is absolutely beautiful. Is it as dramatic as parts of many other states with mountains or hills? Probably not. But it is largely untouched and it feels wild(same with southern MO.

Arkansas's taxes aren't really that low BTW, they usually range in the middle for taxation.

[craigs]

If you drive (or bike, or hike) around the countryside, almost all the states are beautiful in some way, at least in part--even ones that don't get celebrated for their beauty. In fact, I can think of only one state that I did not find beautiful, and it sure wasn't Arkansas.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by craigs

If you drive (or bike, or hike) around the countryside, almost all the states are beautiful in some way, at least in part--even ones that don't get celebrated for their beauty. In fact, I can think of only one state that I did not find beautiful, and it sure wasn't Arkansas.

... New Jersey?

[craigs]

Haha, no, but I'm not going to comment any further on which state. My larger point was that there is tremendous beauty throughout the country, even in places that aren't especially celebrated for it.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

... New Jersey?

My money is on Ohio or Indiana.

[Buckeye Native 001]

I'll go ahead and shill for the natural beauty of Ohio south and east of Columbus as well as Southern Indiana along the Ohio River.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

I'll go ahead and shill for the natural beauty of Ohio south and east of Columbus as well as Southern Indiana along the Ohio River.

Yeah, that's the thing... it's hard to think of a state that has no parts that are pretty. Even Illinois has Starved Rock, the Mississippi bluffs, and the swamps downstate. Maybe Kansas?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

I'll go ahead and shill for the natural beauty of Ohio south and east of Columbus as well as Southern Indiana along the Ohio River.

I just wanted to see someone defend those states, lol.

[jd3189]

Wonder if this is the best time to start mass urban investments in all our small towns. If we could do that, plus build good enough public transportation systems to connect them to the major cities of their regions, that could take a lot of steam off the major cities in terms of housing demand and congestion.

Yes, it’s better for centralization, but if most people can’t afford to live in SF or NYC, why not give them a reason to live in smaller cities not too far from those metros that are huge bargains at the moment?

And if it comes down to whole states being too expensive like California, why not convince more people to move to Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and other unfavorable states? If enough “liberal” folks move there, they would be able to change the politics of these states to make them more moderate. After all, there’s still a lot of room in this country for growth.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I just wanted to see someone defend those states, lol.

As a % of state, I'd go with Illinois. Ohio has a pretty high share of Appalachian lowlands. Cincy, everywhere south of Columbus, and even NE Ohio are hilly. The corridor around Toledo and near the Indiana line is horrible, though.

But even Illinois has pretty areas in the deep south. But the stretch from Chicago to St. Louis is almost featureless.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I just wanted to see someone defend those states, lol.

Yup, walked right into that one.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Yeah, that's the thing... it's hard to think of a state that has no parts that are pretty. Even Illinois has Starved Rock, the Mississippi bluffs, and the swamps downstate. Maybe Kansas?

Illinois has the lakefront, which is beautiful.

Kansas is the correct guess. I'd like to think I simply missed something beautiful on the two trips I took through the state.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

I'll go ahead and shill for the natural beauty of Ohio south and east of Columbus as well as Southern Indiana along the Ohio River.

Eastern OH is basically an extension of the northeastern US geographically. Very scenic.

As for NJ, areas west of NYC metro are very pretty as are parts outside of Philly area. Plus the coastal areas.

Originally Posted by craigs

Illinois has the lakefront, which is beautiful.

Kansas is the correct guess. I'd like to think I simply missed something beautiful on the two trips I took through the state.

I've driven between St. Louis and Boulder many times and I think the eastern half of Kansas with its Flint Hills and billowing, tall-grass prairie is extremely beautiful. Much more so than anything between St. Louis and Chicago or St. Louis and Minneapolis.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Yeah but even then, there is a world of difference between living in NW Arkansas versus somewhere like Pine Bluff.

If Arkansas gained people leaving large cities from the coasts chances are they would move to places with amenities and services in arms reach.

And even then this has huge unintended consequences. If Silicon Valley engineers moved to Arkansas, they'd live in some nice private gated community with exclusive lake access and pay hardly any taxes. The people who prep their food and fix their appliances and pour the concrete foundations of their house are going to live in nasty trailer parks, their kids will go to shit rural schools, they'll pay more for transportation, and their quality of life will be severely degraded. Instead of improving equality by redistributing wealth out of the largest cities to a poorer region, it would increase it by furthering a race to the bottom

The answer always has been socioeconomic integration. Wither it's Topeka, KS or Manhattan NYC whenever we segregate people by class we end up with these discrepancies.