"make the problem worse" - That's only true if you define the problem as 'people not moving' instead of 'people not working'.
-
-
Replying to @random_eddie
If you pay people to stay in a place with no employment & have kids, you create more unemployed people.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
My thesis is that less-dense areas can be viable centers of economic activity, even if not as strong as cities.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie @MorlockP
Right now they're not viable; they're dying. I'm saying this is path-dependent and reversible.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie
path dependent: yes? Reversible? Unclear. I mean, sure, if you build a $1T city there. But otherwise? >
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP @random_eddie
these areas have two problems: 1) not close to people who generate jobs 2) full of people who _don't_.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @random_eddie
I'd argue that big single employer towns are kind of terrible, sort of like countries with "the resource curse".
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @random_eddie
you train everyone to sit around and wait for the boss to tell them what to do. No role models. No sense of self determination
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP @random_eddie
unions, communism, and giant corporations destroy the human spirit. ...but I repeat myself.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
when the bell rings please eat from the dog food bowl / report to your machine / change classes. ...and salivate!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.