Conversation

Replying to
I’m going to go out on a limb and argue this is probably a bad idea for reasons or reasons unknown as yet. Ie societal systems disincentivize and resist this convergent migration pattern for a good reason. Any group cohesive enough to pull it off is probably a toxic cult.
Show replies
Replying to
I'll go out on another limb and say that good reason is the counteracting motivations of larger social forces that value something other than individual wellbeing higher than individual wellbeing. Not because it's bad for the individuals.
4
Replying to and
Plus it’s an asshat assumption in the first place to assume any destination city lacks worthwhile people while whatever place your fleeing has all the good ones. False premise. Consider the high rent a tax for condescension.
2
Replying to and
Hmm. That could be true, but preference for X does not imply contempt for not-X. People might presumably be open to locals joining whatever community they’re trying to intensify geographically. They will likely even try to pick places where that’s likely.
1
Replying to and
has the tech industry not already done this with SF (even though the actual coordination of it is less direct)? your point may still stand but
Replying to and
I think you’re drawing from a systems-thinking principle about how a faster rate of change is more likely to overwhelm buffers and cause a major equilibrium shift or system failure
1
1