I'm curious what his answer will be. Assuming he has an answer.
I don't know if it's a good thing that people should have to uproot and move away from friends and family whenever economic trends change. I'm beginning to think it's all for the convenience of the 1%. One can expect support from family when finances are tight. Grandparents caring for kids while parents work, for instance. Moving away from that is risky when one is on the economic edge, so I can see why there is reluctance to move away. On the other hand, anybody who is absolutely dependent on keeping a job because otherwise they would be out of work and alone in the city is exactly the kind of power that the wealthy want to have over the work force.
Another thing is that the cities aren't exactly brimming with jobs these days either. That, and cities are already strained to provide services to the people already there. More people makes for more expanded urban infrastructure. Meanwhile rural areas lose population, which means less for everybody left behind. If trends continue, the rural country will be pretty much empty while an urban jungle develops in a few states.
So, why not develop an economy that provides for a decent living in rural america? A part of the answer would be universal basic income. Another answer would be breaking up factory farms into smaller farms to accommodate family farming. Another would be expansion of high speed data lines to every home and business in the country. Not saying I have an answer but am saying that our current system isn't working and the trends leave everybody worse off if they continue.
You raise many very good points.
For example, depopulating the countryside is a trend that's run its course. We need people in rural areas, and we need to ensure they have modern services and infrastructure, including but not limited to high speed internet access. Then one's education and ability to contribute to the knowledge economy is no longer tied to services only available in urban areas.
Coming trends of decentralized power production and distribution, transportation and food availability all point to a resurgence of exurban spaces as the desirable places to be. And much of the infrastructure is already in place; roads, plumbing and power and they're underutilized due to the century of urban migration we've just experienced.
I don't care how much I'm worth; I'll NEVER want to live in downtown LA or on Park Avenue in Manhattan. If I'm ever fortunate enough to break out of the middle class, I'll want to live where there's fresh air, elbow room and local produce.
You've made another excellent point about breaking up families for the convenience of wealthy corporations. The reason why so many cultures around the world revere and encourage multigenerational housing is precisely because of the inherent family support system. Young people can take care of older people, while older folks can provide financial support, experience and wisdom- and childcare. Shredding that powerful family unit works to the advantage of no one but the corporation who seeks power over their workers by making them helpless and totally dependent.
A universal basic income would support such a future, and it would be better for all involved.
