jamin wrote:
One of the reasons migration in the U.S. was lower in recent decades than most of the 20th century was that we shifted to 2-income houesholds. If you have a 1-income household, you only need 1 person to move cities to move jobs and you can move to a better city where you have a better living, better salary, whatever. When you have a 2-income household, people have been really stuck in the places because it's very hard for a 2-income household to coordinate their move. If both are no longer geographically bounded, suddenly you can unlock that.
I think the big cities were just a bubble. Everybody had to be there because everybody had to be there, and once everybody's not there you don't have to be there anymore.
As I'm sure you know, cities exist because of agglomeration economies not because "everyone had to be there". There are significant cost advantages that accrue from people and businesses being in close proximity, including transportation costs. Take air travel, for example, the only way it is feasible to travel between US and Asia is through the establishment of large hubs capable of handling large aircraft with many flights between those hubs. It will not be financially feasible anytime in the foreseeable to operate a lot smaller aircraft between multiple origins and destinations. And no, people will not stop traveling.
Now suppose that in the future you marry a physician. Of course, there are doctors needed in communities of all sizes but what about the purchase of expensive, more specialized medical equipment and the hands-on training of new practitioners? Those are only feasible is large medical facilities serving larger populations. There is a reason why the medical schools of major universities are not located in college towns but in a larger nearby city.
Silicon Valley is not a city in the traditional sense. But the agglomeration economies there have been strong enough for it to maintain its dominance as a tech center for decades, despite many locations trying to replicate its success. I think it is possible that SV will lose some of its dominance in technology but we will not see hundreds of small tech centers scattered through the country. Companies leaving the Valley are just reforming new centers that are developing their own agglomeration economies. Most likely, there will be 3-4 larger centers in places like Austin. But that growth will come with higher COL and more congestion. So, in 20 years Austin will probably be facing a lot of the challenges we see in SV today. And I think anyone that has lived there for the last 20+ years will back me up.
Also, is Thule only discussing the US? Of the 20 largest urban areas in the world most of them are in Asia and there is no real indication that growth in those cities is slowing down. Will people living in Mumbai, Jakarta, Manila and Lagos disperse back to their villages and work remotely?
Finally, I’m skeptical that migration was lower because of the shift to 2-income households. Is there evidence for that assertion? He seems to assume that only one person wants to work, given the choice. In my experience couples with higher education and income are more likely to migrate than those relying on one income. And they are more likely to relocate to an area where both can find jobs requiring higher education and skills. I met my ex-spouse while in grad school in a university town. We agreed that there were only a few large markets we would consider moving to where there were career opportunities for both of us.
Cities have always been our centers of innovation and creativity – not just in technology, but in art, entertainment, finance, etc. And that has always been facilitated by concentrations of people working and living in close proximity. I think it is a very interesting question as to whether or not innovation and creativity can be nurtured and developed only in virtual space. But Thule has not really contributed anything of real substance to that discussion.