Many threads seem to point out problems with remote workers moving to lower cost locations. A word I haven't seen is "gentrification." Is remote worker geographic distribution not a form of gentrification?
There is a little bit of pain, initially, but if they step back and compare life in an economically prospering place (rich people coming in) versus an economically declining place (rich people and opportunities to earn money leaving), they would realize they are actually lucky.
One might say well those aren’t the only two options, and I would say, yes they are. The world moves faster and faster there is no “stasis” anymore. You’re on the up or down, volatility is higher, and you need to stay on the right side of it.
>people complaining about the demand curves moving
>There is a little bit of pain, initially
Demand curves move in decades!
Nobody wants life to suck for a couple decades because a bunch of people showed up and turned the local economy upside down. That's a huge fraction of a lifetime. If you're unlucky your kids might even be born at the start of it.
>economically declining place
You call it declining and I call it stable and sustainable.
The world will always need soybeans, dairy products, corn and timber. The machinery to produce these things will always need to be fixed. Yes the people employed in that capacity will decline over time. With current birth rates and options for geographic mobility I don't think this is a real problem. It just means more kids will grow up to move to the cities than stick around.
>You’re on the up or down, volatility is higher, and you need to stay on the right side of it.
This seems like a world view minted where the primary industry is a volatile money fire. Not everywhere is like this, yet.