• pixelscript@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    City. Around 100k is the comfortable size.

    Not like I require the city’s wider array of amenities all that much. I will still be spending 97% of my time at work or at home.

    But if I lived in a small town again (born and raised in a town of <8,000), that extra 3% of the time I wanted to go out I’d have to remind myself, “Oh yeah, I live in a dead end town in the middle of nowhere that services none of my personal interests,” and that 3% would rapidly become 0%. I’d live fine with that, but eh. Why take a strict net loss when I can simply not?

    The walkabiity and community arguments for small towns are complete non-factors for me, seeing as I go basically nowhere and talk to basically no one. And I’m not persuaded by the cost of living argument for small towns, since lower rent would be almost equally counterbalanced by lower salary opportunities.

    • Tak@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Not only does the salary go down in small towns but the number of positions are greatly reduced. All it takes is a layoff and that “cheaper” small town could be too expensive because there are no more positions to fill.

      • pixelscript@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        The exception would be high-paid remote work, I guess. But with the reputation that corpos big enough to field those salaries have been recently building, going mask-off with no warning for no reason and asking employees to start filling desks again, I don’t know if I’d risk it.