From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Wed May 29 2002 - 12:02:26 MDT
I have a theory as to why there is a bias that is slowly causing
movement from rural areas to super-metro areas despite the fact that the
cost of living increases as one moves through the spectrum. I've lived
across the spectrum and moved between them, which has given me a pretty
good idea of how it happens.
The short answer is that women drive this behavior in the general
population. I've regularly observed this in many different places and
under many different environments. Men are fairly agnostic about
location and are sensitive to cost of living, without a strong bias
toward living in the city. Most women prefer the city, the bigger the
better, and don't seem to be too sensitive to the fact that it costs
more (perhaps because in the majority of cases, they are not bearing the
primary financial burden of it). The pattern I have seen over and over
is that for most couples, there is an equilibrium between the man's
price sensitivity and the woman's desire to live in ever bigger/denser
cities.
The outcome of this is that living in the city makes a man a more
desirable mate. Therefore, by paying the higher cost of living in urban
areas they have access to better women. Men who can provide access to a
city living environment for a woman can get better women, and men rarely
show too much resistance to spending money to acquire better women.
In other words, it is the same old sexual selection bit. The only real
interesting point is the fact that women find the city very magnetic as
a general rule. This is a very old cliche that shows up in literature
as far back as you look. However, it doesn't take a psych boffin to
come up with a good hypothesis as to why this is the case.
Cheers,
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:28 MST