Re-populating smaller towns would give them more tax income to put money back into infrastructure and other programs. Having people move out of the megalopolises helps reduce demand on things like childcare and lower housing costs as demand cools.
that’s just a really bad take i think. tax laws have to adapt to the people, not the other way around. it’s just a very bad idea to move around people to get more favorable taxation, because tax laws can be changed much faster than people can move around.
on top of that, “demand cools” for housing … is questionable. you know, if we wanted to, we could just build more housing. and i only partially get your childcare take … are you saying that elderly people (who often need care themselves) should take care of the children? i’m not sure about that.
are you saying that elderly people (who often need care themselves) should take care of the children
I have no idea where you’re getting this. I guess because a lot of the population currently in the countryside is elderly? If the people and the jobs move there, that won’t be an issue. The people at the daycare/preschool in my village are middle-aged. EDIT: and more to the point, I meant increased availability in the megalopolises not where I am now.
it’s just a very bad idea to move around people to get more favorable taxation
That’s not the point I’m trying to make. There are people who move to the super-populated areas because they feel it’s their only chance of advancement and job security. I’ve met plenty that would rather be back where they came from or with more space. Without the job security there, without good futures, people are only coming back to visit family and not living even when they want to. If the people feel supported and secure in their opportunities and the opportunities for their children, they will come back which also brings tax revenue and improvements.
tax laws can be changed much faster
I don’t think it makes sense for the central government to directly start shifting large amounts of tax money that no one is going to use. Sure, they could start improving infrastructure and stuff in many rural areas, but if 50 people live there and that number is declining, it’s a waste of money. It only makes sense to help do anything other than basic upkeep if people are coming or it could concretely be shown to increase the chance of people coming. Again, with jobs and future outlook, that’s not happening.
we could just build more housing
This only goes so far. Look at how built out Tokyo is (including into Chiba, Yokohama, Kawasaki, Saitama, etc. I already know people who commute 1.5 hours or more to work. The more affordable housing is further away, and often of very poor quality with paper-thin walls, causing people to lose 3-4 hours of their day in commute. That’s insane. It’s also not like public transit can be increased quickly enough to do anything about this either.
You might argue that the answer is more highrises. The problem is that those tend to go for more and price people, dis-proportionally the elderly and those on fixed income. They also take a long time to build and create new logistics issue with garbage management and other things. Not unsolvable, but I still feel like it’s trying to force many people to live where they ultimately don’t want to.
yeah i think that this is the most important issue. we cannot just assume where people want to live. we have to ask them. there needs to be proper data about how many people want to live in which region. then, based on that, construction and infrastructure development should happen, in the countryside / city.
i don’t see how that would reduce costs
Re-populating smaller towns would give them more tax income to put money back into infrastructure and other programs. Having people move out of the megalopolises helps reduce demand on things like childcare and lower housing costs as demand cools.
that’s just a really bad take i think. tax laws have to adapt to the people, not the other way around. it’s just a very bad idea to move around people to get more favorable taxation, because tax laws can be changed much faster than people can move around.
on top of that, “demand cools” for housing … is questionable. you know, if we wanted to, we could just build more housing. and i only partially get your childcare take … are you saying that elderly people (who often need care themselves) should take care of the children? i’m not sure about that.
I have no idea where you’re getting this. I guess because a lot of the population currently in the countryside is elderly? If the people and the jobs move there, that won’t be an issue. The people at the daycare/preschool in my village are middle-aged. EDIT: and more to the point, I meant increased availability in the megalopolises not where I am now.
That’s not the point I’m trying to make. There are people who move to the super-populated areas because they feel it’s their only chance of advancement and job security. I’ve met plenty that would rather be back where they came from or with more space. Without the job security there, without good futures, people are only coming back to visit family and not living even when they want to. If the people feel supported and secure in their opportunities and the opportunities for their children, they will come back which also brings tax revenue and improvements.
I don’t think it makes sense for the central government to directly start shifting large amounts of tax money that no one is going to use. Sure, they could start improving infrastructure and stuff in many rural areas, but if 50 people live there and that number is declining, it’s a waste of money. It only makes sense to help do anything other than basic upkeep if people are coming or it could concretely be shown to increase the chance of people coming. Again, with jobs and future outlook, that’s not happening.
This only goes so far. Look at how built out Tokyo is (including into Chiba, Yokohama, Kawasaki, Saitama, etc. I already know people who commute 1.5 hours or more to work. The more affordable housing is further away, and often of very poor quality with paper-thin walls, causing people to lose 3-4 hours of their day in commute. That’s insane. It’s also not like public transit can be increased quickly enough to do anything about this either.
You might argue that the answer is more highrises. The problem is that those tend to go for more and price people, dis-proportionally the elderly and those on fixed income. They also take a long time to build and create new logistics issue with garbage management and other things. Not unsolvable, but I still feel like it’s trying to force many people to live where they ultimately don’t want to.
yeah i think that this is the most important issue. we cannot just assume where people want to live. we have to ask them. there needs to be proper data about how many people want to live in which region. then, based on that, construction and infrastructure development should happen, in the countryside / city.