Voxdotcom publishes a lot of stupid shit, but this recent piece is downright enraging. In short, it suggests that middle-class and low-income folks struggling to pay the rent in expensive cities like Washington, D.C. and New York City should move to Detroit or St. Louis (or some more affordable Midwestern city) in order to achieve financial security. For Vox, it’s a “do as I say, not as I do” argument:
If you're over 30 and have been consistently failing to reach your savings goals, it's worth treating that as an emergency in its own right. I live in Washington, DC, one of the more expensive metropolitan areas in the United States. And in the last couple of years I've had two different friends move from here to Midwestern cities — St. Louis in one case, Minneapolis in the other — after a few years of living in Washington, DC.
Both enjoyed living here and were sad to be leaving. Both had stable, white-collar jobs. But they weren't especially lucrative jobs, and both friends knew that even if their careers went well, they would struggle to enjoy a comfortable, middle-class life in the Washington, DC, area. So they moved to Midwestern cities where they could afford a nice house in a good school district for less money.
This kind of decision is tough to make, but it's also a decision that will pay financial and psychological dividends for decades to come. With a lower cost of living, it'll be easier for my friends to save 15 or even 20 percent of their income each month. That will provide a savings cushion that will allow them to deal with unexpected emergencies. Obviously they'll still face some financial risks. But with money in the bank, routine, unscheduled expenses like car and furnace repairs won't make them feel like they're weathering an ongoing financial storm.
Of course, the author is absolutely right: struggling financially sucks, and leaves you vulnerable to depression and, potentially, disaster, should a horrific illness or unemployment strike. His whole condescending “hot take” is a response to a shocking Atlantic article about the fact that half of Americans would struggle to find $400 for an emergency.
That said, think again about what the author is arguing: Washington and New York — cities with the country’s most important economic, social, cultural and financial institutions — should be abandoned by, say, the bottom 90 percent of the United States population. Who is left? Elites of course — the children of elites whose parents can subsidize the rent, by doing things like buying Manhattan apartments and then renting them out to their kids at below-market rents.
Now, don’t take my diary as an attack on the Midwest. I love the Midwest and I think Milwaukee and Chicago are much nicer places to live than Washington, D.C. But, stick with me and consider the following.
What happens when only elites are left in powerful cities with powerful institutions? Social and economic privilege is cemented and replicated. Neoliberal policies disastrous for the middle-class and workers persist unchallenged. Moreover, socio-economic mobility declines as young people not born into privilege — or burdened with student debt — are unable to take roles in prestigious institutions.
Of course, we could do like European countries and make sure our big cities are accessible to everyone, but it’s easier for someone like Timothy B. Lee, the author of this article, to simply tell those who struggling to get the hell out of Dodge.