Cities like new york and san francisco are less expensive than rural areas. But wages can adjust in those cities if there is a large supply of workers working. And yet they don't, or at least partially compensate for the higher housing costs. For persons living in rural ohio or kentucky, where things are not so good, you'd think they'd want to move to cincinnati or cleveland. I feel entirely confident that there something wrong in the fact that we are not making it easy to move into the most economically successful parts of america.
Why are fewer men working over the last few decades? Is a universal basic income a good policy for coping with the loss of employment? Economist Edward Glaeser of Harvard University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about what Glaeser calls the war on work--the policy changes that have reduced employment among prime-aged men. Glaeser does not see the universal basic income as a viable solution to the decrease in work especially if technology ends up reducing employment opportunities more dramatically in the future. The conversation also includes a discussion of the role of cities and the reduction in geographic mobility in the United States.