(https://www.lemonde.fr/campus/article/2025/07/28/alice-29-an...)
They aren't whining. They have it objectively and measurably worse than previous generations, by a huge margin.
You're literally doing the "let them eat cake" thing the boomers have been doing for decades. If you keep doing this you will spend your old age in the streets scorned by the younger generations you've thumbed your nose at. You'll probably have a very nice smartphone though and we'll tell you "why are you complaining? you have such nice luxuries, you should be grateful to us you at least have that."
Of course, even increasing salaries ten-fold wouldn't help if they don't actually build enough homes.
https://fr.statista.com/infographie/25111/distribution-des-s...
According to that, she's definitely in the top 20%. Of course "among the best paid people" is ambiguous depending on how much "top" you consider, but I think being in the top 20% it makes sense to say that.
PS: and I suppose (although it's hard to find data) that if we look at people in her age bracket, she will be in a higher percentile.
In France, you are considered rich when your net revenue is twice the median. That is to say, if you get more than ~4000 € of _net_ monthly salary (around 61k gross/year), you are rich. This was very easy to reach in the IT industry, especially in the Paris area, after 15 years at most.
The 1% richest (based on salary) start from 7500 € net/month (115k gross/year).
She certainly isn't "among the best paid people."
But there's no huge corporate health insurance tax, and she won't be spending as much on commuting.
... and on housing. Even Europe's most nuts markets aka London, Berlin, Munich, Hamburg and Freakfurt don't come anywhere close to the situation in the US.
Mean house price:
London: $753,793 USD
USA: $369,147 USD
Average rent per month:
London: $2,992 USD
USA: $1,699 USD
Average home size:
London: 705 sq ft.
USA: 1,800 sq ft.
Estimated homeless population (% of total population):
London: 2%
USA: 0.2%
Annoying comments about housing posted on Hacker News:
London: Not seen
USA: Way too manyFrance hasn't had above-replacement fertility since 1980 [1], so it seems strange their housing supply would be stressed.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033137/fertility-rate-f...
Although for the specific case of Paris proper (not the whole region), population has actually decreased in recent years. But there also seem to be fewer people per dwelling. See [1] for some interesting graphs. Unfortunately it's French, but Google Translate should do a good enough job.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/459939/population-france...
[1] https://www.paris.fr/pages/le-boom-des-logements-vacants-acc...
Defenders of urbanism and dense settlements in general love to point out that it is more efficient to serve urban populations with infrastructure, which is true, but completely neglecting the fact that it creates an insane wealth disparity in these urban areas (aka, those who have housing and those who have not), a corresponding death of rental markets (old people can't move out to smaller dwellings because an apartment half the size costs thrice the money or more, and young people with families can't afford sizing up either), and a massive financial pressure on local governments to build out all the infrastructure that dense settlement needs.
But then it does not begin with rural flight, that's only the consequence of.. I don't know, there is not enough opportunity/resources for people on the land. And that's happenning since the start of industrialisation, as Marx noticed, and then he wrote Communist Manifesto when he wanted to build industry outside of the cities but that was tried and didn't work, some communist leaders even sent people from cities into the countryside to 'reeducate', that didn't work either. So everyone is moving into the cities (or to the nearby suburbia) and there is no remedy, even WFH doesn't really solve this.
Anyway just wanted to note there is no known policy that would stop rural flight.
Actually, there is. Industry steering politics...
Look at Eastern Germany for example. After the 90s people fled in droves (and neo-Nazis moved in to pursue their dreams of "national befreite Zonen" settlements that they couldn't have in Western Germany), but "Silicon Saxony" is a lighthouse that attracts industries and talent from all over the world, even if Intel's fab plans shattered due to Intel's often-described internal issues.
The thing is, for this to work, governments and especially their politicians have to be willing to think decades in the future - and they have to put money where their mouth is, and build the surrounding infrastructure as well: roads, rail, high speed internet, schools and universities.
That, however, is where many Western governments utterly and completely failed ever since Thatcher and the emergence of rabid unchecked capitalism, tax races to the bottom, "trickle down" and "small state" ideology. When the government doesn't have funds to invest into developing the industries of the future, you'll get the issues that almost all Western societies have.
China in contrast has used the shitload of money they got from the Western countries over the last quarter century (when they joined the WTO) to do exactly this. For all that I hate the CCP for various reasons, their way of thinking in five-year plans plus even longer macroeconomic planning has proven to be incredibly successful.
You can build new cities. But it will be a city, not countryside. Maybe it will be just suburbs without a clear central zone, but it will still be a city. Anyway, Silicon Saxony is centered in Dresden, which is a city.
> China in contrast has used the shitload of money they got from the Western countries over the last quarter century (when they joined the WTO) to do exactly this.
What exactly do you mean by 'this'? They certainly didn't in any way stop rural flight, quite the opposite.
Building up strategically vital industries. The fact that no place in any Western country can offer anything close to what bunnie described in Shenzhen many years ago is damning in itself, and that's what keeps holding our industries back massively.
[1] https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2019/essential-guide-to-s...
I'm convinced that it could help, but at least here in France this is half-assed, and many companies are even looking to end it altogether. I would definitely move to a smaller town if I didn't have to come in to the city a set number of days a week. But there's no way I'll endure a multiple-hour commute, so I'll just keep bidding on the limited amount of housing and take up space in the metro, just so I can sit on a worse chair to take my video calls.
Of course you won't just up and leave your city apartment if you're not sure how long you'll be able to WFH.
Now I don't think it will actually fully solve all our housing woes, but even if it helped a bit it would still be better.
Meaning, passenger trains? I can't think of anything else that might be lacking in any rural area you'd reasonably consider living in.
While that did go out of fashion in rural areas some 100 years ago, even that infrastructure is still more or less there and could be resurrected if people really wanted to use it. The old train station around here became the clubhouse for the lawn bowling club, but I'm sure you could turn it back into the train station if the will was there.
But if you are working from home, how much do you really need a train anyway?
Also reasonable bus service to anywhere "intersting".
I was actually thinking about that, and I think it comes down to what you do outside of work.
If you only hang around the house or similar, yeah, it doesn't matter much. My mom loves gardening, so she doesn't need "infrastructure" to "travel" to the back of her house.
But I do like going out, having a drink or two with friends, go dancing. Activities that can end late at night, possibly with some amount of alcohol in the blood. If alcohol's involved, I can't drive, so it's either an expensive taxi to the suburbs or some form of transit, hence infrastructure. Driving is a pain, because these activities happen in the city, and the mayor's policy is to make it as painful as possible to drive - and she's good at it.
However, I figured I didn't do those things that often, so with the difference in housing price, I could pay for a taxi fare now and then if I lived in the 'burbs. I also ride a motorbike, which somewhat mitigates the driving issue if I'm not intoxicated - but that's a separate hassle of its own when going out.
Depending on the activities, these may very well also exist in smaller, more affordable cities, which also helps with the infrastructure issue since you don't have to travel as far and are more likely to be able to bike or similar. I don't have kids, so I don't need a big house. Which means that, aside from my work, which holds me in the big city, I could move to one of those smaller, cheaper ones and not live in the boonies.
I'll point out that the original comment said "small town". The followup comment introduced "rural", but, given the context, we can infer that the same thing was meant.
With that said, why can't you do that in a small town? The small town (population ~1,000) I grew up in has eight bars, some of which cater to the dancing crowd. You can walk the whole town over in like 15 minutes, so there is no need to drive home after a late night drinking session. While not a train, there are buses that run to the nearest large city if you really need something you can't find locally, but I'm not sure what that would be.
It is fair to say that you can't spin a globe, randomly place your finger down, and move to where it lands and expect a good result. Infrastructure absolutely is lacking in the expansive forest, desert wasteland, and across the frozen tundra. But if you carefully select the small town, I wonder what infrastructure one actually finds missing?
> suburbs
That sounds like city living. Small towns or rural areas don't have suburbs. It's an interesting perspective, to be sure, but might have missed the mark around where the original question was asked. That is a very different environment.
Good quality healthcare providers, or sometimes even any healthcare providers that will schedule an appointment before you die, for one. Further down you mention "The small town (population ~1,000) I grew up in has eight bars", well the small town I grew up (pop. around 8000 currently) has no good quality restaurant when I don't want to cook, as another thing we could consider being infrastructure. And so on. Worth noting I live in Slovakia.
Yeah, specialists aren't commonly found in small towns. But it is not like cities are walled off. What's the practical difference between driving for 30 minutes across town to get to hospital vs. driving 30 minutes into the city? From anything I've ever observed, the specialist hospitals are generally located on the arterial entranceways into the city, no doubt for good reason.
If you need urgent specialist care, they have helicopters that can fly astonishingly fast. I'd love to see actual numbers, but I'd venture to guess in an average scenario you could actually get to the hospital faster if you were in the rural area as the helicopter can land more or less right beside you instead of you having to navigate city obstacles to either go to somewhere where the helicopter can land or go directly to the hospital.
> ...has no good quality restaurant when I don't want to cook, as another thing we could consider being infrastructure. And so on.
The original comment was about moving to "a small town", not moving to "a specific small town". Absolutely there are small towns that lack infrastructure, but there is no reason you have to choose those specific ones. If you decided you were going to move to a small town, you'd pick the one that you like.
> Worth noting I live in Slovakia.
And, sure, it is possible that every small town in Slovakia lacks infrastructure, but is staying in Slovakia a hard constraint?
Sadly it is, once you live in another district they can and will refuse to treat you.
> If you need urgent specialist care, they have helicopters that can fly astonishingly fast.
Oh no, my comment was not about urgent care, it's just often people get appointments with specialists a year or more in the future. Or you pay out of pocket and get it much faster but again those specialists are only in big cities.
> The original comment was about moving to "a small town", not moving to "a specific small town".
Sure, and my comment is representative about small towns in Slovakia.
> but is staying in Slovakia a hard constraint?
For me currently it is, but many people are moving away.
Where is it not a thing around any major centre? Every city is ultimately going to have rural area outside of it. I suppose you can find some city that has poor geography or ridiculous suburban sprawl that impede access. There are always outliers. But in general?
Of course there are also rural areas further away, and maybe if you were trying to work in some kind of local industry (mining, agriculture, etc.) you'd need to be further away, but since we're just talking about WFH...
> There's not some abundance of rural areas
How many do you need, exactly?
I used to try to educate them, but then I realized that would just encourage them to move to the country, so I stopped.
High prices will do the trick, though. In Canada — which is said to have the most out of control housing market in the world — the urban population between the latest and previous census only increased by 4.8%, while the rural population grew by 6.5%. Due to periods of data collection, there could some COVID influence in there[1], but a similar trend was also seen in earlier censuses.
[1] If there is, that would be policy-driven, which you suggested isn't a factor, so...
One immediate question would be, how are the suburbs classified, urban or rural?
Certainly there will always be a certain percentage of the population that likes living in rural areas, but all things being equal I think that most people would rather live in cities.
Not exactly. Intolerance is more visible, but that's simply because you end up getting to know everyone. Imagine that 1% of the population is intolerant. In a city with 1 million people, it is incredibly unlikely that you will ever encounter the 10,000 people who are intolerant. In a village with 100 people, you are almost guaranteed to bump into the 1 intolerant person on a daily basis.
> rural areas simply can't have the concentration of amenities that cities do.
What amenities are found in city homes that are not found in rural homes? High speed internet, maybe, but even that isn't true very often anymore. Hell, the rural areas around here have access to considerably better internet service than my urban home does.
Once you leave the home, there is no difference. It is not like cities of today are built with walls around them.
> all things being equal I think that most people would rather live in cities.
People like what is in fashion. City living is currently in fashion. It hasn't always been and it most likely won't be again at some point in the future. Fair to say that right now people generally prefer living in the city. That is why they have no qualms about paying so much to be there.
One sometimes forgotten issue is that being a 45 minute drive from a hospital is really scary when your 2 year old is struggling to breath at 3 AM.
Given the rural areas that have infrastructure, I still wonder what is missing, passenger trains aside?
Those are found outside of the house. Like I said before, there is no real difference at that point. 30 minutes travelling into the city or 30 minutes travelling across the city is the same thing. It is not like cities of today are built with walls around them.
There's also a big difference between 30 minutes on a train and 30 minutes driving. You can relax when you are on the train and 30 minutes of driving often ends up being 45+ minutes once you factor in finding parking.
How, exactly, does 30 minutes of travel often become several hours? Are you stopping for dinner and some shopping along the way?
> You can relax when you are on the train and 30 minutes of driving often ends up being 45+ minutes once you factor in finding parking.
A typically average time to get to train station is around 10 minutes. Another 5 minutes waiting on and boarding the train, especially during off-peak hours when the entertainment you spoke of is most likely to happen. 10 minutes more to arrive at your destination after getting off the train. That is 25 minutes right there. So you are imagining just 5 minutes spent on the train?
Ignoring that you don't necessarily have to drive, 5 minutes of relaxation (let's say 10 minutes; you need to get home too) every once in a while when you occasionally take in a professional sports game or big name concert is what you consider a difference? If you really want to get into such fine grain details, where do we even begin? You are going to gain those 10 minutes of relaxation back in the rural area when you step out into your backyard instead of having to go all the way to the park. Realistically, once something takes place outside of the home, there is no difference.
Yeah, sure, certain situations could see that 25 minutes reduced, but there are also rural areas much closer to the city that can also see that travel time reduced. 30 minutes of travel away from the city can take you a surprisingly significant distance! The earlier comment wasn't trying to find a place of perfect optimization, rather some kind of reasonably average scenario.
The outlier in the world is the USA (and perhaps Switzerland), and even in the USA if you account for cost of living it's a minority of professions that are "well paid".
You are again comparing it against the USA, the very outlier, and in specific places of the whole country even, of course then everything else will be "so bad" except for very few places on the whole Earth...