Whatever reason the old city isn't attractive to the next generation, it is completely reasonable for people to want to fix it at the national level.

If you don't, you will only concentrate all kinds of problems on your largest cities, and even invent some wild new problem because cities can not survive all by themselves.

That said, a tax based on what city you happened to be born or identify with is the kind of weirdness that my culture can't assimilate. But it may make complete sense there (maybe because it's more traditionalist? do they want to be that traditionalist?).

There are too few incentives at the national level. Rent seeking makes the federal government lazy. They don't have to do anything. To what country will you go? Nowhere. Coke just has to beat Pepsi by the thinnest of margins.

There's no need to build another New York City when we already have New York City. It would be folly for the federal government to stand up a competitor to New York City.

But! It's not folly for Illinois or California to try. Competition is good.

They might be "trying", but they're failing miserably. I'd say they aren't really even trying to make a competitor to New York City: no place in America looks remotely like it. I don't see any American city attempting to make itself dense, walkable, and with a decent subway system, except maybe DC (but that one has structural challenges because it's split across 3 states for stupid historic reasons).

DFW, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Phoenix, There are a ton of up and coming metros that are growing 3–5% a year while NYC is in decline along with LA and Chicago.

Sure they are not prioritizing “walkability” (i.e walking through human feces and crowds of homeless people). Heck FL recently surpassed the population of New York state for the first time in history, not many seemed to notice. They’re not competing, they’re winning.

I don't think California has failed in making competition for NYC in SF or LA. Yes, they aren't exactly like NYC, and they have different benefits, but they attract as much of the nation's (and world's) mindshare these days.

The biggest attraction of SF and LA is the weather.

Weather is some of it, but that isn't close to the biggest appeal of those cities at all. Many of us like SF and LA way better NYC, and NYC weather really isn't that bad (from my limited 3 month stay there).

If it's the past 3 months, those aren't the bad ones. they're a bit hot. it's the next 5 to watch out for.

they're not that bad, but they're not everyone's cup of tea.

It was summer, and it wasn't a nice one. But NYC seemed fine in terms of weather for me.

But I really didn't like the culture, the roads, the housing, the way people drove. I'm just not suited for east coast life.

I'm curious about your opinion of the states' decisions to reduce funding for public universities.

Neither the state collectively, non-parent residents of the state, nor the in-state parents get any future economic reward for funding higher education if the student leaves the state, so reducing the state's costs in that regard seems rational.

But that reduction in funding was part of the rise of the student loan industry, which subsequently seems to have completely deranged higher education funding.

What is the reason to have higher education organized by geography instead of by industry? Shouldn't the medical industry be responsible for medical education, for example? Then you don't have a state or a city wasting investment on a student who will bail, and you don't have students who are disadvantaged for being born in the wrong state or city.

The short answer is "history".

A longer answer is that I suspect it's a bad idea in the long term. For one thing, I don't see how you wouldn't have "students who are disadvantaged for being born in the wrong state".

>Neither the state collectively, non-parent residents of the state, nor the in-state parents get any future economic reward for funding higher education if the student leaves the state

That seems to presuppose that the students don't benefit from the education and/or there's no interstate commerce.

The students benefit, but are now in San Francisco looking for a MTFAANG job.

I'll admit neglecting interstate commerce as a second order effect.

> the problem is the state isn't attractive to the next generation

Part of the problem is that brain drain is a vicious cycle. Your home state is less attractive in part because of all the people in your field who left for "greener pastures".

And they have less funds to put into projects that might make the area more attractive, because they can't tax the people who left.

I'm not saying you owe anything out of your paycheck, but it is a problem. Both for the places being left and the overcrowded cities people are leaving to.

counter-argument: by not having to appeal to (most) families, big cities can focus on attracting young professionals, hence the original moniker: YUPpies.

so if this holds water, wouldn't we expect these educated professionals to return to the states which appeal to families when they are ready to start one?

People are trying to find stability in a unstable system. The system is unstable because of the shifts in the North America (and World) economy. With manufacturing leaving the US, and the US focusing more on the service industry, the economics of scale of the service industry favour centralization in urban areas, so thats where the jobs end up being created. If the current system stay in place for long enough, it will become stable, with multi generation families having entire cycles in a given region. It's the same thing that happened to coal country, just in a larger scale, and slower.

Aye. If gauranteed remote was a thing I'd be out of the city -- and fast.

But RTO is still contentious, and the ability to find a job if I moved to vaguely-near-Boise would be terrible. One misstep at work, or even just another economic shift, and I'm moving again.

But I'd love to be in a smaller city. Annapolis MD, or coastal WA or deep mountains MT, whatever.

There are a couple of probably significant factors that would counter such a tendency.

First, the states with the big cities they moved to also have smaller towns outside those cities that are fine for families. They can move to one of those and still have sufficient contact with the city to maintain their career.

Second, their spouse likely is not from the same state they are from, and may not want to move to that state. And they may not want to move to where the spouse is from.

Sometimes they do. But someone who's uprooting their life like that is probably semi-retiring - at least reducing their hours, having one partner stop working, that sort of thing. And not everyone starts a family, so the cities keep some of the most productive people forever - of course that's unsustainable, but it's not the cities' problem.

Why would they need to move back to their original state instead of over moving to a small city or into the suburbs?

I'm sure a non-insignificant group do move to one spouse's hometown, since I can assure you, having your kids' grandparents close by can be life-changing (especially for modern, dual-income families).

I'm seeing a lot less of that among people my age who are having kids. Most stay wherever they've setup their lives but move to a larger house or something similar.

I see the same, but I think the consequences hinted at by the GP are very present. I know quite a few parents, some with their parents nearby, others without. The ones with their parents nearby universally have more of an ability to do things without their kids (either regularly, or as a special-case).

And I know several parents who tried the "go it alone" method for a while, but eventually decided to move back to one of their hometowns, specifically to be closer to their parents for reasons related to their kids. Most of it seems to be a mix of wanting nearby, reliable childcare, as well as just wanting their kids to grow up with regular contact with their grandparents. (I've also seen the phenomenon where the grandparents, after retirement, end up moving to the parents' location, but often that requires the grandparents to move to a higher cost-of-living area, so I expect that happens less often.)

I don't plan to have kids, so this is certainly a grain-of-salt-worthy opinion, but it feels to me that parent-marriages would be on average healthier if the parents had easier childcare options so they can more often do "date night" type things. Certainly nearby grandparents is not the only way to achieve that, but it is one of the simplest options, assuming grandparents who are happy to be involved to that degree.

I would love to hear a realistic plan how West Virginia could make itself as attractive as NY, Chicago, etc.

I think the question is not how to be as attractive as NYC where people from all over move to West Virginia, but rather how to make it so that young people in the 60-90th percentile feel like they may as well stay.

A possibility is a great affordability ratio - cheap housing as compared to the prevailing local wage.

Remember, inertia to stay where you you are from is strong, you just have to help it along

Affordability ratio is not the reason young people are moving to NYC. Even with the much-higher salaries (assuming you can find similar jobs to compare), you're going to have a very tiny living space in NYC. More likely, the issue is 1) the jobs in NYC simply don't exist in WV, and never will, and 2) even if the WV person is comparing similar jobs, WV will never offer the lifestyle that NYC offers.

Affordability may not be why people are going to NYC -- but it's absolutely why people are moving to Pittsburg and a few other rust belt areas popping with hipsters.

WV ain't got that tho -- Pitt is at least a real city, and it's mostly filling in after the collapse of industry.

Knocking down all the dirt hills until you have enough flat land to build a city the size of NY or Chicago?

What is your opinion of Chattanooga, TN?

I'm trying to see both sides, but how is the parent the customer here?

I think you're mixing an opinion on high taxation in general (which you might be right about), versus how big metropolises enjoy labor that was raised somewhere else.

One of the biggest functions of primary education beyond preparing the kid for their future is as a free(ish) place to stick your kid during working hours. Look at what happened during COVID when schools were shutdown it caused a lot of problems because suddenly someone had to take care of the kid during the day. The chaos that change caused alone is I think excellent evidence for that. It's also why schools happen so early even though it's clinically proven to be an inferior time to start school for the kid, they have to start that early so the parent(s) can get to their 9-5 job.

Simple. It’s not based on the child’s taxes (or future taxes) because then they could go to a California college, claim residency there immediately, and get California prices. Instead, I have to pay an extra $30k or so for them. Further, they haven’t paid any taxes before college, because they were in high school. So again, the fact that each state gives “local” kids a break has nothing to do with the kids taxes. Kids haven’t paid taxes, and kids moving state doesn’t change fees.

What does matter? My taxes, as parent. I pay soooo much taxes and I will continue to do so. As a result my kid is essentially forced to go to a college in state. And he will then FOR SURE move out of state. But I won’t.

So. It’s a cost to me. Like we are considering moving back to CA to get the UC discount. I will pay more in taxes but I’ll get a chunk of it back in tuition break.

Of course the parent is the customer. Generally the parent is the one who makes sure the child is wel prepared for the future. College is a step in that process.

I agree that the parent is a beneficiary of the education, but my argument is with the fact that "customer" involves one beneficiary. By your logic for instance anyone that's childless shouldn't pay taxes for education, even though they benefit indirectly from an educated population.

Isn't the company that's hiring the graduate just as much a beneficiary for instance?

The parent is who determines where the child lives during the time when the child's residency is established for in-state tuition purposes. The parent is who votes for elected officials in the state. The parent is who suggests to the child the viability of a subsidized in-state education.

"Go to State" is a recommendation from the elders. If the parents poo-poo State the kid won't consider it seriously.