All you said is the situation globally in the present world and not just in the United States alone. Economy has been declining, jobs reducing and people's hardship has grown.
This were better in 80's and with time the decline has been severe.
You mentioned some big cities, many people who hasn't experienced those cities would think things are rosey their but the problem is also strong there if not stronger
City like New york is plagued with high rate of homelessness, people can barely cope in that City because of high cost of everything, renting a place for business also comes with ridiculous fee, I would rather stay in Atlanta than New york because cost of living is lower there and also opportunities abound there too.
Everywhere in the world, people think life was simpler one or two generations ago, and the gap between the cost of things and the income of people continues to widen. And I agree, the outside view believes that everyone in New York or London is doing well, but the struggle there is sometimes just as real, if not even harder. High rent, intense competition, and pressure just to keep up make life very stressful to many. Homelessness then becomes something you see every day
Your example of Atlanta break the myth that our chocies lie between mega-cities and small towns. Sometimes mid-size cities or new growth areas provide people with more breathing room, more employment, or a better balance. So, the true lesson is that there is no ideal place anymore. Every city or area has its issues and its own methods that people attempt to get by
Its been two tier for a while because of government division and centralization. This is related to inflation and new money, problem being government has infinite money for its own spending money not earnt but in effect taken from all dollar holders.
The further you are from DC and the FED the greater your losses to inflation, those closest benefit largely which is the government serving its own debt and the ongoing multi decade deficit to the federal budget.
That's the simplest way to split the economy, those close to the political economy and those who are not suffering higher costs without the easy money supply.
When new money gets printed, it does seem like the first people to touch it (government, big contractors, financial centers) get a real advantage, while everyone else pays the higher prices down the line. That invisible gap between who gets the “easy money” first and who just gets more expensive groceries or rent is a split most people feel but cannot always name. Whats crazy is how this two-tier effect repeats, locally, nationally, and even globally. It is not just about being in New York or Iowa, but being inside or outside the big flows of government and finance. Is there actually any way for regular people to “move closer” to those flows, or is the game always rigged from the start?
Thank you for sharing your firsthand view
There is no substitute for someone living in the area to give real context. You make a really important point: when people talk about “city vs. rural”, they often skip over the huge middle ground, which is actually where millions of Americans live
That three-way setup you described actually gives the conversation much more detail. There is a whole layer of suburbs and mid-sized towns, and a lot of those places have changed a lot over the last 10-20 years. With internet jobs, remote work, and people commuting, the old boundaries do not work like they used to. In some ways, suburbs are now their own kind of economy; connected to the city, but with a life and job market of their own
It is true that in the past, if you wanted a good job, you had to be right in the city. Now, as you said, a lot of people are earning from home, or doing jobs that did not even exist back then. But at the same time, there are still big differences between these “planets” near the city and the “deep space” rural towns where factories or meat plants are one of the few big employers left
