I flagged this article and later saw it dead, so I’m quite surprised it came back. I found the content extremely shallow and lacking nuance. Others have mentioned, but it leaves out huge caveats because it would destroy the the conclusion - the cost of moving to the place in the first place, social connections, health (even worse for those with disabilities), emergency services, retirement, etc etc. The list of obvious hurdles that immediately disqualify most people is a glaring omission and I really don’t understand why this article garnered upvotes aside from affirming confirmation bias. This is the first time I’ve been greatly soured by the response from the HN community. What substance are people finding in this article?
replies(2):