My point is that what you described is basically a city with suburbs on a reduced scale. If a town is nice and successful, you’re gonna have people that want to move there, so your options are to build outward, upward, or not at all. It sounds like you’d prefer towns build upward rather than outward, which is obviously valid, but it’s a matter of preference. People who don’t mind living in an apartment will move into the city center, people who value space over commute will move to the suburbs.

Where I think things get turned around (in the states anyway), is the lack of community-run programs and local business owners. Community gardens, neighborhood solar cells, locally owned farms, grocers, and corner stores are all things I’d like to see way more of in suburban areas.

What a ridiculous thing to say…

So do you put a population limit on small towns? How do you think major Metropolitan areas got started? They didn’t just appear one day, they grew over time from small port and station towns…

Sure, there are inconveniences with living in the suburbs, but there are some positives. A dollar typically goes further than in the city, meaning more space for gardening, hobbies, kids, etc. You get to have neighbors without literally living on top of eachother. Usually more quiet then urban settings,etc.

Kratos is my go-to any time a question like this comes up.

I’m not sure the original post was referring specifically to the inflation of the dollar but it does highlight a real phenomenon in which large corporations are shrinking their product and their workforce, yet prices increase exponentially. I’m not arguing that McDonald’s sandwich price changes are reflective of the economy either, but as one of the worst offenders on the planet in regards to corporate greed, there’s no question “inflation” only accounts for a small portion of the increase,