Absolutely. Humans have a very long history of trying to emulate the rich, and not only with respect to choice of residence, in hopes that doing what they the rich do is the missing link in why they are not rich. We have even seen in the past times where people were leaving the city because that is what the rich had done (favouring large rural estates at the time), leaving the conclusion to be that living in the city is why one is not rich. Which, admittedly, is a fairly rational decision given the incomplete information we have about what makes one rich, no doubt, but a faulty decision due to that lack of information.
But choice or residence, choice of fashion, or the many other things that people have tried to emulate over the years is not why they are not rich. The missing link is not nearly that simple. If it was, we would all be rich.
They were not emulating the rich, this never had anything to do with “fashion”, they were (and still are) surviving and have hope that they or their children will have a better future. Rural areas can’t provide much of this unless their is a natural resource rush (eg fracking in the dakotas).
The appearance of opportunities. Sometimes the opportunities are real, usually not. Plenty of people move to California in hopes of becoming a star, where opportunities are abound, but only end up in dead-end jobs. It is quite likely that those people would have been far better off in a mundane job where competition isn't fierce and where living costs won't destroy you.
> this never had anything to do with “fashion”
Fashion is very much driven by the rich, through hopes that dressing like the rich will result in riches. It has been for as long as we have historical records about fashion. Nobody goes out of their way to dress like a hobo, unless the rich are dressing like hobos for some reason.
> It is quite likely that those people would have been far better off in a mundane job where competition isn't fierce and where living costs won't destroy you.
Or they would have regretted the rest of their lives not taking chances when they were young instead doing poop work on the farm or working a dead end job in a small town.
I think you may have misinterpreted what fashion means. Fashion refers to clothing. Throughout the ages, poor people have tried to wear clothing that rich people have been seen wearing with the belief that the right clothing will help them become rich. This is very well documented over centuries, and something that remains ever-present today. It was another example of how the poor emulate the rich, as is human nature.
> Or they would have regretted the rest of their lives not taking chances when they were young instead doing poop work on the farm or working a dead end job in a small town.
Okay. Sure. Humans are indeed emotional creatures. Emotions are also the reason why the poor try to emulate the rich as it feels right, even if it not based in anything substantiative. But as far as outcome goes, such a person would be better off in a mundane job than chasing a dream.
The kid working st Mcdonads in the big city is probably making $15/hour vs. $8 back in their rural home. Still not enough to live in the big city, but then again that isn’t the only thing they are doing there (they didn’t move to the big city to work in fast food, they have their side gig going on, be it acting or education or whatever). Back home, they would simply be stuck with not much hope for improvement. Ya, their chances of striking it rich aren’t great, but in Seattle it is non zero while in Marysville it is pretty much zero.