This is not what the post to which you're replying is advocating, quite the opposite. People in big cities get far more exposure to "the world" than outside of these centers, mostly because the world comes to them every day.

The world doesn't come to NYC. Most of the world could never afford to travel there. What a horrible outlook.

That may be true, but the world's definitely not coming to whatever small town you'd live in in Upstate NY moreso. Living in a city doesn't mean you never leave it any more than living in the country does.

With so many people in NYC spending all their money on rent, it certainly does.

Do you have any evidence of this? Almost everyone I know who travels to "see the world" lives in a major city, and almost everyone I know who lives in a smaller town hasn't even left the country in their lives.

There's something to be said for the sadness of not having the money to travel the world, but that doesn't seem particularly better for people out of cities in my experience.

>Almost everyone I know who travels to "see the world" lives in a major city, and almost everyone I know who lives in a smaller town hasn't even left the country in their lives.

And probably most of the people I know live in smaller towns outside of (many quite a way outside of) major cities or in/near smaller cities and many travel a great deal.

Yea, not to say it's not the case. We're both trading anecdotes here. I'm sure there's probably statistics for it though.

My assumption would be that the amount to which someone travels is fairly correlated to their income, adjusted for local cost of living? I'm not sure where that would be higher though.

There's a big difference between in major cities and near major cities. Certainly, not all that long ago, wealthier people mostly lived in suburbs though that's probably not as generally true today for coastal cities in particular. I tend to know more older people who mostly don't live in urban cores.

I moved to a small town and I bought a lot of land because I am trying to become a YouTube and own a lot of machines and post lots of projects.

I can't get the land in city at affordable price.

Luckily for you, cities also have airports!

And importantly non-stop flights to more than a handful of destinations from those airports. Living near a major airport rather than a small regional airport can significantly cut the total travel time and cost even with the added inconveniences of large airports.

You mean I can save a couple hundred dollars on my flights if I live somewhere that costs thousands of extra dollars on rent?

For me it's more about the time savings. If you live a short Uber from a major airport, you can hop from your doorstep to most of the continent in a half-day, then enjoy the second half of your day at your destination.

But if you're a 45 minute drive from a smaller airport, you've got to spend time dealing with parking, then padded layovers, and often by the time you get to your destination you're kinda wiped, so you end up burning a whole day of PTO just to move from point A to point B. Long-weekend trips aren't even really viable.

No, generally airports associated with cities are not in the cities. SFO isn't even in San Francisco county.

> No, generally airports associated with cities are not in the cities. SFO isn't even in San Francisco county.

Not being in the County of San Francisco is not a different or more significant fact than not being in the City of San Francisco, they are not merely geographically coextensive but the same entity, the City and County of San Francisco; which has a mayor as it's executive (like other CA cities) but, instead of a City Council, a Board of Supervisors (like other CA counties) as it's legislature.