I think the sentiment is about how it can create perverse incentives that may be good for a small subset but bad for the population in the aggregate. I think it’s about a host of different systemic issues beyond just where one person decides to live. I.e., income inequality, housing policy, class disparities etc. It just manifests itself in the problems raised in the article.

Edit: The Indicator recently had an interesting podcast that demonstrates this effect.[1]

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/15/977533022/please-sell-me-a-ho...

I think the sentiment is clear. Their question was what would those people holding this sentiment suggest be done? That outsiders go back to where they came from? That because someone makes money they are obligated to stay in a high cost of living area?

I don’t know; there may be the case that it’s not the most ethical choice to move to an area where they are improving their personal QoL while contributing to the lowering QoL of the current residents. I think the ideal solution would be to attack those root problems until that moral dilemma subsides somewhat. What I don’t think is probably the best choice is to blindly do what’s best for oneself while being oblivious to the systemic effects. I imagine there is a reasonable middle, like moving but consciously deciding to only support local businesses rather than buying from the cheaper MegaCorp, supporting policies like high density housing that may not be in your personal best interest, or dedicating a portion of your relatively high income to causes that specifically lessen those systemic effects.

Edit: as an example, I used to live in an area that was relatively poor by US standards. There was a large cohort of retirees who would move in because if the pleasant weather, low cost of living etc. Rather than mingle with the locals, they tended to create little walled enclaves. Additionally, they gradually took over the local government (in part, because the full time political positions were unpaid, meaning only those retired or wealthy enough to not work could afford to fill them). This created an environment where business investment was often stifled because the retirees didn’t want to lose the feel of their retirement settlement by allowing more homes to be built or certain businesses to open. It was difficult to raise any taxes related to investing in schools or infrastructure because retirees tend to be more price sensitive in those areas, particularly if they don’t have children or grandchildren who will benefit. Ultimately, this made it harder for locals to find work (outside of service jobs) or to keep younger locals from fleeing for better prospects. To many locals, it was viewed as almost a hostile takeover of their town by outsiders with money. It tended to exacerbate rather than alleviate those class divisions alluded to in my original comment.

And destroys many aspects that made moving appealing in the first place.

Largely what made moving appealing in the first place was romanticizing the hell out of it while browsing lifestyle instagram feeds all day.

You never thought about your addiction to 2nd day shipping and international cuisine rotation via uber eats.

I was thinking more along the lines of "small and quiet town living" with no traffic or crime but still has Costco. Hiking trails that are never packed and with no trash abandoned.

Quite suddenly, you lose the quietness while gaining the traffic and crime. Trails become packed and not well respected. All that remains the same is Costco except busier.

You have a moral obligation to do what you can to minimize negative impact to others. You don't have to live somewhere that's "already expensive", but you should at least consider trying to live somewhere that won't suffer negative consequences by you living there.

I think the point is to not be surprised by the disdain from people you're pushing out who want to live simple lives near their friends and family in their communities, and aren't choosing location based on how "cheap" it is compared to the big city.