The reason that theses two scenarios are not equivalent is so obvious I'm wondering whether or not I'm misinterpreting it.
The cultures of small towns really don't have much elasticity nor are they expected to have it. People don't like change and normally no one except other small town people come in.
Cities are generally something that people rotate through in huge numbers. Cities are always changing while still keeping some on the side as a homage to their identity. For the most part though they are always in flux by nature. NYC is not the same as it was 10 years ago. ________ NY, largely the same for the past 200 years is suddenly changing radically in the tech WFA renaissance. There is no doubt in my mind the council will be hi-jacked if it hasn't already - some of those ordinances are "a little out of touch for modern living".
Anyway, before I rant too much, my point is that comparing the elasticity of a city's culture to the rigid and fragile cultures of small towns is ridiculous.
Whether you like it or not, the pandemic happened, technology has advanced, there was high demand in the cities for decades and now its subsided a little and the smaller towns have some higher demand too. Only difference the culture of the city/small town makes is how welcoming/indifferent they are or how much harder they will make it for the new comers.
If its ok for a young person to leave their hometown, move to a city and call it home to make a better life without thinking about the locals, then it must be ok for a person with a small family living in a city to move to a smaller town and call it home to make a better life for his/her family.