In economics, it is taught that decentralized markets usually lead to better economic outcomes than centralized decision-making. This is usually true as far as economic outcomes are concerned, but says nothing about the "human" outcomes of the process.
For example, I, like many people, left my hometown in search of a better economic future. While I am certainly economically better off in my current location, many other values were lost. Friends, family, history all went by the wayside.
Another point: the spreading out of families certainly has detrimental effects on people. I think about when I was a kid, I had cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents all in my hometown. Now I don't have a relative within 1,000 miles of me.
Libertarians might say that if I really wanted to stay in my hometown, I would have chosen that over economic gains. But my point is, why should someone have to choose? Couldn't the government rework economic incentives to help small towns prosper?
It's obvious that the major metropolitan areas are gaining more and more population, and the small towns are losing them. While this may produce great economic outcomes, I wonder what kind of people this system will produce - people who are alienated and missing a social support system.
What bothers me even more is that no one seems to even care about this type of thing. I hardly ever read about it. I don't see Congress talking about it. There doesn't seem to be much concern about what's "good for people," only what's good for the economy. I wish people would think a little deeper about these types of things.
