<p>It depends not just on the cost of living, but on the available means of income (wages) relative to each location.  Rural areas may have cheaper rent, but they often have fewer employment opportunities.  The right balance will often depend on the skills/qualifications of the individual.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T02:00:17.287Z
2019-05-30T02:00:17.287Z
Bill Clark
<p>It depends on what conveniences the individual is willing to live without or whether they can be relatively self sufficient or not. Living in remote areas entails a certain amount of self sufficiency, as unless you're next to a town, it usually takes so long to get to stores that living off the land a little is usually more viable. It can be wonderful if you can learn to grow a lot of your own food, fix some equipment, etc. If someone can do those things, there's really no need for the person to use services like a food bank.</p>
<p>There's no perfect living arrangement for anyone, there's always tradeoffs inherent in every area, type of dwelling, roommate or no roommate, level of self sufficiency, etc.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-16T08:16:57.877Z
2024-06-16T08:16:57.877Z
Costillo
<p>Supposing someone is struggling to pay the rent in an urban area, and they don't have anything tying them down to any one place, would it make sense to move to a rural area where the rent is much lower? Or are cities generally better for low-income people because of the services like food banks, etc.?</p>

<labor-economics><housing>
Is it better for low-income people to live in the countryside where it's cheap or in the city where there are more services?
Kyle Delaney
# Is it better for low-income people to live in the countryside where it's cheap or in the city where there are more services?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-05-30)

Supposing someone is struggling to pay the rent in an urban area, and they don't have anything tying them down to any one place, would it make sense to move to a rural area where the rent is much lower? Or are cities generally better for low-income people because of the services like food banks, etc.?

**Tags:** labor-economics, housing


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-05-30. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

It depends not just on the cost of living, but on the available means of income (wages) relative to each location. Rural areas may have cheaper rent, but they often have fewer employment opportunities. The right balance will often depend on the skills/qualifications of the individual.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-06-16. Score: 2

It depends on what conveniences the individual is willing to live without or whether they can be relatively self sufficient or not. Living in remote areas entails a certain amount of self sufficiency, as unless you're next to a town, it usually takes so long to get to stores that living off the land a little is usually more viable. It can be wonderful if you can learn to grow a lot of your own food, fix some equipment, etc. If someone can do those things, there's really no need for the person to use services like a food bank.

There's no perfect living arrangement for anyone, there's always tradeoffs inherent in every area, type of dwelling, roommate or no roommate, level of self sufficiency, etc.


---

