Overall I think this is a good article, but there were two things which caught my attention.<p>Isn&#x27;t this article just taking a roundabout way of commenting that landowners in highly productive areas are choking growth and more productivity by siphoning too much money off of the non-landowners for use of the land? I understand that they&#x27;re the Economist so they can&#x27;t outright say that the rich are hurting the economy by hurting the poor, but come on, at least be a little more clear.<p>Also, a fallacy: &quot;Where workers can be put to use at high levels of productivity labour scarcity will lead to fast growing pay packets. Those pay packets will attract workers from other cities. When they migrate and find new, high-paying work, the whole economy benefits.&quot; This is a theoretical economic concept which doesn&#x27;t really apply to the macroeconomic reality of today, in which worker productivity and time commitment increases but wages stagnate and later decrease, all as a result of a race to the bottom. The exception is probably the software industry, but I&#x27;d  argue that in light of the anticompetitive no-poaching agreements from the likes of Google and Apple, software industry wages are still actually much lower than they should be, despite the &quot;labor shortage&quot; and &quot;high levels of productivity&quot;. Then there&#x27;s the bit where they claim that the whole economy will benefit from this sort of behavior, which may be true. Keep in mind that from another perspective, this same action is highly destructive brain drain, leaving destitute cities bleeding their talent to more prosperous ones.