That's not nearly fast enough. We can't possibly loose enough people. But, it's a good start. Ideally, we would have a mass evacuation! I'd leave too, but we have family and friends here, not to mention a good job.
I don't really see the reason for downvotes. I don't take his comment as hostile, but rather simply as a function of economics.
Suppose for a moment that everyone of the 7 billion people wanted to live in a single city. Taking it to the extreme. It doesn't work. Land prices would make everything unaffordable, there wouldn't be enough space to produce goods and provide space to live and work. The best thing in such a situation would be to say, let's have substantial people move away from this particular city, to live and work somewhere else where natural resources (land, what's on and under it) is abundant.
To me it seems pretty obvious that this is the position that some price cities find themselves in.
You can sort of look at a heat-map or height-map of population density. This map essentially expresses demand for that land, and that expresses the cost of the land. In that sense, population density to land can be viewed as interest rates to debt. The smartest thing to do in a debt situation is move high-interest debt to low-interest debt. Redistribute your debt to where it is cheap. Similarly, we ought to redistribute our demand for land to where it is cheap, which means moving people around. In that sense, the above comment makes sense to me.
I'm not advocating for some kind of forced migration or anything, but companies and governments should inform, educate and incentivise this redistribution in a soft manner. Introducing (progressive) land taxes is probably part of the story.
