Maybe it's time for developing a true reflection of national affluence that combines elements of GDP, GO, and other factors. If GDP truly skews things to favor an urban elite, then why not propose an unbiased objective factor? The author is lazy, complaining but not trying to address the issue.

Dividing the populace into the intellectual and (assumed) uneducated creates a false image. There are training centers that offer craft skills that are in high demand, and frequently the non-degreed crafts people earn salaries comparable to degreed workers, without the onerous burden of student loans. Much of the technological advancement wouldn't be happening without the participation of freelance non-degreed computer programmers and skilled operators of CAD/CAM systems.

I predict we will be seeing the end of big urban centers due to the problems that come with them. The technological advancement will continue as broad bandwidth internet enables more remote participation and smaller hub offices that can be located in more affordable communities. The medical community is beginning to offer online consultation and testing as a substitute for the office visits. When your smartphone can provide an EKG (there are already apps for this), it's possible to see a very near future where only hospital visits will require a physical relocation of the patient. Home delivery of goods is expanding, as the growth of Amazon illustrates. Even groceries can be delivered to your home in short order.

It is ironic that these so called futurists can't see that decentralizing the population is the way to "spread the wealth around" and create a more equal distribution of affluence. Or maybe they see that possible future as a threat to their elitist culture?

What I say is that the best government is the least government. As to a bachelor's degree, I see no point in borrowing so much money to get a college degree that you have to spend the rest of your life in indentured servitude. I do not regret never having gotten a college degree, as I don't really believe it would have done me any good.
I also recall a discussion in the family car during my adolescence about the meanings of those abbreviations. What "B.S." stood for was pretty obvious. What about "M.S."? My father replied, "More of the same." And I mentioned "P.h.d.," to which my younger brother replied, "Piled higher and deeper."

I would agree. A larger number of independent and smaller "governments", each with its own laws really translates to competition among governments , and that would be a good thing.

As it was some time ago, I refused to go to Phoenix because they had automatic traffic cameras that gave out a LOT of tickets and were nazi-like in enforcement. Others probably felt likewise, and eventually the government got rid of that policy. Competition works even with government.

Best and Worst Run Cities
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-run-ci...

This was a disappointing anti-intellectual analysis. The facts revealed by the Brookings survey are important. Their measurement instrument might be flawed, but the facts they measured exist nonetheless. Urban areas are centers of self-generating innovation. That is always the case.

"While it is true that population centers naturally enhance collaboration, and therefore innovation and wealth creation, the article totally ignores the obvious. Besides GDP being a horribly flawed yardstick, these so-called high output regions also have high budget deficits, massive debt, corrupt politics, and large populations living in despair. ...
"For example, most bachelors degrees are worthless, except for creating massive student debt and short-sighted, resentful social justice warriors."

Probably the key difference here is that the GDP is actually measurable whereas the claims of massive debt, corrupt politics, and large populations living in despair are not given any numbers.

Try this:
https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/f...

What would you say about someone who used their GI Bill get an education in cartooning? What kind of living is that? Where is the productivity in drawing comic books? I am speaking of Steve Ditko.

The claim that "most college degrees are useless" is an affect of the anti-intellectual tradition in America. It goes back to Andrew Jackson's campaign and found expression many times since among both the political left and the political right. What are you really opposed to or in favor of? Is it education? Or is it debt? What difference does the debt make? Education loans cannot be gotten out of with bankruptcy. It pays back the educaiton, however long that takes, and the bills are about the same as a mortgage (at worst) or a cellphone (at least). In any case, you don't take food off the table to pay for college loans.

This is a non-issue created by anti-intellectuals with a farmer's wordlview, not a merchant's worldview. Debt is the seed of civilization. It led to the invention of numbers larger than 3 and ultimately to the invention of the alphabet. To a hunter-gatherer debt was a social obligation. To a merchant it is just a stamp on a clay tablet. In the USA bankruptcy laws are set by the Constitution. Many of them being merchants, the founders understood debt and bankruptcy: the ship went down; we all lost money; get over it. But for the feudal serf, debt meant lifelong servitude. That is the mentality of the modern conservatives who use the bogey of "debt" as an argument against education.