In the field of economics, there is a concept called "reverse urbanization" – this usually describes the phenomenon of population and industry shifting from large cities to small towns or villages.
Today, we are going to explore the "law of diminishing marginal utility" behind the fading advantages of first-tier cities and the choice of many graduates to "escape" these metropolises.
This law states that as consumers consume more of a good in quantity, the additional satisfaction (i.e., marginal utility) they receive for each additional unit decreases.
Applying this to the life of first-tier cities, we can understand that as more and more people flock to these metropolises, the marginal utility of the original advantages – such as abundant employment opportunities, high-quality educational resources, and advanced medical conditions – begins to decline.
In other words, each additional resident or job brings less and less additional satisfaction to the individual, but the negative effects such as crowding, high consumption, and competitive pressure begin to appear.
With this in mind, it's easy to see why more and more graduates are choosing to leave first-tier cities.
For them, a lower cost of living, a more livable environment, and a slower pace of life can bring more marginal utility in second- or even third-tier cities.
This is not just a simple economic calculation, but also a pursuit and re-evaluation of the quality of life.
Further, there is an "opportunity cost" consideration.
For many young people, staying in a first-tier city not only involves the high cost of living and stiff competition, but it may also require sacrificing personal leisure time, family life and even health.
When these costs start to outweigh the benefits of staying in a first-tier city, they will naturally choose to "flee".
However, we also cannot ignore the fact that first-tier cities have become "first-tier" because they have accumulated a lot of resources and opportunities over a long period of time.
This shift does not mean that the absolute dominance of these cities disappears, but that their relative attractiveness has diminished.
As second- and even third-tier cities grow, they are beginning to be able to offer more opportunities similar to those of first-tier cities, while still maintaining a lower cost of living and a higher quality of life, which naturally appeals to those who are more sensitive to the diminishing marginal utility of first-tier cities.
At this point, we may have a question: as the advantages of first-tier cities are weakened, does this indicate a more decentralized and diversified urban pattern in the future?
To analyze this issue, we need to consider not only changes in individual choices, but also policy orientation, economic restructuring, technological progress and other factors.
If second- and third-tier cities can continue to provide a high-quality living and working environment, while first-tier cities cannot effectively address the high cost of living and living, then we may indeed see a more balanced urban pattern.
This will not only alter the distribution of the population, but may also have broader and far-reaching socio-economic implications.
What do you have to say about this? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comment section!
Or leave a message about the type of information you want to pay more attention to, and the author will provide you with helpful content every day~
Note: The original debut, plagiarism must be investigated to the end!