[brianl047]

Cities provide concentration of services that people need. No city, no services. They also provide concentration of jobs, and concentration of people. For an extreme example you can't have the full set of services for 1 person in the middle of nowhere without an impossible cost.

So it all depends how independent you are from everything and everyone. If you have complex medical needs or need to be around certain people also in the city, you might have to live in the city.

Homeless and mentally ill get treated by programs and services that can be afforded by major cities (small towns apocryphally throw homeless on a bus to the big city to fix their homeless problems).

[malandrew]

Major cities would better serve the homeless and mentally ill by spending those dollars outside the city in low cost of living places. First their dollars will go further and they’ll be able to either support more people or they can support the same number of people better. Second, you put the homeless and mentally ill in places that are less competitive where they have a greater chance of being able to get back on their own two feet and support themselves. Educated college graduates struggle to thrive in cities like SF and NYC. If those folks have a hard time, there’s no hope for the homeless and mentally ill, so you’re just keeping them in a place where they have no chance of achieving independence. It’s inhumane really.