Raising kids anywhere but a major Spanish city is selfish, forum users argue

Raising children in a mid-sized city: missed opportunities or quality of life?

The argument sounds provocative: anyone who has children and the means to do so, yet chooses to live in a small or rural town instead of a big city, is putting their own comfort ahead of their children's future. But the data and the experiences of people living in mid-sized cities paint a very different picture.

The opportunity cost

Defenders of big cities argue that the concentration of skilled jobs, the diversity of industries and networking opportunities are irreplaceable for children's professional development. Those who grow up in areas with fewer than 250,000 inhabitants, they claim, start out at a disadvantage when it comes to accessing certain jobs or careers. However, a cost-of-living analysis puts these advantages into perspective: a typical family in Madrid can spend over 3,000 euros a month more on housing, schooling and transport than in a mid-sized inland city, money that could go into savings or educational investment. What's more, salary does not always make up the difference: in Palencia a gross income of 70,000 euros leaves more room than 90,000 euros in the capital.

Quality of life vs. employment

On the other hand, critics of megacities point to insecurity, overcrowding and stress as factors that harm child development. In towns of between 15,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, it is possible to access services such as a university hospital, a tax office or a conservatoire, with the advantage of walking everywhere and being close to nature. People who have experienced both lifestyles point out that pay can be identical to that of a big city, and that local business opportunities (electricians, lawyers, doctors) allow for a comfortable life. The real risk, they say, is that children may have to move away when they come of age to find their path, but that happens in global cities too.

The remote work factor

The rise of remote work has upended the terms of the debate. Many skilled jobs no longer require living in the big city, allowing families to settle in healthier environments without giving up high incomes. However, it remains uncertain whether this trend will last and whether children will benefit from it when they enter the job market two decades from now. Some critics believe that choosing to live in a small town is not selfish but an act of responsibility: providing a safe environment free of harmful influences, even if that means fewer job opportunities in the future.

---

The question remains open: what matters more, the network of opportunities a big city offers, or the quality of life of a more human-scale environment? The answer, most likely, depends on each family's values and on how well children adapt to the world they will have to live in.

Related forum debates

• The no-housing-market: Three years of Spain's Housing Law: Barcelona sees the biggest loss of rental listings in Spain · 13 replies
• Why are some very thin people big eaters who never gain weight? · 65 replies
• Did PP and Vox really prioritize the league's "economic damage" over the harm caused to tens of thousands of shops by lockdowns? · 28 replies
• Hahahaha. Former minister under Sánchez said to be so useless and incompetent he couldn't lead a incivil network · 70 replies