CanadaPlus

Yeah, OP pretty much applies to all cities. Sure, you could live in the middle of nowhere, but then what?

Oh yeah, then sure.

I guess the point is that the climate isn't actually the big issue, it's what a typical person is going to do in the middle of the arctic. If you're a digital nomad or a researcher, it makes sense. If you're from a local Native group, with unlimited legal hunting and a community, it makes sense.

FWIW even within Canada, and with funding in place, it's hard to move to the North. I know somebody who tried to retire to Whitehorse a bit ago, but couldn't, because lots of people are interested in that and it's nigh-impossible to get new housing approved.

As in, doing worse economically. In this context, where that's clear, it seems like the wording holds up.

(or its economy, if you don’t define economy just as stock market go brrr)

GDP measures actual trade more than the stock market. That being said, yes, it's a litmus test, albeit a decently well supported one. The main places it breaks down, in terms of predicting people's lifestyles, is where there's major banking hubs (Singapore, Seychelles, Ireland for a while).

Oh right, a lot of produce that makes it up here is from California, although we've noticeably weaned off of it over the course of the trade war.

I did mention the techbros. If the AI bubble pops and geopolitics breaks the walled garden monopolies it might end up a lot closer to Canada.

Actually, we have no trouble finding immigrants, and mostly let in ones that are doctors or something like that (who then end up working fast food anyway).

But yes, many of the people who were born here, and grew up somewhat acclimatised, still bitterly complain about the climate.

How to define a city is a huge thing, and there's actually a laundry list of different techniques geographers can use.

It's a concentration of people, but settlement patterns vary, and the way they're politically organised or locally referred to varies even more.

You can do better than that. I'm not sure how far you have to get from Calgary or Edmonton before abandoned, falling apart farmhouses start, but it might be only 45 minutes.

And if you're in a random part of the north, it's more like weeks of offroading.

Edit: Obviously, that 45 minutes is still enough to discourage most buyers. You might still be 20 from the nearest stores of any kind. So, the point stands, most of the land isn't acceptable for most people.

Construction is the bottleneck.

On why construction is the bottleneck, you'll hear several theories, but just physically having land isn't the problem.

Yeah, but do they like having a job and services, or are they okay alone in a run-down dry cabin with a rifle for the polar bears, and expensive resupply trucks whenever the iceroads are passable?

Yes, it's a resource-based economy. Agriculture and mining are also huge. They're all kind of hard to get at resources, though, so it's not like the Persian Gulf, where there's no expenses and it's a money printer. Basically, outside of certain parts of Ontario, people work in that instead of in factories. (And forestry in particular is being imploded by the US, right now)

Tokyo should, in theory, have all kinds of highly skilled professionals, who earn more than whatever logging grunt. But, the gap is still like 150%.

I live in a rural area; I'm aware. Although didn't Trudeau bring back the long gun registry?

There's some pretty severe restrictions, like max 5 rounds in an SKS (although plenty of people illegally use the full 10). Cali does too, but it's not clear if it's on the same level. IIRC you can still have handguns pretty much anywhere in the US, while they're almost banned here.

Did we annex Alaska while I wasn't looking? Haha.