What Is an 18-Hour City?

Economists and real estate investors use the term 18-hour city to describe a mid-size city with attractive amenities, higher-than-average population growth, and a lower cost of living and cost of doing business than the biggest urban areas. The 18-hour city generally has a population of under one million, making it a second-tier city.

Eighteen-hour cities in the U.S. are increasingly seen as viable alternatives for investment and living to the Big Six markets of Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C that make up America’s first-tier or 24-hour cities.

Understanding the 18-Hour City

While loosely defined, the term 18-hour city most often refers to a city that has public services, amenities and job opportunities that are comparable in quality to those in the big six markets.

Unlike the biggest cities, most of their services and amenities don’t operate on a 24-hour basis. However, they boast comparable advantages, including solid public transportation systems, modern infrastructure and strong economies. Housing prices are moderate in comparison.

The 18-Hour City Advantage

Eighteen-hour cities have emerged as an attractive alternative to big cities for starting a new business, relocating an existing one, or investing in real estate. They typically feature lower capitalization rate compression, meaning property values tend to remain stable rather than spiking up or down significantly.

Like first-tier cities, 18-hour cities often boast low real estate vacancy rates along with favorable supply concentrations, rental growth and absorption trends—all indicators of long-term real estate investment potential.

Aside from the numbers, Forbes.com cites a distinctive and lovable culture as a key factor in creating and maintaining a vibrant 18-hour city: “Austin is the live music capital of the world. Denver and the Research Triangle are outdoor meccas. Portland is just plain weird (and residents would like to keep it that way.”

One perceived downside is the increased risk inherent in cities that do not have the established track record of primary market cities.

Examples of 18-Hour Cities in the U.S.

CrowdStreet, a site for crowd-sourced real estate investments, cites Austin, Denver, and Nashville as recent stars among 18-hour cities. In 2020, it identified Charleston, South Carolina, as the next big success story in the category.

Realtor.com identified its top metropolitan areas for 2020 and beyond, with all of its top five picks squarely in the 18-hour city category. They include Boise, Idaho; Mc-Allen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas; Tucson, Arizona; Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Columbia, South Carolina.

The National Real Estate Investor website chose Charleston, Kansas City, and Columbus, Ohio, based on their stellar growth in jobs.

Follow the Millennials

These and other frequently-cited 18-hour city stars have become targets for millennials whose goal is launching or advancing their careers. They are characterized by the availability of recreation and entertainment opportunities that extend well beyond what the typical second-tier affords.

Employers are drawn to 18-hour cities because doing business is less expensive in these markets and this, in turn, attracts large numbers of job seekers and entrepreneurs.

What Is Absolute Advantage?

Absolute advantage is the ability of an individual, company, region, or country to produce a greater quantity of a good or service with the same quantity of inputs per unit of time, or to produce the same quantity of a good or service per unit of time using a lesser quantity of inputs, than its competitors.

Absolute advantage can be accomplished by creating the good or service at a lower absolute cost per unit using a smaller number of inputs, or by a more efficient process.

Understanding Absolute Advantage

The concept of absolute advantage was developed by 18th-century economist Adam Smith in his book The Wealth of Nations to show how countries can gain from trade by specializing in producing and exporting the goods that they can produce more efficiently than other countries. Countries with an absolute advantage can decide to specialize in producing and selling a specific good or service and use the generated funds to purchase goods and services from other countries.

Smith argued that specializing in the products that they each have an absolute advantage in and then trading the products can make all countries better off, as long as they each have at least one product for which they hold an absolute advantage over other nations.

Absolute advantage explains why it makes sense for individuals, businesses, and countries to trade with each other. Since each has advantages in producing certain goods and services, both entities can benefit from the exchange.

This mutual gain from trade forms the basis of Smith’s argument that specialization, the division of labor, and subsequent trade lead to an overall increase in prosperity from which all can benefit. This, Smith believed, was the root source of the eponymous “Wealth of Nations.”

Absolute Advantage vs. Comparative Advantage

Absolute advantage can be contrasted with comparative advantage, which is when a producer has a lower opportunity cost to produce a good or service than another producer. An opportunity cost is the potential benefits an individual, investor, or business misses out on when choosing one alternative over another.

Absolute advantage leads to unambiguous gains from specialization and trade only in cases where each producer has an absolute advantage in producing some good. If a producer lacks any absolute advantage, then Adam Smith’s argument would not necessarily apply.

However, the producer and its trading partners might still be able to realize gains from trade if they can specialize based on their respective comparative advantages instead. In his book On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, David Ricardo argued that even if a country has an absolute advantage over trading many kinds of goods, it can still benefit by trading with other countries if that have different comparative advantages.

Assumptions of the Theory of Absolute Advantage

Both Smith’s theory of absolute advantage, and Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, rely on certain assumptions and simplifications in order to explain the benefits of trade.

Barriers to Trade

Both theories assume that there are no barriers to trade. They do not account for any costs of shipping or additional tariffs that a country might raise on another’s imported goods. In the real world, though, shipping costs impact how likely both the importer and exporter are to engage in trade. Countries can also leverage tariffs to create advantages for themselves or disadvantages for competitors.

Factors of Production

Both theories also assume that the factors of production are immobile. In these models, workers and businesses do not relocate in search of better opportunities. This assumption was realistic in the 1700s.

In modern trade, however, globalization has now made it easy for companies to move their factories abroad. It has also increased the rate of immigration, which impacts a country’s available workforce. In some industries, businesses will work with governments to create immigration opportunities for workers that are essential to their business operations.

Consistency and Scale

More crucially, these theories both assume that a country’s absolute advantage is constant and scales equally. In other words, it assumes that producing a small number of goods has the same per-unit cost as a larger number and that countries are unable to change their absolute advantages.

In reality, countries often make strategic investments to create greater advantages in certain industries. Absolute advantage can also change for reasons other than investment. Natural disasters, for example, can destroy farmland, factories, and other factors of production.

Pros and Cons of Absolute Advantage

One advantage of the theory of absolute advantage is its simplicity: The theory provides an elegant explanation of the benefits of trade, showing how countries can benefit by focusing on their absolute advantages.

However, the theory of comparative advantage does not fully explain why nations benefit from trade. This explanation would later fall to Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage: Even if one country has an absolute advantage in both types of goods, it will still be better off through trade. In other words, if one country can produce all goods more cheaply than its trading partners, it will still benefit by trading with other countries.

Also, as explained earlier, the theory also assumes that absolute advantages are static—a country cannot change its absolute advantages, and they do not become more efficient with scale. Actual experience has shown this to be untrue: Many countries have successfully created an absolute advantage by investing in strategic industries.

In fact, the theory has been used to justify exploitative economic policies in the postcolonial era. Reasoning that all countries should focus on their advantages, major bodies like the World Bank and IMF have often pressured developing countries to focus on agricultural exports, rather than industrialization. As a result, many of these countries remain at a low level of economic development.

Example of Absolute Advantage

Consider two hypothetical countries, Atlantica and Pacifica, with equivalent populations and resource endowments, with each producing two products: guns and bacon. Each year, Atlantica can produce either 12 tubs of butter or six slabs of bacon, while Pacifica can produce either six tubs of butter or 12 slabs of bacon.

Each country needs a minimum of four tubs of butter and four slabs of bacon to survive. In a state of autarky, producing solely on their own for their own needs, Atlantica can spend one-third of the year making butter and two-thirds of the year making bacon, for a total of four tubs of butter and four slabs of bacon.

Pacifica can spend one-third of the year making bacon and two-thirds making butter to produce the same: four tubs of butter and four slabs of bacon. This leaves each country at the brink of survival, with barely enough butter and bacon to go around. However, note that Atlantica has an absolute advantage in producing butter and Pacifica has an absolute advantage in producing bacon.

If each country were to specialize in their absolute advantage, Atlantica could make 12 tubs of butter and no bacon in a year, while Pacifica makes no butter and 12 slabs of bacon. By specializing, the two countries divide the tasks of their labor between them.

If they then trade six tubs of butter for six slabs of bacon, each country would then have six of each. Both countries would now be better off than before, because each would have six tubs of butter and six slabs of bacon, as opposed to four of each good which they could produce on their own.

The Bottom Line

The theory of absolute advantage represents Adam Smith’s explanation of why countries benefit from trade, by exporting goods where they have an absolute advantage and importing other goods. While the theory is an elegant and simple illustration of the benefits of trade, it did not fully explain the benefits of international trade. That would later fall to David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantages.