Why Rural America Needs Cities

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by 10023

Most farm subsidies have nothing to do with helping rural populations (which, as mentioned by others, are mostly not actually engaged in farming). The vast majority of those subsidies go straight to big agribusiness.

I'm not just talking about farm subsidies. We subsidize rural living in many other ways.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Gordo

I'm not just talking about farm subsidies. We subsidize rural living in many other ways.

If you're talking about really, really rural areas - like dying towns in the Great Plains with only a few hundred people - the biggest subsidy is the lack of municipal consolidation. Often the only jobs left outside of natural resource extraction involved in local government - things like schoolteacher and postal worker. If you consolidated these at the county seat, many of these towns would fade away to nothing.

In rural, but slightly more populated but impoverished areas - like say Eastern Kentucky - a very large proportion of the population are unemployed and on some form of public assistance. But I don't see how it's either in the interest of the government or the individuals to try to move them elsewhere. After all, being destitute in a rural area is in many ways better than being destitute in a higher-cost urban area.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I But I don't see how it's either in the interest of the government or the individuals to try to move them elsewhere. After all, being destitute in a rural area is in many ways better than being destitute in a higher-cost urban area.

Economic/social mobility is generally correlated with degree of urbanity, so it would probably be a net positive if you could get much of, say Eastern KY, relocated to metropolitan areas.

I'm also not clear how it's better being destitute in, say, Eastern KY as opposed to, say, Columbus, OH (or even NYC for that matter). Yeah, rent is cheaper, but destitute folks generally aren't paying market rent. Nothing else is cheaper and services for the poor are very meager in rural America. No transit, forced to travel long distances, and minimal poverty-support infrastructure.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I got you.

I mean if I were to play God I would have all "non-essential" people move from rural areas and into the city(not metro area, but city). I would then allow nature to do her thing and take back the land and we would then have massive amounts of more wilderness. Like 70% of Arkansas would be pure nature and the other 30% farming.

If you abandon land that has been intensively farmed it isn't just going to return to being a pristine virgin forest, it's more likely to just become overgrown scrub that isn't much good for wildlife or biodiversity. If you want to return it to the previous state it would probably need careful management for several decades at least which would involve employing people (probably from public funds).

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Economic/social mobility is generally correlated with degree of urbanity, so it would probably be a net positive if you could get much of, say Eastern KY, relocated to metropolitan areas.

I'm also not clear how it's better being destitute in, say, Eastern KY as opposed to, say, Columbus, OH (or even NYC for that matter). Yeah, rent is cheaper, but destitute folks generally aren't paying market rent. Nothing else is cheaper and services for the poor are very meager in rural America. No transit, forced to travel long distances, and minimal poverty-support infrastructure.

For young people it might be advantageous to move them to cities, although doesn't that happen naturally anyway? Not sure if moving a 50 year old former coal mine worker from rural West Virginia to NYC is going to do much good though if they don't have skills relevant to the urban job market and no employer is willing to retrain them due to age. Wouldn't that just mean subsidising them in higher cost housing?

[The North One]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I got you.

I mean if I were to play God I would have all "non-essential" people move from rural areas and into the city(not metro area, but city). I would then allow nature to do her thing and take back the land and we would then have massive amounts of more wilderness. Like 70% of Arkansas would be pure nature and the other 30% farming.

But in the real world...some people just have preferences. I don't like farming subsidies because of my politics...but I cannot imagine they will go away anytime soon.

How do you decide who is "unessential" and why would they need to move people anywhere when the country is already urbanizing at a rapid rate? We have farming subsidies for very good reasons, other more successful countries do much more with farming subsidies than we do. If you think rural America is unessential then you couldn't be more wrong.

[10023]

Originally Posted by The North One

How do you decide who is "unessential" and why would they need to move people anywhere when the country is already urbanizing at a rapid rate? We have farming subsidies for very good reasons, other more successful countries do much more with farming subsidies than we do. If you think rural America is unessential then you couldn't be more wrong.

The market decides this. If people are needed to farm then it will be lucrative to farm, and people will do it. If there is demand for food produced by small farmers and not big agribusiness, then it would command a premium (as it does in some places, and from a small portion of the population like myself).

If you really want to help rural America, then it’s not subsidies but rather regulation around industrial farming practices that are needed. There would be better food, more jobs on the farm, and higher prices. I would be in favor of this, but I doubt a majority of Americans would agree with me.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by 10023

If you really want to help rural America, then it’s not subsidies but rather regulation around industrial farming practices that are needed. There would be better food, more jobs on the farm, and higher prices. I would be in favor of this, but I doubt a majority of Americans would agree with me.

This is an excellent point. My family tries to buy higher quality food and as locally produced as possible. With meats that is easy, there are many good butchers with pork, chicken, beef and lamb raised not particularly far away. Produce is much more difficult due to growing seasons. But could you imagine the riots if this was enforced. Americans love Walmart. The cheaper the better to most with no regards to quality.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by 10023

The market decides this. If people are needed to farm then it will be lucrative to farm, and people will do it. If there is demand for food produced by small farmers and not big agribusiness, then it would command a premium (as it does in some places, and from a small portion of the population like myself).

If you really want to help rural America, then it’s not subsidies but rather regulation around industrial farming practices that are needed. There would be better food, more jobs on the farm, and higher prices. I would be in favor of this, but I doubt a majority of Americans would agree with me.

Interestingly, the parts of rural America that AREN'T suffering much are the areas mostly dedicated to farming. The parts of rural America that ARE suffering tend to be the areas with little farming. I'm going to repeat something I posted on SSC a couple years ago.

-------------------------------------

... However, it's really interesting looking *just* at the rural areas that are mostly white - namely, Appalachia (plus the Ozarks and upper Michigan) compared to the rural Plains & rural Upper Midwest (MN, IA and WI) plus much of rural New England and Rockies. There is clearly a huge gap in outcomes between those two sets of areas, and you can't attribute it to demographics since the demographics of both are mostly white. I think part of the difference is that, at least in the Plains and much of the Upper Midwest, rural populations tend to be farmers. Even the rural populations in the Rockies have a lot of ranchers and farmers. Whereas, in Appalachia, the Ozarks and upper Michigan, they don't really have much farming (at least not on a large scale like the other areas). IOW, I'm guessing the pattern is like this:

Rural white farming/ranching = healthy (economically and health-wise)
Rural white non-farming/ranching = unhealthy (economically and health-wise)

If I'm right, there just might be something about farming or ranching that encourages healthy lifestyles and healthy/wealthy economic outcomes. Not sure what that would be, but it appears to be a factor.

Green = healthy and orange = unhealthy


The source is below. The NYT compiled several demographic/heath/education and other outcome statistics into one index and mapped it. The above is the result.

Where Are the Hardest Places to Live in the U.S.?

Now, compare the map above to the following map showing the locations of US farmland. Notice how closely the rural areas with "good" life outcomes above coincide with farm areas (and in the West, many of the areas that don't appear to have many farms are actually heavy ranching areas).



It seems that the problem in rural areas isn't some detail related to farming, it's more like the problem is a lack of farming altogether.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

If you abandon land that has been intensively farmed it isn't just going to return to being a pristine virgin forest, it's more likely to just become overgrown scrub that isn't much good for wildlife or biodiversity. If you want to return it to the previous state it would probably need careful management for several decades at least which would involve employing people (probably from public funds).

I was talking about keeping the farmland but tearing down everything else that isnt directly related to it. Its a pipedream and not realistic in any way....but yeah lol

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by The North One

How do you decide who is "unessential" and why would they need to move people anywhere when the country is already urbanizing at a rapid rate? We have farming subsidies for very good reasons, other more successful countries do much more with farming subsidies than we do. If you think rural America is unessential then you couldn't be more wrong.

I literally stated if I were playing God. Like, if America was my very own Sim City, please don't take my statement as some political manifesto.

[Leveled]

Originally Posted by Obadno

You dont need to be conservative to mock the absurdities of urban elitists lol

What the hell is an urban elitist?

Why not bring ivory tower intellectuals into it too?

[Leveled]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

For young people it might be advantageous to move them to cities, although doesn't that happen naturally anyway? Not sure if moving a 50 year old former coal mine worker from rural West Virginia to NYC is going to do much good though if they don't have skills relevant to the urban job market and no employer is willing to retrain them due to age. Wouldn't that just mean subsidising them in higher cost housing?

It can be done much more efficiently in a city.

[Leveled]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Interestingly, the parts of rural America that AREN'T suffering much are the areas mostly dedicated to farming. The parts of rural America that ARE suffering tend to be the areas with little farming. I'm going to repeat something I posted on SSC a couple years ago.

-------------------------------------

... However, it's really interesting looking *just* at the rural areas that are mostly white - namely, Appalachia (plus the Ozarks and upper Michigan) compared to the rural Plains & rural Upper Midwest (MN, IA and WI) plus much of rural New England and Rockies. There is clearly a huge gap in outcomes between those two sets of areas, and you can't attribute it to demographics since the demographics of both are mostly white. I think part of the difference is that, at least in the Plains and much of the Upper Midwest, rural populations tend to be farmers. Even the rural populations in the Rockies have a lot of ranchers and farmers. Whereas, in Appalachia, the Ozarks and upper Michigan, they don't really have much farming (at least not on a large scale like the other areas). IOW, I'm guessing the pattern is like this:

Rural white farming/ranching = healthy (economically and health-wise)
Rural white non-farming/ranching = unhealthy (economically and health-wise)

If I'm right, there just might be something about farming or ranching that encourages healthy lifestyles and healthy/wealthy economic outcomes. Not sure what that would be, but it appears to be a factor.

Green = healthy and orange = unhealthy


The source is below. The NYT compiled several demographic/heath/education and other outcome statistics into one index and mapped it. The above is the result.

Where Are the Hardest Places to Live in the U.S.?

Now, compare the map above to the following map showing the locations of US farmland. Notice how closely the rural areas with "good" life outcomes above coincide with farm areas (and in the West, many of the areas that don't appear to have many farms are actually heavy ranching areas).



It seems that the problem in rural areas isn't some detail related to farming, it's more like the problem is a lack of farming altogether.

More farming = more welfare.

[Leveled]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I don't understand what we are saying or trying to say here though...

People shouldn't live in rural areas if they don't farm?
We shouldn't subsidize farming?

I mean, I really don't know what we're saying. I am at my mom's house right now in rural Arkansas. Its terrible. Trucks everywhere. Driving forever to get anywhere. Terrible built environment. Overall an environmentalist/urbanist nightmare. But, I dont even remember the original point of this thread... Do we want to ban them from the rural areas or are we just saying those dumb rednecks need *us* and we don't need them?

Rural areas need cities. The economic, innovation, and cultural engines of the country.

Cities need about 10% of the rural population, and that will drop with more automation in resource extraction and agriculture. They would have a better chance if we had high speed rail, but we all know how they vote on that topic.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Leveled

Rural areas need cities. The economic, innovation, and cultural engines of the country.

Cities need about 10% of the rural population, and that will drop with more automation in resource extraction and agriculture. They would have a better chance if we had high speed rail, but we all know how they vote on that topic.

I don't think on a fundamental level it's even a urban or rural issue. It's that in order to be healthy, any community needs an economic reason for existing.

I mean, historically, the way human settlement worked was basically there were peasants - who often lived in agglomerations of a few hundred people (villages) for a mixture of defensive and social reasons. Then there was a nearby "market town" which was a bit larger. This is where the agricultural surplus would be directed for sale, and where farmers would go to make major purchases. This regional trade center would then be more tenuously linked to a national, and then a global trade network.

Basically, the problem rural areas now have is twofold.

1. Basically all of the primary productive purposes of the rural hinterland - from farming to logging to mining - can be done by far less people than in the past due to automation.

2. As the economy becomes more globalized, there's less and less need for anything like the "market town" of old, with the middleman being cut out. Farmers can and do sell products directly to foreign countries. On the other hand, cars have allowed people to drive much further for retail needs, and now online shopping can be much more convenient in remote areas.

Thus significant concentrations of population in non-metropolitan areas other than the residual labor force needed for agriculture and extraction are basically irrelevant economically. It's like a lesser version of a mill town after the mill closes. Nothing but momentum and the social connections of the existing community is keeping people there.

In an earlier era, these sorts of places would likely dry up and blow away - much like many of the ghost towns out west which died once the local mine was played out. But over the last century, for a host of reasons towns just stopped being abandoned wholesale, and survive as "zombie communities."

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I mean, historically, the way human settlement worked was basically there were peasants - who often lived in agglomerations of a few hundred people (villages) for a mixture of defensive and social reasons. Then there was a nearby "market town" which was a bit larger. This is where the agricultural surplus would be directed for sale, and where farmers would go to make major purchases.

I guess you're using the European model of the way human settlement occurred, and somehow it only began in the late Medieval period...

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by Leveled

It can be done much more efficiently in a city.

Giving a 50 year old ex coal miner welfare is more efficient in cities how?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I guess you're using the European model of the way human settlement occurred, and somehow it only began in the late Medieval period...

My understanding from reading Chinese history is it worked under much the same pattern.

[10023]

Originally Posted by eschaton

My understanding from reading Chinese history is it worked under much the same pattern.

China had a similar system that’s often referred to as feudalism. There were some key differences (eg, I don’t think the local lordships were hereditary), but it was similar enough.

If we’re talking about land being owned by a small elite, people who work the land clustered in small villages, and most power and commerce gravitating toward larger towns and cities - basically every human civilisation has functioned this way once it reached a certain population density.