HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2018, 7:37 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Why Rural America Needs Cities

Why Rural America Needs Cities


November 30, 2018

By Nathan Arnosti & Amy Liu

Read More: https://www.brookings.edu/research/w...-needs-cities/

Quote:
.....

There are real economic challenges confronting small towns, many of which struggle to add jobs and retain population in today’s knowledge-driven economy. But it would be a mistake to enact policy solutions to save rural America at the expense of cities.

- Recent efforts to bail out farmers amidst a trade war and exempt rural counties from work requirements to receive Medicaid and other safety-net services in effect hurt people and businesses in cities and suburbs. While these policy moves seem like clever ways to rebalance urban-rural economic divides, they could ultimately harm rural communities, too, by choking off the very engines that make rural investments possible. In fact, one of the best ways to help rural America may involve helping cities: supporting a distributed network of economically vibrant small and mid-sized cities across the United States.

- Since 2010, metropolitan areas in the United States grew in population by more than 6 percent, while non-metropolitan areas shrank by 0.5 percent. Brookings analysis reveals that during this timeframe, metro areas with populations over 1 million gained jobs at the fastest rate, while smaller metro areas and non-metro areas added jobs at progressively slower rates, corresponding with their population size. — To be sure, rural areas have experienced an uptick in employment in 2017, and within the longer-term trend of rural decline are countless stories of smaller localities that found ways to maintain, and grow, their populations and economies. But the fundamental reality is that more people will live in cities in the years ahead, regardless of any local, state, or federal policy initiative.

- While city and rural economies retain important, mutually reinforcing linkages, recent trends suggest that the clustering of people, jobs, and capital known as economic agglomeration will continue to accelerate into the 21st century. Despite promising employment growth over the past several years, the fact remains that low-density rural areas represent the opposite of what matters in an economy that rewards concentration of knowledge assets. As our colleague Mark Muro notes, the commodity-producing industries that have led to rural America’s recent resurgence, including agriculture, mining, and oil and gas extraction, are not reliable sources of sustained prosperity.

- Rural communities still have lower shares of residents with college degrees, digital skills, and specialized, knowledge-based jobs, all of which are crucial determinants of durable success in the modern era. Given market realities and the bleak long-term prospects for many small towns, rural America’s best bet might be to support economic growth in urban centers, including micropolitan areas, and strengthen linkages between urban and rural communities. — Some economists suggest that the United States needs fewer, larger cities. They observe that compared to other developed countries that have just one or two dominant cities (such as London in the United Kingdom, or Sydney and Melbourne in Australia), growth in the U.S. is more evenly distributed.

- Moreover, larger cities tend to have more productive economies, owing to the benefits of agglomeration. These economists conclude that, because the national economy would grow fastest if more people moved from low-productivity to high-productivity places, public efforts should focus on removing barriers to geographic mobility. They recommend expanding housing supply and transportation options in our country’s biggest cities, and offering relocation assistance for residents in struggling areas. Policies to make it easier for more people to move to our biggest cities are worth pursuing. But it is not sufficient nor realistic to expect most low-income workers to leave their social networks or afford high-cost areas.

- A more strategic approach would aim to accelerate economic growth across mid-sized metro areas and micropolitan areas that are accessible to nearby rural areas. Imagine the state of Illinois not just anchored by the Chicago metro area, but by a network of other vibrant communities like Rockford, Peoria, Decatur, and Champaign-Urbana, which in turn offer opportunities for surrounding rural communities. Micropolitan areas like Traverse City, Mich., Corning, N.Y., and Kalispell, Mont. could serve as stronger centers of jobs, finance, and opportunities for rural households. Rather than sprinkle limited resources across every rural county, state and federal policymakers could target efforts to small and mid-sized markets by helping them strengthen commercial corridors and modernize existing industries.

- Beyond the benefits to rural areas, investing in mid-sized cities across America is simply good policy. In an economy increasingly defined by concentration and the coasts, cities themselves are in a winner-take-all competition with one another that is resulting in a nation riven by geographic, cultural, and political divides. Amazon’s recent announcement that its headquarters functions will expand to the New York and Washington, D.C. metro areas is merely the latest evidence that the country’s largest markets—and the talent, infrastructure, and amenities they offer—are absorbing the lion’s share of growth while Heartland communities struggle to keep pace.

Cities matter greatly to rural revitalization, for at least three key reasons.

• Prosperity in cities and metropolitan areas effectively subsidizes public investments in rural areas. Nationally, many of the states that receive the highest per-capita rates of federal investment have greater shares of their population in rural communities, such as South Carolina, North Dakota, and Louisiana. Meanwhile, many of the states that receive the lowest rates of federal investment have greater shares of their population in urban centers, including Delaware, Illinois, and Ohio.

• Access to cities and their markets, specialized industries, and capital increases rural prosperity. Analysis by our Brookings colleagues Mark Muro and Jacob Whiton suggests that proximity to cities can contribute to rural communities’ well-being due to the spillover benefits that cities generate. Muro and Whiton categorized non-metropolitan counties into ones that are adjacent to a metropolitan area, and ones that are not. While both groups of rural counties experienced job losses between 2008 and 2017, the “non-adjacent” counties fared far worse. Total employment in “adjacent” rural areas declined by 1.9 percent during that time span, but it declined by 3.5 percent in non-adjacent places. In other words, proximity to cities acted as an economic buffer for nearby rural areas, on net, slowing their economic decline.

• Cities provide opportunities for ambitious rural residents to gain new skills and experiences, benefitting workers and their home communities. As described in Vox, sociologists Patrick Carr and Maria Kefalas found that some people who leave their rural hometowns end up returning, filling specialized jobs in medicine, law, and other professions using the skills they developed in cities. This phenomenon of “return migration,” popularly referred to as a “boomerang effect,” now animates economic development strategies in several small and mid-sized cities.

Mid-sized cities closer to rural communities offer another intangible benefit that larger, coastal cities cannot. Author J.D. Vance explained this dynamic at a Brookings event last fall:

• There’s a difference between outmigration from Eastern Kentucky to Southwestern Ohio, and Eastern Kentucky and San Diego, because the former allows you to preserve some social connections, it’s cheaper to move there, it’s less culturally intimidating to move there…if we can regionally develop big cities like Lexington, like Pittsburgh, like Columbus, Ohio, … [it] enables people to maintain social connections even as they move to places with higher employment, and still play a positive role in communities back home. Put another way, mid-size cities, if they can continue to serve as places of growth and opportunity, are better positioned to offer social and economic benefits to rural communities than distant, high-cost cities.

So what strategies should federal, state, and local leaders pursue to help mid-sized cities grow in a way that benefits rural communities? We believe that four broad approaches would help.

• First, restructure economic policymaking to empower communities. Local and regional leaders often have a better sense of what their communities need than state or federal officials. To support economic growth in cities, these officials should provide additional flexibility and resources for smart, cross-sector economic planning at a local scale. States, in particular, have crucial roles to play, and several governors and state legislatures are leading the way on facilitating bottom-up strategies. Under Governor Brian Sandoval, Nevada reoriented its statewide economic strategies toward its regions, establishing regional development authorities, conducting in-depth assessments of industry strengths, and tailoring strategies to regional needs. Virginia passed legislation and new grant programs to facilitate job creation and innovation across the commonwealth through regional collaboration. In Tennessee, Governor Bill Haslam and the state legislature approved a new grant program that incentivizes local solutions to achieve the state’s post-secondary college attainment goals. Other smart policies can help bring stakeholders with diverse viewpoints around a common table to identify key challenges, identify assets to invest in, and ensure that more people benefit from new jobs and investments that result.

• Second, align public investments to prioritize homegrown job creation, not recruitment of individual companies. Amazon’s heavily criticized HQ2 search process underscores a reality that more state and local leaders are recognizing in recent years: Public subsidies for business attraction are generally wasteful and not a realistic job creation strategy for smaller communities that cannot compete for headline-grabbing firms like Amazon. Instead, public policies should help small and mid-sized cities promote entrepreneurship and strengthen existing industry clusters where supply chains span urban and rural areas. A report by the National League of Cities demonstrates that efforts to link rural businesses with urban markets can help sustain small town economies, as can be seen through Sacramento’s specialty crops industry cluster. In an excellent essay in Democracy Journal, former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack identifies promising industries that have the potential to lift up rural and urban communities, including bio-based manufacturing and ecosystem markets. When done well, industry cluster strategies can help legacy firms and sectors evolve, adopt new technologies, and be a source of market growth and distinction in an increasingly competitive global environment.

• Third, double down on preparing workers for the modern economy by strengthening existing universities, community colleges, and workforce readiness programs. Digital skills are increasingly valued in today’s economy, and places that provide forward-looking educational opportunities to their students will help prepare them for jobs and launch new businesses. Furthermore, research institutions themselves are economic anchors that bring investment and workers into communities. In a post on leveraging research universities to revitalize rural America, Bloomberg Opinion columnist Noah Smith observes: “In order to compete with the big cities, rural America needs fewer factory towns of 5,000 people and more small university cities of 50,000.”

• Fourth, explore new federal and state initiatives to close regional disparities, and maintain existing programs that work. Our colleagues Clara Hendrickson, Mark Muro, and Bill Galston recently wrote about a range of federal policies that could address our current economic and geographic disparities, including new digital skills training, renewed focus on closing broadband access and subscription divides, commuter subsidies, and more. They also advocate for the federal government to maintain funding for existing programs that promote regional competitiveness, including federal R&D expenditures and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. These efforts deserve consideration.

.....



__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2018, 11:48 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
The issues of rural communities are not limited to America:

Quote:
The gilets jaunes . . . are drawn from commuters who reside in suburban and rural areas, where household incomes are lower and housing tends to be more affordable. They are more sensitive to fuel prices because they need to drive to jobs located in or near cities.

Rural areas have also been hardest hit by the rise in e-commerce and by big-box retailers that have gutted many villages that once served as centers of commerce and social life in the countryside.

“It’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” said Kevin Meyer, a 24-year-old gilet jaune who commutes to work at a textile factory from his small village, Montferrier, at the foot of the Pyrénées in southwestern France. “Life in rural areas is already difficult. There’s little work and all the shops are closing” . . . .
https://www.wsj.com/articles/yellow-...article_inline

I suspect a lot of the idyllic villages of southern Europe are kept alive by retirees, many of them American, these days.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 1:19 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Does anyone have data that goes back for multiple economic cycles? For one thing it looks like big city employment is more volatile so the question arises what will happen when the next recession hits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 7:32 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
What percentage of Americans actually live in rural areas these days?
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 7:51 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is online now
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
What percentage of Americans actually live in rural areas these days?
Under 20% of the US population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 10:15 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
Under 20% of the US population.
So why do we want cities to grow in a way that benefits rural communities (as opposed to benefiting themselves)?


Here’s the issue - the US developed too close to the end of the agricultural age (in fact, its growth coincided with the Industrial Revolution) to have ever developed a real rural economy. There are some pretty small towns and villages in New England and the Mid-Atlantic coast, but that’s pretty much it. As industrial farming took over, it was inevitable for places that look like this to be abandoned:

https://goo.gl/maps/xbmSQza1doJ2

I don’t see how anyone could expect anything else.

And then in most of the Western US, one never really had a rural agricultural economy at all until the building of dams and mass irrigation (and that industrial farming doesn’t create a real rural population).

Europe is different because you have this patchwork of small towns and villages that are 1) often historic and very attractive; and 2) very close to one another and so not isolated culturally or economically. You also have a lot of smaller cities linked by rail, rather than American cities which just grow continually outwards as suburbia around a small core. It’s a completely different settlement pattern.

Even then, you have a lot of struggling rural communities in Europe. But at least those tend to be in the places that aren’t particularly scenic (or known for good food, or nice weather, etc). In general though there was enough “there” that they can at least survive on tourism and people with second homes. You basically have a lot more of the continent (or UK) that is like the Berkshires or Hudson Valley.

Long story short, I can’t think of anything that can help much of the rural US, or really much of a reason to try. It’s just misdirected effort.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 11:22 AM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,889
Ive been giving Rural America the side eye since the 2016 election
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 11:53 AM
Kenmore Kenmore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Uptown
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
So why do we want cities to grow in a way that benefits rural communities (as opposed to benefiting themselves)?


Here’s the issue - the US developed too close to the end of the agricultural age (in fact, its growth coincided with the Industrial Revolution) to have ever developed a real rural economy. There are some pretty small towns and villages in New England and the Mid-Atlantic coast, but that’s pretty much it. As industrial farming took over, it was inevitable for places that look like this to be abandoned:

https://goo.gl/maps/xbmSQza1doJ2

I don’t see how anyone could expect anything else.

And then in most of the Western US, one never really had a rural agricultural economy at all until the building of dams and mass irrigation (and that industrial farming doesn’t create a real rural population).

Europe is different because you have this patchwork of small towns and villages that are 1) often historic and very attractive; and 2) very close to one another and so not isolated culturally or economically. You also have a lot of smaller cities linked by rail, rather than American cities which just grow continually outwards as suburbia around a small core. It’s a completely different settlement pattern.

Even then, you have a lot of struggling rural communities in Europe. But at least those tend to be in the places that aren’t particularly scenic (or known for good food, or nice weather, etc). In general though there was enough “there” that they can at least survive on tourism and people with second homes. You basically have a lot more of the continent (or UK) that is like the Berkshires or Hudson Valley.

Long story short, I can’t think of anything that can help much of the rural US, or really much of a reason to try. It’s just misdirected effort.
how often do you just ctrl-v parts of this post?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 12:51 PM
skyscraperpage17 skyscraperpage17 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
Ive been giving Rural America the side eye since the 2016 election
It took you that long?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 1:21 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenmore View Post
how often do you just ctrl-v parts of this post?
I’m consistent because it’s all true.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 3:13 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
This thread is perfect for urban elites to pat themselves on the back.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 4:42 PM
digitallagasse digitallagasse is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 104
I think a key thing is every place needs to stand on its own. It doesn't matter the size. I visited several old abandoned towns. It may have been a mining town, next to an old highway, etc. As things change what ever was supporting the town was gone. Mine closed, new interstate bypassed the town, water dried up, etc. It was all a natural process and if the town failed the town failed.

Places need to keep working on keeping themselves viable or it should be no surprise they are failing. That means excepting that things need to change to stay viable. From small towns to big cities we have plenty examples of those that have and those that haven't. Look how far a place like Detroit has fallen.

I understand some people have the desire to live away from things. That is perfectly fine and if they can support themselves then great. What doesn't make sense to me is to choose to live far from everyone else and then complain about the lack of opportunities and being left behind. Even more foolish when new opportunities are offered but then rejected because it is out of character with the area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 5:28 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K View Post
Why Rural America Needs Cities


November 30, 2018

By Nathan Arnosti & Amy Liu

Read More: https://www.brookings.edu/research/w...-needs-cities/


Well htat was an extremely long way to say "Rural communities shouldn't be what they are and be what we want them to be instead"

Hey Guess what, we cant have our giant lovely cities without these rural communities holding down the supply chain to keep us fed, powered and watered, we cant manufacture and finance without mines and loggers sending resources. Rural America needs cities for the market, Cities need rural america for the raw materials.

Its a pretty good system
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 6:26 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
This thread is perfect for urban elites to pat themselves on the back.
Nothing like that from me. I just feel like there is a pent up aggression from many in 'rural' and 'middle' america that we didnt fully comprehend.
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 9:37 PM
RCDC's Avatar
RCDC RCDC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: DC, an eruptive vent of wealth
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
This thread is perfect for urban elites to pat themselves on the back.
Welfare doesn't pay for itself you know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2018, 4:32 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
Nothing like that from me. I just feel like there is a pent up aggression from many in 'rural' and 'middle' america that we didnt fully comprehend.
I saw it coming...surprised it didn't happen sooner.

You guys will never understand because you don't digest anything that that part of the country consumes. You all live in your echo chambers. They at least hear your points, if they go to school, watch movies, tv, or the news.

Our culture is the culture of big cities and liberalism. I could probably write a 20 page paper on why rural people are fighting back, in their own way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2018, 9:37 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
I saw it coming...surprised it didn't happen sooner.

You guys will never understand because you don't digest anything that that part of the country consumes. You all live in your echo chambers. They at least hear your points, if they go to school, watch movies, tv, or the news.

Our culture is the culture of big cities and liberalism. I could probably write a 20 page paper on why rural people are fighting back, in their own way.
I mean is there any better example then this very article:

Rural america needs to stop being what it is and be Urban America instead.

...what? Who wrote this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2018, 11:12 PM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,204
You guys have to make this about cultural anxiety, instead of practicality and economics. Please explain what "urbanites" did to deliberately kneecap rural America. What is the grand conspiracy? Why externalize blame?

Yes, rural areas are very important because they host industries like agriculture, natural resources, and transportation and logistics. But there aren't always a lot of jobs in those sectors. If there were we wouldn't be having this conversation. Not only is there a lack of opportunity but these small towns also lack things like hospitals, colleges, etc. Also many towns are very old and full of old houses, then surrounding them you see large modern homes on plots of land. People have cars, and can drive a long distance to go to work or go to the store. There is no "draw" making someone remain living in the footprint of a town anymore.

Cities benefit small towns because they can be part of a regional economy. I also think a good strategy is to target the bigger of the small towns - county seats and places which were originally the 'hub' for the area, and make sure to support struggling rural hospitals, community colleges, etc. These towns can support things like industrial parks, etc, and probably have assets like a quaint main street. If they are within a couple hour's drive of a city they will be okay.

Surrounding Houston are a number of healthy smaller towns like Brenham, Navasota, Huntsville, Wharton, etc. What they have in common is some sort of thriving local industry or a college, and also "old money" or "well to do" families to set up successful locally based companies that employ a lot of people. Conversely, the small towns in this area which are not very nice, have in common some legacy of intense rural poverty or a departed industrial base. In the South, African Americans make up a large proportion of people whose local roots go way way back, and these people endured generations of tenant farming, lack of opportunity, etc. They couldn't built wealth or start businesses that would help the town grow and advance.

Last edited by llamaorama; Dec 11, 2018 at 11:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2018, 12:21 AM
Qubert Qubert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 506
America needs to invest in some DMU trains and run commuter services into the small towns in rural america and make them commuter towns. I'm sure the quiet life and cheap real estate would be a draw for many.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2018, 2:29 AM
goat314's Avatar
goat314 goat314 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St. Louis - Tampa
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
So why do we want cities to grow in a way that benefits rural communities (as opposed to benefiting themselves)?


Here’s the issue - the US developed too close to the end of the agricultural age (in fact, its growth coincided with the Industrial Revolution) to have ever developed a real rural economy. There are some pretty small towns and villages in New England and the Mid-Atlantic coast, but that’s pretty much it. As industrial farming took over, it was inevitable for places that look like this to be abandoned:

https://goo.gl/maps/xbmSQza1doJ2

I don’t see how anyone could expect anything else.

And then in most of the Western US, one never really had a rural agricultural economy at all until the building of dams and mass irrigation (and that industrial farming doesn’t create a real rural population).

Europe is different because you have this patchwork of small towns and villages that are 1) often historic and very attractive; and 2) very close to one another and so not isolated culturally or economically. You also have a lot of smaller cities linked by rail, rather than American cities which just grow continually outwards as suburbia around a small core. It’s a completely different settlement pattern.

Even then, you have a lot of struggling rural communities in Europe. But at least those tend to be in the places that aren’t particularly scenic (or known for good food, or nice weather, etc). In general though there was enough “there” that they can at least survive on tourism and people with second homes. You basically have a lot more of the continent (or UK) that is like the Berkshires or Hudson Valley.

Long story short, I can’t think of anything that can help much of the rural US, or really much of a reason to try. It’s just misdirected effort.
I guess slavery and King Cotton was just a mirage....never really happened. We also never fought a Civil War in the 1860s, about whether we would be a slavery based agricultural economy or a peasant based industrial economy, tariffs on agricultural products being a major component of that. Seems like the rural economy was pretty strong to justify a war the took nearly a million lives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:52 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.