12 ms·

Big cities are going to die. For decades, they voted themselves nonexistent money to prop up corrupt politicians, greedy unions, and provide corporate welfare.

Big cities are going to die. For decades, they voted themselves nonexistent money to prop up corrupt politicians, greedy unions, and provide corporate welfare. Now it's coming home to roost and the rest of us don't care. One big datapoint here is the most recent election: Trump won several thousand counties to Clinton's several hundred. This was mimiced up- and down the ballot and was almost perfectly divided as a cities vs. everyone else thing. You cannot escape economic reality no matter what the vote buyers think.

tossraccount333 10y ago
Counties are of varying density. Winning a lot of them is in no way indicative of how many voters were on a candidates side. It's already well discussed that Trump did well in rural counties. I don't know what you're trying to argue? Trump lost the popular vote by ~3 million. With the electoral college, winning counties and the popular vote don't matter. As a city dweller, I could sit back and say rural areas are going to die too. They're shrinking, mostly over 50, and the rest of us don't care that they failed to adapt to the changing world and instead dug their heels in, expecting everyone else to build the world in their vision. I grew up in Trumplandia; this was the rhetoric there, from the trailer trash to the local leaders. The world should just leave us alone, we don't care. Except they would start caring if all those urban ports started cutting them off from goods. Which is just pointless rhetoric, lacking empathy. Let's draw deeper, longer lines in the sand. Let's continue instigating division between populations. Yeah OK, that'll lead to more positive outcomes for either side.
mratzloff 10y ago
There are more people in the urban counties than the sparsely-populated rural counties. Cities are growing and are expected to continue growing. Meanwhile, rural areas are dying.[0] What reality do you think people are trying to escape? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_the_Great_Plains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_the_Great_Plai...
- drak0n1c 10y ago
  A few decades from now I can see the trend reversing. If automation makes living in small to medium sized towns in the country more convenient, lots of people who currently flock to cities out of economic necessity will prefer a less crowded life.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    How many people are flocking to cities out of economic necessity, rather than desire?
    - wott 10y ago
      When people are young, they may be a fair share of desire into moving to a city; but when they "grow up", most of them would like to get out of there and they only stay there because of the job. When I say "most", I am not kidding. A few studies tell that something between 70% and 80% of people living in Paris would like to move away! That's huge.
  - astrange 10y ago
    What kind of automation would make it easier to live in a small town? Do you mean a post-scarcity/jobless society? Just having more online services like future-Amazon seems like money would leave the economy and destroy the town faster than building a Walmart does.
    - drak0n1c 10y ago
      I'm not picturing post-scarcity or a hyper centralized form of automation. It's a possible path for automation to reach a point where it becomes feasible to allow semi-skilled folks in suburban or rural areas to run a farm, manufacturing plant, energy, mining or foresting outfit of their own for low startup and maintenance costs. Especially if human-level AI and human-level dextrous robotics does not exist yet. Laborers would have a role to play with exoskeletons, being the eyes on the ground, and directing the robotic labor. Technicians would maintain the systems, and managers would organize logistics and resources. And as long as there is industry, there will be all the other types of supplementary businesses and jobs that come with a town.
astrange 10y ago
Cities have more balanced budgets because they produce value, so they actually have something to tax. Residential-only suburbs were built with free money to create the road network, but produce no value, so they're running on loans but can't actually pay for anything. That's why many of had to start using speed traps for income. http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/2/the-cost-of-auto-orientation.html http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/2/the-cost-of-auto... http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/8/25/stroad-nation.html http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/8/25/stroad-nation.h... The Rust Belt may have died, but not because they took too many loans!

tossraccount333 10y ago

Counties are of varying density. Winning a lot of them is in no way indicative of how many voters were on a candidates side. It's already well discussed that Trump did well in rural counties. I don't know what you're trying to argue? Trump lost the popular vote by ~3 million. With the electoral college, winning counties and the popular vote don't matter. As a city dweller, I could sit back and say rural areas are going to die too. They're shrinking, mostly over 50, and the rest of us don't care that they failed to adapt to the changing world and instead dug their heels in, expecting everyone else to build the world in their vision. I grew up in Trumplandia; this was the rhetoric there, from the trailer trash to the local leaders. The world should just leave us alone, we don't care. Except they would start caring if all those urban ports started cutting them off from goods. Which is just pointless rhetoric, lacking empathy. Let's draw deeper, longer lines in the sand. Let's continue instigating division between populations. Yeah OK, that'll lead to more positive outcomes for either side.

mratzloff 10y ago

There are more people in the urban counties than the sparsely-populated rural counties. Cities are growing and are expected to continue growing. Meanwhile, rural areas are dying.[0] What reality do you think people are trying to escape? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_the_Great_Plains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_the_Great_Plai...

drak0n1c 10y ago
A few decades from now I can see the trend reversing. If automation makes living in small to medium sized towns in the country more convenient, lots of people who currently flock to cities out of economic necessity will prefer a less crowded life.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  How many people are flocking to cities out of economic necessity, rather than desire?
  - wott 10y ago
    When people are young, they may be a fair share of desire into moving to a city; but when they "grow up", most of them would like to get out of there and they only stay there because of the job. When I say "most", I am not kidding. A few studies tell that something between 70% and 80% of people living in Paris would like to move away! That's huge.
- astrange 10y ago
  What kind of automation would make it easier to live in a small town? Do you mean a post-scarcity/jobless society? Just having more online services like future-Amazon seems like money would leave the economy and destroy the town faster than building a Walmart does.
  - drak0n1c 10y ago
    I'm not picturing post-scarcity or a hyper centralized form of automation. It's a possible path for automation to reach a point where it becomes feasible to allow semi-skilled folks in suburban or rural areas to run a farm, manufacturing plant, energy, mining or foresting outfit of their own for low startup and maintenance costs. Especially if human-level AI and human-level dextrous robotics does not exist yet. Laborers would have a role to play with exoskeletons, being the eyes on the ground, and directing the robotic labor. Technicians would maintain the systems, and managers would organize logistics and resources. And as long as there is industry, there will be all the other types of supplementary businesses and jobs that come with a town.

astrange 10y ago

Cities have more balanced budgets because they produce value, so they actually have something to tax. Residential-only suburbs were built with free money to create the road network, but produce no value, so they're running on loans but can't actually pay for anything. That's why many of had to start using speed traps for income. http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/2/the-cost-of-auto-orientation.html http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/2/the-cost-of-auto... http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/8/25/stroad-nation.html http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/8/25/stroad-nation.h... The Rust Belt may have died, but not because they took too many loans!