4 ms·
Everything you've stated is true only if you limit your scope to some arbitrary geographical region. If you look at the greater picture, the reality is that mo
by tabeth 9y ago
Everything you've stated is true only if you limit your scope to some arbitrary geographical region.
If you look at the greater picture, the reality is that most land on earth, even land deemed livable, is vacant. There lies the solution to the problem. The only question that remains is: how do we get people to move there?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dsp1234 9y agoit is an enormous problem that requires action on as many fronts as possible. how do we get people to move there? It seems the two of you agree, unless you feel that getting people to move there is a small problem that does not require action on many fronts.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y agoNot really. Moving people sounds good in theory, but sparse communities are much more expensive to maintain. Roads, utilities, services, and the grand daddy of rural poverty: access to health care. Turns out freshly minted M.D.s with six figure student debt prefer not to sacrifice their income by working in rural America. Also, once you move enough people, real estate costs go up again and the problem isn't really solved.
- tabeth 9y agoI don't think freshly minted M.Ds are hardly representative of America. Even if they were, there's a middle ground between sparse rural areas and hyper dense Tokyo's.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y agoYou're missing the point. Rural America is more expensive than urban America, and has fewer and worse quality services. Absent government subsidies for matters such as the provision of roads and utilities, as well as programs like Medicaid that help rural Americans find health care, rural Americans would be dirt poor. I live in upstate New York. I know well the cities, the suburbs, and the rural backcountry. They are truly worlds apart.