5 ms·

This is true and is hardly limited to the Old South. Rural Upstate New York is effectively in the same boat. Frankly I think trying to develop rural America to

This is true and is hardly limited to the Old South. Rural Upstate New York is effectively in the same boat. Frankly I think trying to develop rural America to be economically competitive to urban America is a bad idea wrapped in the cloak of a well-meaning idea. Infrastructure and services and much (like 2-5x) more expensive over a wide area. And you need a LOT of infrastrucute to reasonably support a professional class economy (just think how many specialist lawyers and doctors you would need before you could justify leaving a metro area). Instead, we should focus our attention on lowering the cost of living in cities and enact policies that make it easy for people in rural, poorer areas to move to cities, such as a government-paid waiver on the first few months of rent, or a state-subsidized relocation package. There are a lot of people who would like to move but cannot save up enough to pay for relocation, security deposit, and things like that while they look for metro work. Last time we seriously developed rural America it was in the 1930s, when the needs of an industrial economy were different and primarily the benefit was cheap rural manufacturing labor over costly metro manufacturing labor. But now far cheaper labor and supply chains are in China, so the New Deal framework is moot in this circumstance. Make it easier for rural folks to come to cities, instead of trying to smear cities across the countryside. I can't see any other sustainable solution. That being said, it doesn't mean everybody has to pack up for the coasts. A lot could be done to make inland cities like Indianapolis or Chattanooga or St. Louis more attractive to rural residents of their respective states.

ashark 9y ago
Can confirm that from the perspective of a Midwesterner who grew up largely in smaller towns, one grows up feeling that moving to a major coastal city is nearly impossible. Even as a software developer I have to remind myself that no, really, I could move to one of those places. It's a hard mindset to get out of, and for most, it's also kind of true. Smaller non-coastal cities retain, in the mind of the typical rural midwesterner, a reputation for high crime and violent racial unrest (among those old enough to remember the 60s and 70s, anyway). The former especially isn't entirely undeserved. And anyway, even those are shockingly expensive by rural standards, unless you want to live in the very worst parts of the city where the concerns of high crime and terrible, dangerous schools are especially valid. To say that moving to the city, for most values of "the city", isn't broadly appealing to the rural set, is accurate.
- Tyrek 9y ago
  While I am sympathetic to the cultural forces at play, it seems that most of the anti-city sentiment is from a position of...pickiness? you might call it? If it was literally a choice between starving and moving to a City, I suspect the choice would be much easier. But for most of rural America, the choice is between the misery that you know, and the alien world of 'the city'.
  - mod 9y ago
    Yes, of course. They're not the only picky ones, though. For instance it's very common for income debates on HN to be full of comments about how people "cannot live on 12k/year." Replace 12 with whatever threshold you think it is. But they can, of course. I did for half of my adult life. It's a matter of pickiness. I had roommates I didn't enjoy, I ate rice and beans and ramen, I cooked for myself, I drove beater cars, I had no cell phone or no phone at all. But I always had money in the bank and I could pay my bills. It's a matter of choices. So yes, it's a matter of pickiness about the city. They're destitute in the country, perhaps, but they're living in the home their grandfather built, on the land he farmed, their cousin lives a mile up the dirt road, etc. Many of them aren't unhappy, frankly--people here have decided they are. But they aren't sure they'll make a lot more money by moving to the city, and they're definitely unsure about how they'll like it. My best guess is that most of them wouldn't. I moved away from the city on purpose, so perhaps my perspective is skewed. I would move back before I starved, but not much before that.
  - ashark 9y ago
    The City seems incredibly risky to rural folks, economically speaking. The housing prices seem absolutely insane, and earning enough money to cover it seems impossible. So maybe you land a job first, then move, and it turns out you can (barely) scrape by renting in some place with a roommate in an area where you hear at least one gunshot a week. Great. I mean you heard at least one gunshot a week back home, right? Granted the targets were of another sort, but hey, different strokes. Then something goes wrong, and you don't know anyone (your family and friends are all back in the trailer parks and falling-down family farmhouses back where you came from), and you're a couple weeks away from being out on your ass and trying to decide between spending your remaining time looking for a job so you can keep scraping by, and digging in the couch cushions for money to buy a sandwich and a bus ticket home. That's what low-(valued)-skill rural folks expect from an attempt to move to the city—and it's not the high-(valued)-skill ones who need help. Renting a crappy trailer for a couple hundred a month or living in cousin Eddie's broken RV parked in his A-frame's front yard next to his spare-parts truck, collecting food stamps, and working part-time when you can doesn't seem so bad by comparison.
pm90 9y ago
I don't know if there's much you can do to induce rural folks to move to urban areas. The brightest kids from rural areas go to colleges, get job offers in the Metro, and move. The ones left behind are either those who couldn't get a job offer, go to college or are too old. What would you tell these people to do? There just isn't an easy solution other than an intensive retraining in relevant skills. Or aggressively searching for jobs tailored to the skills they possess. (e.g. I remember reading about JetBlue using suburban stay at home women for handling customer support or something). Also people who are used to their slow-paced, conservative and rural way of life will probably be more than a little shocked by city culture.
wolco 9y ago
The one thing America has is a high rural population compared to say Canada. Moving more people into cities is a bad approach we need to spread people around the country and raise up small towns instead leaving them.
- ashark 9y ago
  > Moving more people into cities is a bad approach we need to spread people around the country and raise up small towns instead leaving them. Why? City-dwelling is, broadly, much cheaper (in terms of infrastructure and services) and more environmentally friendly than other arrangements.
  - riot504 9y ago
    How many services do you need? Schools, hospitals, housing, grocery stores and clothing. The outdoors then becomes your entertainment.
    - ashark 9y ago
      Water, power, communication, unemployment and other poverty support, mail, law enforcement. Everything. Are you arguing rural living comes with cheaper services and less environmental harm, in the typical case? That'd be great, if true. [EDIT] Transportation. Worth including on the list, in particular.
      - riot504 9y ago
        Having lived in small communities all my life, I would say they are cheaper as far less is required. Water, power and communication I am uncertain, though internet appears better in certain smaller communities. You need far less law enforcement as crime is typically lower. Mail might cost more, but that is factored into shipping costs. Smaller towns when done correctly can be more self-sufficient. Within an hour and half driving radius (minimum) from where I live, it is entirely farm land. I believe 90% of the food my family eats comes from these farms and is cheaper. I purchased half a cow recently from a local rancher - 295 lbs of grass fed beef for $1400 total, butcher fees included. Also purchased a whole pig from a local farmer ~250 lbs for $750, butcher fees included. From the same farmer I purchased 8 chickens a month from them at $12 - 15 per chicken from May - September, not cheaper but worth the money. We can get produce, raw milk, cheese and eggs from all the farmers here as well. It takes money up front, planning and a deep freezer but we are supporting the local economy, reducing transportation costs and have locally sources food. If we didn't purchase our meat from the farmers I would hunt, but there isn't a need to do both as a family of four can only eat so much in a year. These are some of the benefits when you downsize to small communities you can know your consumption patterns easier. We haven't been able to do this for everything but this year we have finally figured out the food issue. We still purchase spices, tea and coffee which at the store but those were the first items traded at a global scale if memory serves me correctly. One would think there is enough land in the US to do this, but it would take a major cultural shift in eating patterns and the way we operate - feasible in theory but probably not reality.

ashark 9y ago

Can confirm that from the perspective of a Midwesterner who grew up largely in smaller towns, one grows up feeling that moving to a major coastal city is nearly impossible. Even as a software developer I have to remind myself that no, really, I could move to one of those places. It's a hard mindset to get out of, and for most, it's also kind of true. Smaller non-coastal cities retain, in the mind of the typical rural midwesterner, a reputation for high crime and violent racial unrest (among those old enough to remember the 60s and 70s, anyway). The former especially isn't entirely undeserved. And anyway, even those are shockingly expensive by rural standards, unless you want to live in the very worst parts of the city where the concerns of high crime and terrible, dangerous schools are especially valid. To say that moving to the city, for most values of "the city", isn't broadly appealing to the rural set, is accurate.

Tyrek 9y ago
While I am sympathetic to the cultural forces at play, it seems that most of the anti-city sentiment is from a position of...pickiness? you might call it? If it was literally a choice between starving and moving to a City, I suspect the choice would be much easier. But for most of rural America, the choice is between the misery that you know, and the alien world of 'the city'.
- mod 9y ago
  Yes, of course. They're not the only picky ones, though. For instance it's very common for income debates on HN to be full of comments about how people "cannot live on 12k/year." Replace 12 with whatever threshold you think it is. But they can, of course. I did for half of my adult life. It's a matter of pickiness. I had roommates I didn't enjoy, I ate rice and beans and ramen, I cooked for myself, I drove beater cars, I had no cell phone or no phone at all. But I always had money in the bank and I could pay my bills. It's a matter of choices. So yes, it's a matter of pickiness about the city. They're destitute in the country, perhaps, but they're living in the home their grandfather built, on the land he farmed, their cousin lives a mile up the dirt road, etc. Many of them aren't unhappy, frankly--people here have decided they are. But they aren't sure they'll make a lot more money by moving to the city, and they're definitely unsure about how they'll like it. My best guess is that most of them wouldn't. I moved away from the city on purpose, so perhaps my perspective is skewed. I would move back before I starved, but not much before that.
- ashark 9y ago
  The City seems incredibly risky to rural folks, economically speaking. The housing prices seem absolutely insane, and earning enough money to cover it seems impossible. So maybe you land a job first, then move, and it turns out you can (barely) scrape by renting in some place with a roommate in an area where you hear at least one gunshot a week. Great. I mean you heard at least one gunshot a week back home, right? Granted the targets were of another sort, but hey, different strokes. Then something goes wrong, and you don't know anyone (your family and friends are all back in the trailer parks and falling-down family farmhouses back where you came from), and you're a couple weeks away from being out on your ass and trying to decide between spending your remaining time looking for a job so you can keep scraping by, and digging in the couch cushions for money to buy a sandwich and a bus ticket home. That's what low-(valued)-skill rural folks expect from an attempt to move to the city—and it's not the high-(valued)-skill ones who need help. Renting a crappy trailer for a couple hundred a month or living in cousin Eddie's broken RV parked in his A-frame's front yard next to his spare-parts truck, collecting food stamps, and working part-time when you can doesn't seem so bad by comparison.

pm90 9y ago

I don't know if there's much you can do to induce rural folks to move to urban areas. The brightest kids from rural areas go to colleges, get job offers in the Metro, and move. The ones left behind are either those who couldn't get a job offer, go to college or are too old. What would you tell these people to do? There just isn't an easy solution other than an intensive retraining in relevant skills. Or aggressively searching for jobs tailored to the skills they possess. (e.g. I remember reading about JetBlue using suburban stay at home women for handling customer support or something). Also people who are used to their slow-paced, conservative and rural way of life will probably be more than a little shocked by city culture.

wolco 9y ago

The one thing America has is a high rural population compared to say Canada. Moving more people into cities is a bad approach we need to spread people around the country and raise up small towns instead leaving them.

ashark 9y ago
> Moving more people into cities is a bad approach we need to spread people around the country and raise up small towns instead leaving them. Why? City-dwelling is, broadly, much cheaper (in terms of infrastructure and services) and more environmentally friendly than other arrangements.
- riot504 9y ago
  How many services do you need? Schools, hospitals, housing, grocery stores and clothing. The outdoors then becomes your entertainment.
  - ashark 9y ago
    Water, power, communication, unemployment and other poverty support, mail, law enforcement. Everything. Are you arguing rural living comes with cheaper services and less environmental harm, in the typical case? That'd be great, if true. [EDIT] Transportation. Worth including on the list, in particular.
    - riot504 9y ago
      Having lived in small communities all my life, I would say they are cheaper as far less is required. Water, power and communication I am uncertain, though internet appears better in certain smaller communities. You need far less law enforcement as crime is typically lower. Mail might cost more, but that is factored into shipping costs. Smaller towns when done correctly can be more self-sufficient. Within an hour and half driving radius (minimum) from where I live, it is entirely farm land. I believe 90% of the food my family eats comes from these farms and is cheaper. I purchased half a cow recently from a local rancher - 295 lbs of grass fed beef for $1400 total, butcher fees included. Also purchased a whole pig from a local farmer ~250 lbs for $750, butcher fees included. From the same farmer I purchased 8 chickens a month from them at $12 - 15 per chicken from May - September, not cheaper but worth the money. We can get produce, raw milk, cheese and eggs from all the farmers here as well. It takes money up front, planning and a deep freezer but we are supporting the local economy, reducing transportation costs and have locally sources food. If we didn't purchase our meat from the farmers I would hunt, but there isn't a need to do both as a family of four can only eat so much in a year. These are some of the benefits when you downsize to small communities you can know your consumption patterns easier. We haven't been able to do this for everything but this year we have finally figured out the food issue. We still purchase spices, tea and coffee which at the store but those were the first items traded at a global scale if memory serves me correctly. One would think there is enough land in the US to do this, but it would take a major cultural shift in eating patterns and the way we operate - feasible in theory but probably not reality.