6 ms·

Why shouldn't the world focus on cities? If you're choosing to live in an area where you're geographically separated from other people can you really complain

Why shouldn't the world focus on cities? If you're choosing to live in an area where you're geographically separated from other people can you really complain that you're not receiving benefits from systems that are more optimal when people are clustered together?

hueving 9y ago
>can you really complain that you're not receiving benefits from systems that are more optimal when people are clustered together Yes. Society should always be doing more than what is cost optimal. Cities are only being focused on right now naturally because that's where the rich people are. It wasn't that long ago that inner cities were quite poor and there were people making excuses like you for not investing in them.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  It’s where a large majority of all people are. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States#Historical_statistics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_S...
- KamBha 9y ago
  While I agree that the more investment is probably required in rural areas, I think your assertion that the reason why rural areas are being under funded is incorrect. Reality is that more people now live in urban areas[1]. Democracy being what it is, most funding goes to the majority - which are in the city. Add to that that setting up this infrastructure is often not cost effective for a private business (due to a lack of customers) and that most rural communities prefer less government intervention (ie less taxes), we have a situation where there is little impetus to invest in rural communities by private companies and governments (at least local) don't have funding to pay for service. [1] https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/acs-rural-urban.html https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/acs-...
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Note however that the census definition of "urban" is very broad. I live in a 7,000 population town and between myself and a few neighbors, we're on about 100 acres--not counting adjacent conservation land. We're urban according to the census.
  - hueving 9y ago
    >Democracy being what it is, most funding goes to the majority - which are in the city. Democracy has to be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. It's true that the majority can just vote to line their own pockets and leave the minority in squalor, but that leaves a pretty shitty country leftover. Many of these rural areas look like third-world countries and that's not something us urbanites should be proud of. Scholarship money disproportionately goes to lower income students, but that doesn't mean we should stop giving them scholarship money.
- tbihl 9y ago
  Well, we can all be proud that state governments are both handing out disproportionately large sums of money to rural areas and doing so in ways that crushes any notion of cost optimal. This is done, of course, through infrastructure building, in which rural mucipalities beggar themselves to get state matching for road construction they cant afford to spur on unproductive growth that will turn around to bite them with maintenance costs. Matching makes it sound much better than is the case, since in some cases the state's share of the bill exceeds 90%.
  - hermitdev 9y ago
    I think you need some citations before your claims can be taken seriously.
    - tbihl 9y ago
      Examples that prove insightful to you are a personal matter. Unless you believe it important that spending be apportioned by lane-mile or road inventory (which I'd argue is rife with moral hazard), it is likely that your state effects net infrastructure transfers from urban to rural, as is the case in mine. If it's the 90% figure you doubt, I encourage you to look into some road projects. In Virginia, we have a particularly problematic system where the local contribution is pegged at 2% (see page 52)(though it can vary by project.) You are welcome to read the VA urban (misnomer) maintenance code, though I encourage you to find the one applicable to you, so you can be familiar with the perverse incentives provided in your own area. [http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/local_assistance/Urban_Construction_and_Maintenance_Program_Guidance.pdf http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/local_assistan...]
vanilla_nut 9y ago
Unfortunately, the children of people who choose to live outside of cities don't have a choice in where their parents live.
VLM 9y ago
I thought we ended "Separate but Equal" as a culture half a century ago, but we're back to Jim Crow era in some regards.
Barrin92 9y ago
>choosing to live in an area where you're geographically separated from other people people aren't created out of a vacuum and randomly choose a place to live. What if your 70 year old mother is simply too frail to move to a city? What if you desperately need the monthly paycheck and cannot just go months without pay looking for a job because you care for your child? What if you simply do not want your community to rot away because every abled bodied person runs off to the city? People aren't just amoeba in a lab experiment.
- gilbetron 9y ago
  Honest question: why should people pay for your lifestyle just because you choose it? I live in a small city, but if it stopped being capable of supporting itself and suburbs (somehow) were more sustainable, I would move to them. Sitting in a low per-capita situation is economically infeasible for many, so they should either live with what they have or adapt. I would love to sit around and read fiction for a living, but I can't survive in the lifestyle I enjoy, so I don't. "too frail" to move doesn't make sense - not having enough money does make sense. Look for a job while you have your current one - it is far easier and more successful that way anyway. Country living with a decent lifestyle is for those that have figured out a way to afford it, not for anyone that feels like it. There are options: just because it isn't what you dream of doing doesn't mean it isn't an option.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    You seem to vastly overestimate the choices people have, especially those who live in rural areas where there are more people than jobs, and many people live paycheck to paycheck. You mention "not having enough money" -- yes, that's exactly it, and many (most?) of the people in that situation don't have a way out of it. You can't get a better paying job where you live if there isn't one, or at least isn't one you're qualified for. You can't keep your job at home and travel to a city to interview for a better job if you don't have the money for transportation, or can't get (or afford) the time off to interview.
    - gilbetron 9y ago
thomastjeffery 9y ago
Why should the world focus on cities? Those who are born and raised in rural areas can't just uproot their lives the moment they turn 18 and start to afford, or even enjoy city life. Because the commute is closer? It's still at least as slow in many places, because of traffic problems generated by tighter clusters of people. The idea that cities are the most optimal is an idea, not a proven fact. Your experience may support the idea, but mine certainly does not. The point here is that there are more people living in cities than in rural areas, simply because that has been true for a few generations, and people don't tend to change lifestyles. People who grow up with one lifestyle realize the advantages it provides, and grow up with a bias toward that lifestyle. That bias coupled with the population difference is the real reason the majority of people don't care about rural areas. Personally, I think we should fight that bias.
- Retra 9y ago
  I grew up in a rural town. I left right when I turned 18, and so did most everyone I know. Maybe they shouldn't have let WalMart come in and destroy all the local businesses. Maybe they shouldn't have sold the paper mill to 4 different conglomerates with significant lay-offs each time. And maybe now they shouldn't vote republican in every election like they truly don't give a shit about anybody. Nobody is going back. Nobody is going to help that community recover. The people in charge of that community did everything in their power to make it unappealing for their children, and it will stay that way.
  - rpvnwnkl 9y ago
    Are you from Mexico?
- bllguo 9y ago
  because it's more efficient? The services will help more people because of population density. I mean, the math is obvious. I'm not sure what the argument is. Nobody is saying city folk are more important. There are simply more of them.
  - 9y ago
thousandautumns 9y ago
You are vastly overestimating the amount of control these people have over where they live.

hueving 9y ago

>can you really complain that you're not receiving benefits from systems that are more optimal when people are clustered together Yes. Society should always be doing more than what is cost optimal. Cities are only being focused on right now naturally because that's where the rich people are. It wasn't that long ago that inner cities were quite poor and there were people making excuses like you for not investing in them.

IntronExon 9y ago
It’s where a large majority of all people are. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States#Historical_statistics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_S...
KamBha 9y ago
While I agree that the more investment is probably required in rural areas, I think your assertion that the reason why rural areas are being under funded is incorrect. Reality is that more people now live in urban areas[1]. Democracy being what it is, most funding goes to the majority - which are in the city. Add to that that setting up this infrastructure is often not cost effective for a private business (due to a lack of customers) and that most rural communities prefer less government intervention (ie less taxes), we have a situation where there is little impetus to invest in rural communities by private companies and governments (at least local) don't have funding to pay for service. [1] https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/acs-rural-urban.html https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/acs-...
- ghaff 9y ago
  Note however that the census definition of "urban" is very broad. I live in a 7,000 population town and between myself and a few neighbors, we're on about 100 acres--not counting adjacent conservation land. We're urban according to the census.
- hueving 9y ago
  >Democracy being what it is, most funding goes to the majority - which are in the city. Democracy has to be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. It's true that the majority can just vote to line their own pockets and leave the minority in squalor, but that leaves a pretty shitty country leftover. Many of these rural areas look like third-world countries and that's not something us urbanites should be proud of. Scholarship money disproportionately goes to lower income students, but that doesn't mean we should stop giving them scholarship money.
tbihl 9y ago
Well, we can all be proud that state governments are both handing out disproportionately large sums of money to rural areas and doing so in ways that crushes any notion of cost optimal. This is done, of course, through infrastructure building, in which rural mucipalities beggar themselves to get state matching for road construction they cant afford to spur on unproductive growth that will turn around to bite them with maintenance costs. Matching makes it sound much better than is the case, since in some cases the state's share of the bill exceeds 90%.
- hermitdev 9y ago
  I think you need some citations before your claims can be taken seriously.
  - tbihl 9y ago
    Examples that prove insightful to you are a personal matter. Unless you believe it important that spending be apportioned by lane-mile or road inventory (which I'd argue is rife with moral hazard), it is likely that your state effects net infrastructure transfers from urban to rural, as is the case in mine. If it's the 90% figure you doubt, I encourage you to look into some road projects. In Virginia, we have a particularly problematic system where the local contribution is pegged at 2% (see page 52)(though it can vary by project.) You are welcome to read the VA urban (misnomer) maintenance code, though I encourage you to find the one applicable to you, so you can be familiar with the perverse incentives provided in your own area. [http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/local_assistance/Urban_Construction_and_Maintenance_Program_Guidance.pdf http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/local_assistan...]

vanilla_nut 9y ago

Unfortunately, the children of people who choose to live outside of cities don't have a choice in where their parents live.

VLM 9y ago

I thought we ended "Separate but Equal" as a culture half a century ago, but we're back to Jim Crow era in some regards.

Barrin92 9y ago

>choosing to live in an area where you're geographically separated from other people people aren't created out of a vacuum and randomly choose a place to live. What if your 70 year old mother is simply too frail to move to a city? What if you desperately need the monthly paycheck and cannot just go months without pay looking for a job because you care for your child? What if you simply do not want your community to rot away because every abled bodied person runs off to the city? People aren't just amoeba in a lab experiment.

gilbetron 9y ago
Honest question: why should people pay for your lifestyle just because you choose it? I live in a small city, but if it stopped being capable of supporting itself and suburbs (somehow) were more sustainable, I would move to them. Sitting in a low per-capita situation is economically infeasible for many, so they should either live with what they have or adapt. I would love to sit around and read fiction for a living, but I can't survive in the lifestyle I enjoy, so I don't. "too frail" to move doesn't make sense - not having enough money does make sense. Look for a job while you have your current one - it is far easier and more successful that way anyway. Country living with a decent lifestyle is for those that have figured out a way to afford it, not for anyone that feels like it. There are options: just because it isn't what you dream of doing doesn't mean it isn't an option.
- kelnos 9y ago
  You seem to vastly overestimate the choices people have, especially those who live in rural areas where there are more people than jobs, and many people live paycheck to paycheck. You mention "not having enough money" -- yes, that's exactly it, and many (most?) of the people in that situation don't have a way out of it. You can't get a better paying job where you live if there isn't one, or at least isn't one you're qualified for. You can't keep your job at home and travel to a city to interview for a better job if you don't have the money for transportation, or can't get (or afford) the time off to interview.
  - gilbetron 9y ago

thomastjeffery 9y ago

Why should the world focus on cities? Those who are born and raised in rural areas can't just uproot their lives the moment they turn 18 and start to afford, or even enjoy city life. Because the commute is closer? It's still at least as slow in many places, because of traffic problems generated by tighter clusters of people. The idea that cities are the most optimal is an idea, not a proven fact. Your experience may support the idea, but mine certainly does not. The point here is that there are more people living in cities than in rural areas, simply because that has been true for a few generations, and people don't tend to change lifestyles. People who grow up with one lifestyle realize the advantages it provides, and grow up with a bias toward that lifestyle. That bias coupled with the population difference is the real reason the majority of people don't care about rural areas. Personally, I think we should fight that bias.

Retra 9y ago
I grew up in a rural town. I left right when I turned 18, and so did most everyone I know. Maybe they shouldn't have let WalMart come in and destroy all the local businesses. Maybe they shouldn't have sold the paper mill to 4 different conglomerates with significant lay-offs each time. And maybe now they shouldn't vote republican in every election like they truly don't give a shit about anybody. Nobody is going back. Nobody is going to help that community recover. The people in charge of that community did everything in their power to make it unappealing for their children, and it will stay that way.
- rpvnwnkl 9y ago
  Are you from Mexico?
bllguo 9y ago
because it's more efficient? The services will help more people because of population density. I mean, the math is obvious. I'm not sure what the argument is. Nobody is saying city folk are more important. There are simply more of them.
- 9y ago

thousandautumns 9y ago

You are vastly overestimating the amount of control these people have over where they live.