3 ms·

>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

>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...]

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...]