4 ms·

The interests of rural people in the US are, depending on the state, protected by the electoral college and Senate allocation. Look for more attempts to abolish

The interests of rural people in the US are, depending on the state, protected by the electoral college and Senate allocation. Look for more attempts to abolish these things, which would be civil war-risking changes to government. To me there's no reason that old, beautiful towns couldn't become parts of the information economy, as long as they have decent internet access and are within an hour or two of a decent airport. I also think that sheer class disdain is part of the problem with regional inequality. Many media contributors in the US -- almost always in the major cities -- have recounted the apparent economic success of these same cities with an almost gloating tone, putting themselves on the "winning" side of an inevitable historical progression.

ip26 8y ago
A nearby university is a common requirement for tech companies looking for new pastures.
int_19h 8y ago
> The interests of rural people in the US are, depending on the state, protected by the electoral college and Senate allocation. Look for more attempts to abolish these things, which would be civil war-risking changes to government. The reason why there are attempts to abolish these things is because rural states have, arguably, been abusing that advantage to the point where the larger states are getting frustrated. The situation where a minority of a population can not just veto the majority policies, but impose its own, even in face of the supermajority (the US system allows the constitution to be amended with support of less than 25% people, so long as they vote in the right places), is not going to be sustainable for long. And, by the way, the people who have set the system up knew that putting it on paper is not enough. There's a warning in the Federalist Papers (#22): "It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration." Originally it was about something else, but in a very similar context (small states trying to get a unicameral 1-vote-per-state).

ip26 8y ago

A nearby university is a common requirement for tech companies looking for new pastures.

int_19h 8y ago

> The interests of rural people in the US are, depending on the state, protected by the electoral college and Senate allocation. Look for more attempts to abolish these things, which would be civil war-risking changes to government. The reason why there are attempts to abolish these things is because rural states have, arguably, been abusing that advantage to the point where the larger states are getting frustrated. The situation where a minority of a population can not just veto the majority policies, but impose its own, even in face of the supermajority (the US system allows the constitution to be amended with support of less than 25% people, so long as they vote in the right places), is not going to be sustainable for long. And, by the way, the people who have set the system up knew that putting it on paper is not enough. There's a warning in the Federalist Papers (#22): "It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration." Originally it was about something else, but in a very similar context (small states trying to get a unicameral 1-vote-per-state).