4 ms·

The article was focusing on the environmental impact of different living situations, and rural living is horrifically environmentally unfriendly. It would also

The article was focusing on the environmental impact of different living situations, and rural living is horrifically environmentally unfriendly. It would also be financially untenable if rural areas weren’t massively subsidized by urban economic centers. If you had to pay for the true cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure you use (which would be amortized over very few people due to the low population density) you wouldn’t be bragging about how cheap rural living is.

taborj 8y ago
My friends who have their own well and septic, and only pay for electricity from "the grid", would be very interested to hear how the folks in urban environments are "massively subsidizing" their home and property, and how they're not paying the "true cost" for building and maintaining their property. Related, I looked at a house that had a co-op for water. It was $25 a month and controlled completely by the homeowners, compared with the $100+ I'm paying for water in town where I'm subjected to the whims of the city council. Got any evidence to back up your claims?
- esoterica 8y ago
  How much do you think it costs per person to build a road that 50,000 people use every day vs a road that only sees 5 cars per day? You’re trying to argue that 1+1=3, I am not making a controversial or radical claim when I point out that urban areas subsidize rural ones.
  - taborj 8y ago
    Well, the road that handles 50,000 people will require a ton more maintenance, that I can assure you. Plus, rarely is the county (as it's almost always the county that covers the cost) putting in the road solely for residential use. Most of the time, the roads go somewhere that isn't serviced by another road, and the residential roads are off of those (and often paid for by the residents). Perhaps it's different where you live. But, aside from roads, what other infrastructure is massively subsidized by those in the urban areas?
briHass 8y ago
Don't forget, that rural infrastructure that is being 'subsidized' by urban centers serves a pretty important role in, you know, growing and delivering food consumed by those urban dwellers. Also: electricity production, natural gas extraction, and landfills. All that also requires local workers. How much more do you think the urban populations would be paying for these essential products and services if you wanted to go tit-for-tat?
- notJim 8y ago
  Kinda depends on definitions of rural, but I'd guess the vast majority of people living in rural areas (having grown up in one) are not involved in any kind of food or energy production. Most of them are doing hour-long commutes by car into the city for work.
  - briHass 8y ago
    In those cases, it probably mostly washes out. The commuters are paying taxes for the road use (gasoline taxes) and are also contributing to the tax base of the 'subsidizing' urban areas with local/city taxes on their income earned in the city.

taborj 8y ago

My friends who have their own well and septic, and only pay for electricity from "the grid", would be very interested to hear how the folks in urban environments are "massively subsidizing" their home and property, and how they're not paying the "true cost" for building and maintaining their property. Related, I looked at a house that had a co-op for water. It was $25 a month and controlled completely by the homeowners, compared with the $100+ I'm paying for water in town where I'm subjected to the whims of the city council. Got any evidence to back up your claims?

esoterica 8y ago
How much do you think it costs per person to build a road that 50,000 people use every day vs a road that only sees 5 cars per day? You’re trying to argue that 1+1=3, I am not making a controversial or radical claim when I point out that urban areas subsidize rural ones.
- taborj 8y ago
  Well, the road that handles 50,000 people will require a ton more maintenance, that I can assure you. Plus, rarely is the county (as it's almost always the county that covers the cost) putting in the road solely for residential use. Most of the time, the roads go somewhere that isn't serviced by another road, and the residential roads are off of those (and often paid for by the residents). Perhaps it's different where you live. But, aside from roads, what other infrastructure is massively subsidized by those in the urban areas?

briHass 8y ago

Don't forget, that rural infrastructure that is being 'subsidized' by urban centers serves a pretty important role in, you know, growing and delivering food consumed by those urban dwellers. Also: electricity production, natural gas extraction, and landfills. All that also requires local workers. How much more do you think the urban populations would be paying for these essential products and services if you wanted to go tit-for-tat?

notJim 8y ago
Kinda depends on definitions of rural, but I'd guess the vast majority of people living in rural areas (having grown up in one) are not involved in any kind of food or energy production. Most of them are doing hour-long commutes by car into the city for work.
- briHass 8y ago
  In those cases, it probably mostly washes out. The commuters are paying taxes for the road use (gasoline taxes) and are also contributing to the tax base of the 'subsidizing' urban areas with local/city taxes on their income earned in the city.