3 ms·
Better to subsidize moving these folks to rural "cities" where the stores are if you're going to be spending the money, right? Unless you're also discouraging m
by shantly 7y ago
Better to subsidize moving these folks to rural "cities" where the stores are if you're going to be spending the money, right? Unless you're also discouraging more people from moving out into the sticks unless they can afford/are OK with the costs (actual, unsubsidized costs—so, more than it costs now) & challenges of living there, so the delivery subsidy program naturally tapers off over time.
Otherwise you're committing to indefinitely subsidizing inefficient living (again, fine if people can and want to bear those costs themselves, but IDK why we'd subsidize it, especially more than we already do)
- kkarakk 7y agoPeople will NEVER support a government that asks them to move. That's the whole reason these towns exist. Look at China - they literally forcibly relocate people at economic gunpoint(their jobs will be moved and their homes will no longer exist by this date, their choice of what to do) and somethings actual gunpoint. That comes with a whole slew of societal issues. The elderly simple cannot adjust to different lifestyles, they freak out.
- mjevans 7y agoAsks -> helps / co-ordinates (a planned and orderly shutdown of towns that are no longer necessary).
- bluGill 7y agoThat isn't possible. Rural areas exist to serve farms which need a lot of land and only a few people per unit of land. The farmers in the area need mechanics, teachers for their kids, and all the other things you expect in a town including groceries. All of the above of course depend on each other for the same types of things, but there are not a lot of people in total. Of course there are also people in rural areas who really would be better off if they could move in most ways. However one way they would be worse off is the need to find new friends.