3 ms·

> The effective subsidies to rural living matter on a daily basis - rural life would essentially end without them. It would also mean the end of most cities as

> The effective subsidies to rural living matter on a daily basis - rural life would essentially end without them. It would also mean the end of most cities as there would be no one to feed them. So who is subsidizing whose lifestyle again?

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
It's far from clear to me that most of the rural population, however you define it, is directly (and maybe not even indirectly) involved in agriculture. The census puts the rural population at 60 million. Self-employed nand family farm labor is at about 2 million, hired farm labor is about a little over a million, bringing the total for farms to a bit over 3 million. Granted, there's many other agriculturally related jobs that also exist in rural areas. I've heard an estimate that only about 1% of the population is now involved in food production overall, which would be about 30 million. So at best we could say that the cities need about half the current rural population to feed them. That's a glib assessment of course - it would imply no communities other than farms themselves. But I don't think its reasonable to assume or claim that most of the rural population is involved in things of direct importance to cities. Presumably there's some economic value, otherwise the population would drop even further, but its certainly not just food, and food by itself isn't a justification.
- kolanos 7y ago
  > That's a glib assessment of course - it would imply no communities other than farms themselves. But I don't think its reasonable to assume or claim that most of the rural population is involved in things of direct importance to cities. Presumably there's some economic value, otherwise the population would drop even further, but its certainly not just food, and food by itself isn't a justification. It's not just food, to be sure. Gas, electricity, water, minerals and all sorts of other resources largely come from rural areas and are transported to urban areas. > I don't think its reasonable to assume or claim that most of the rural population is involved in things of direct importance to cities. Excluding the elderly, unemployed and children I'd say a vast majority of the rural population are very much involved in things of direct importance to cities.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    If they don't want to sell us things, we can buy them from other places. This is all leading to the dissolution of the us. I'm getting to the point that I am tired of subsidizing the lifestyles of people living fantasies of self-protection in the countryside, including where I lived as a kid. Big cities (including the ones where I live) have a large amount of tax revenue that goes to pay for health care, hospitals, roads, bridges, education for people in small towns. My small town last all their factory jobs and it's increasingly just old people in a shrinking place.

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago

It's far from clear to me that most of the rural population, however you define it, is directly (and maybe not even indirectly) involved in agriculture. The census puts the rural population at 60 million. Self-employed nand family farm labor is at about 2 million, hired farm labor is about a little over a million, bringing the total for farms to a bit over 3 million. Granted, there's many other agriculturally related jobs that also exist in rural areas. I've heard an estimate that only about 1% of the population is now involved in food production overall, which would be about 30 million. So at best we could say that the cities need about half the current rural population to feed them. That's a glib assessment of course - it would imply no communities other than farms themselves. But I don't think its reasonable to assume or claim that most of the rural population is involved in things of direct importance to cities. Presumably there's some economic value, otherwise the population would drop even further, but its certainly not just food, and food by itself isn't a justification.

kolanos 7y ago
> That's a glib assessment of course - it would imply no communities other than farms themselves. But I don't think its reasonable to assume or claim that most of the rural population is involved in things of direct importance to cities. Presumably there's some economic value, otherwise the population would drop even further, but its certainly not just food, and food by itself isn't a justification. It's not just food, to be sure. Gas, electricity, water, minerals and all sorts of other resources largely come from rural areas and are transported to urban areas. > I don't think its reasonable to assume or claim that most of the rural population is involved in things of direct importance to cities. Excluding the elderly, unemployed and children I'd say a vast majority of the rural population are very much involved in things of direct importance to cities.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  If they don't want to sell us things, we can buy them from other places. This is all leading to the dissolution of the us. I'm getting to the point that I am tired of subsidizing the lifestyles of people living fantasies of self-protection in the countryside, including where I lived as a kid. Big cities (including the ones where I live) have a large amount of tax revenue that goes to pay for health care, hospitals, roads, bridges, education for people in small towns. My small town last all their factory jobs and it's increasingly just old people in a shrinking place.