5 ms·

Having at least some distributed population is a national asset in the event of conflict. Not to mention some people need to live in rural areas due to the nat

Having at least some distributed population is a national asset in the event of conflict. Not to mention some people need to live in rural areas due to the nature of their work. Also, what’s it worth to you to enable rural America to have a similar enough lifestyle to you that you’re both more likely to consider yourselves the same sort of Americans? National cohesion is worth something.

xapata 6y ago
I think there are enough decently-sized metropolitan areas that we'd be distributed well enough. > National cohesion is worth something There's been this bizarre fairytale of the noble yeoman running through American history, as if that were the true national identity. It's never been less true than today. I think a healthy unemployment benefit and permissive neighborhood zoning policies are sufficient to help them transition. If they're not willing to change, maybe their children will be.
- epicureanideal 6y ago
  What in particular do you disagree with about the idea of the noble yeoman? I'm not saying I think every rural person fits this image, but there's some percent that do, at least as I think about it.
  - xapata 6y ago
    That it's relevant, given it's such a tiny portion of the population, or that it's an ideal at all. To me the national identity is a 2nd generation immigrant living in a large metro area. That's what I think of as an American.
    - epicureanideal 6y ago
      According to the statistics [1], second generation immigrants are only about 11% of the United States. (6% adult second-generation, 5% still children.) About 19% of the population lives in rural areas [2]. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_areas_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_areas_in_the_United_Stat...
      - xapata 6y ago
        Not surprisingly, that 11% (plus whatever % is the 1st generation) forms the majority of who I know. It's interesting how people clique. Less than 2% of the US population is involved in agriculture. We've got more immigrants than farmers.

xapata 6y ago

I think there are enough decently-sized metropolitan areas that we'd be distributed well enough. > National cohesion is worth something There's been this bizarre fairytale of the noble yeoman running through American history, as if that were the true national identity. It's never been less true than today. I think a healthy unemployment benefit and permissive neighborhood zoning policies are sufficient to help them transition. If they're not willing to change, maybe their children will be.

epicureanideal 6y ago
What in particular do you disagree with about the idea of the noble yeoman? I'm not saying I think every rural person fits this image, but there's some percent that do, at least as I think about it.
- xapata 6y ago
  That it's relevant, given it's such a tiny portion of the population, or that it's an ideal at all. To me the national identity is a 2nd generation immigrant living in a large metro area. That's what I think of as an American.
  - epicureanideal 6y ago
    According to the statistics [1], second generation immigrants are only about 11% of the United States. (6% adult second-generation, 5% still children.) About 19% of the population lives in rural areas [2]. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_areas_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_areas_in_the_United_Stat...
    - xapata 6y ago
      Not surprisingly, that 11% (plus whatever % is the 1st generation) forms the majority of who I know. It's interesting how people clique. Less than 2% of the US population is involved in agriculture. We've got more immigrants than farmers.