4 ms·

Why should rural lifestyle be subsidized ?

by aaronblohowiak 6y ago

baq 6y ago
Because dense urban is unsustainable without sparse rural providing food?
giantg2 6y ago
Why should any lifestyle be subsidized? Subsidies happen for rural and urban individuals.
stetrain 6y ago
Because not everyone has full freedom in deciding where to live, and access to broadband is a positive factor for financial mobility and economic activity.
serf 6y ago
(playing devils' advocate) City/population-center living is wildly inefficient for a host of reasons, and a dollar of urban development towards a major metropolis goes much less far than a dollar of urban development for a rural community. We deal with the inadequacies of living in such big population dense areas because we want to; not because it's efficient. Turns out it's not efficient to stack up as many people vertically as possible. It over-burdens local municipal systems to the point of skyrocketing economic costs, creates more job scarcity due to sheer population and high real-estate costs, and creates untenable situations during times where population density is a net-negative, like during a pandemic. Rural living has major problems too; lack of access to high quality services and travel come to mind -- but these are things that can be improved upon, and by every metric these things are improving. There is no such game-plan for dealing with the burdens of heavy density populations mid-city; it's considered to be a fact of life.
- xxpor 6y ago
  >We deal with the inadequacies of living in such big population dense areas because we want to; not because it's efficient. >Turns out it's not efficient to stack up as many people vertically as possible. >It over-burdens local municipal systems to the point of skyrocketing economic costs, creates more job scarcity due to sheer population and high real-estate costs, and creates untenable situations during times where population density is a net-negative, like during a pandemic. These are all exactly the opposite of true? It's very efficient to stack people vertically. What's not efficient is delivering sewer service to people whose houses are a half mile apart or having someone drive 60 miles round trip in a single occupancy vehicle to get to work every day.
- gamegoblin 6y ago
  Can you provide a source with actual numbers on the inefficiency of cities?

Why should rural lifestyle be subsidized ?

baq 6y ago

Because dense urban is unsustainable without sparse rural providing food?

giantg2 6y ago

Why should any lifestyle be subsidized? Subsidies happen for rural and urban individuals.

stetrain 6y ago

Because not everyone has full freedom in deciding where to live, and access to broadband is a positive factor for financial mobility and economic activity.

serf 6y ago

(playing devils' advocate) City/population-center living is wildly inefficient for a host of reasons, and a dollar of urban development towards a major metropolis goes much less far than a dollar of urban development for a rural community. We deal with the inadequacies of living in such big population dense areas because we want to; not because it's efficient. Turns out it's not efficient to stack up as many people vertically as possible. It over-burdens local municipal systems to the point of skyrocketing economic costs, creates more job scarcity due to sheer population and high real-estate costs, and creates untenable situations during times where population density is a net-negative, like during a pandemic. Rural living has major problems too; lack of access to high quality services and travel come to mind -- but these are things that can be improved upon, and by every metric these things are improving. There is no such game-plan for dealing with the burdens of heavy density populations mid-city; it's considered to be a fact of life.

xxpor 6y ago
>We deal with the inadequacies of living in such big population dense areas because we want to; not because it's efficient. >Turns out it's not efficient to stack up as many people vertically as possible. >It over-burdens local municipal systems to the point of skyrocketing economic costs, creates more job scarcity due to sheer population and high real-estate costs, and creates untenable situations during times where population density is a net-negative, like during a pandemic. These are all exactly the opposite of true? It's very efficient to stack people vertically. What's not efficient is delivering sewer service to people whose houses are a half mile apart or having someone drive 60 miles round trip in a single occupancy vehicle to get to work every day.
gamegoblin 6y ago
Can you provide a source with actual numbers on the inefficiency of cities?