3 ms·

I don't know if you've lived in a lot of these places, but most of them are utterly dependent on those population centers to meet their basic medical, financial

I don't know if you've lived in a lot of these places, but most of them are utterly dependent on those population centers to meet their basic medical, financial, and infrastructure needs. The cores in turn need resources from the peripheries to sustain themselves. There's no reason any of this has to be oppositional, except that the rural counties are pissed off about elections and lockdowns right now.

kirillzubovsky 5y ago
I don't quite agree with this view based on what I've seen/heard from small town folks. The narrative that rural counties depend on the centers for their infrastructure needs is a view that was created by the cities. In practice, people is small towns and rural counties are extremely self-sufficient. They know help isn't coming their way, and therefore are totally okay doing what needs to be done to preserve their communities' health. People grow their veggies, raise their own pigs, hold three jobs to pay the bills ...etc. People in small towns really couldn't give 2 f()cks about people from the city, but they get pissed off because city people come and try to tell them what to do. Basically, they've not asked for any help from cities before, so why should they be handed down constrains now? At least that's what I've seen.
- resntoirnetien 5y ago
  > In practice, people is small towns and rural counties are extremely self-sufficient. The narrative that rural counties are extremely self-sufficient is utter-nonsense, cult-like thinking. They don't have the population, tax-base, or non-individualistic thinking to do anything at all. They're dead in the water without outside funding, which comes from the state/county where people actually live/work.
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  Can you be more specific about where you've seen people in eastern Oregon and modoc/siskiyou living on local subsistence agriculture? These areas are mountainous, high altitude, and incredibly arid, not exactly prime agricultural land. That's a big part of why they're so lightly populated. As for jobs, their main employers are typically some combination of tourism, ranching, and most of all, government. Often it's colleges and medical facilities that are the largest employers overall, which critically rely on state funding. I've definitely heard people in these areas who say they don't need doctors, schools, or roads, but hopefully we can agree that it's a silly position and not an argument most people would make.
refurb 5y ago
It’s super interesting that this has become a trope on the left. Why? Because the left loves to talk about socialism and “caring for everyone” and “how much you make doesn’t define your worth”, but they have no issues using it as a weapon against rural folks with different political views - “you don’t pull your weight” and “you should shut up since we’re paying for this”.

kirillzubovsky 5y ago

I don't quite agree with this view based on what I've seen/heard from small town folks. The narrative that rural counties depend on the centers for their infrastructure needs is a view that was created by the cities. In practice, people is small towns and rural counties are extremely self-sufficient. They know help isn't coming their way, and therefore are totally okay doing what needs to be done to preserve their communities' health. People grow their veggies, raise their own pigs, hold three jobs to pay the bills ...etc. People in small towns really couldn't give 2 f()cks about people from the city, but they get pissed off because city people come and try to tell them what to do. Basically, they've not asked for any help from cities before, so why should they be handed down constrains now? At least that's what I've seen.

resntoirnetien 5y ago
> In practice, people is small towns and rural counties are extremely self-sufficient. The narrative that rural counties are extremely self-sufficient is utter-nonsense, cult-like thinking. They don't have the population, tax-base, or non-individualistic thinking to do anything at all. They're dead in the water without outside funding, which comes from the state/county where people actually live/work.
AlotOfReading 5y ago
Can you be more specific about where you've seen people in eastern Oregon and modoc/siskiyou living on local subsistence agriculture? These areas are mountainous, high altitude, and incredibly arid, not exactly prime agricultural land. That's a big part of why they're so lightly populated. As for jobs, their main employers are typically some combination of tourism, ranching, and most of all, government. Often it's colleges and medical facilities that are the largest employers overall, which critically rely on state funding. I've definitely heard people in these areas who say they don't need doctors, schools, or roads, but hopefully we can agree that it's a silly position and not an argument most people would make.

refurb 5y ago

It’s super interesting that this has become a trope on the left. Why? Because the left loves to talk about socialism and “caring for everyone” and “how much you make doesn’t define your worth”, but they have no issues using it as a weapon against rural folks with different political views - “you don’t pull your weight” and “you should shut up since we’re paying for this”.