5 ms·

>Given the article's mention of Rural vs Urban I lean towards the belief that this is driven by a sense of both conservative values in government and probably a

>Given the article's mention of Rural vs Urban I lean towards the belief that this is driven by a sense of both conservative values in government and probably a lack of understanding in how the government of the people serves the people. More precisely how taxes and math work. Given the metastasizing of the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sections of the economy, and their typical concentration in urban areas, I'd say that rural areas are basically in the same position as a colony to a colonial power. Shipping cheap raw materials to the cities, who in turn own the shares, banks, and mortgages, has always been pretty common. Of course, if you are in favor of colonialism....

UncleOxidant 5y ago
A different lens to view this through has to do with economic and population shifts over the last century. Specifically the huge increase in agricultural productivity. "In 1900, just under 40 percent of the total US population lived on farms, and 60 percent lived in rural areas. Today, the respective figures are only about 1 percent and 20 percent." [1] That's a large erosion of political and economic power in those rural areas as more people moved out of agriculture into other industries that tend to be located in population centers. Not sure how that changes unless we move away from large corporate farms back to smaller family farms (See various Wendall Berry essays and novels where he lays out what's happened to rural areas over the last century as family farms have dwindled), however, that seems very unlikely. [1] http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/the-evolution-of-american-agriculture http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/the-evolution-of-americ...
- teclordphrack2 5y ago
  The current definition of what is urban vs rural is very shaky. I don't think when theses numbers are brought up there is an understanding of what counted as rural then and what counts as rural now.
  - kingsuper20 5y ago
    In addition there's urban and there's urban. Remove the imperial capitals (DC or London) or financial capitals (London or New York) and the next tier down ain't so much.

UncleOxidant 5y ago

A different lens to view this through has to do with economic and population shifts over the last century. Specifically the huge increase in agricultural productivity. "In 1900, just under 40 percent of the total US population lived on farms, and 60 percent lived in rural areas. Today, the respective figures are only about 1 percent and 20 percent." [1] That's a large erosion of political and economic power in those rural areas as more people moved out of agriculture into other industries that tend to be located in population centers. Not sure how that changes unless we move away from large corporate farms back to smaller family farms (See various Wendall Berry essays and novels where he lays out what's happened to rural areas over the last century as family farms have dwindled), however, that seems very unlikely. [1] http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/the-evolution-of-american-agriculture http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/the-evolution-of-americ...

teclordphrack2 5y ago
The current definition of what is urban vs rural is very shaky. I don't think when theses numbers are brought up there is an understanding of what counted as rural then and what counts as rural now.
- kingsuper20 5y ago
  In addition there's urban and there's urban. Remove the imperial capitals (DC or London) or financial capitals (London or New York) and the next tier down ain't so much.