5 ms·

> The question is to what extent should grid connections to new rural homes be subsidised by taxpayers, which is of course a political decision 100% agree. Not

> The question is to what extent should grid connections to new rural homes be subsidised by taxpayers, which is of course a political decision 100% agree. Not only that, but rural development is inherently connected to these other subsidies. Rural populations tend to have worse education, worse health outcomes, and more expensive roads/mile/capita. Not to mention the negative political externalities rural populations produce (maybe a modern US-only phenomenon).

mindslight 5y ago
> the negative political externalities rural populations produce I'd argue that the causality goes the other way - people move to rural areas to escape the demands of the high-interdependency core. And I'd say much of our political divide is from that highly connected core extending its influence into the previously left-alone areas, first through broadcast media consolidation and now through social media and its consolidation.
- nknezek 5y ago
  I agree that many people move away from cities to "escape", but it's important to recognize that for many decades now, rural residents have received significantly more benefits from the government than they pay in taxes, while urban dwellers pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Essentially, those who live in cities are living within their means and subsidizing those who live in rural areas. From an economic perspective, rural areas are still highly connected and interdependent - think roads, infrastructure, food, water, electricity, internet, transport networks. Those who move from cities to rural areas to "escape the demands of the high-interdependency core" simply shift from majority "producing" to majority "receiving" benefits from our interdependent society. I'm a huge fan of rural living, but it is expensive. We as a society have decided to subsidize it to various degrees. I'm OK with this, but also think cheap, individual solutions should be used when feasible. For example, sewer lines are very expensive in rural areas, so most houses maintain their own septic tank. Rural houses often use a Propane tank they refill rather than a gas line hookup. They often have their own well for water. Thus, the high grid-connection fees in the article make sense, as rural residents can just build their own off-grid electricity production.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    I agree with most of your comment, but it's a bit too judgemental. The main political wedge we're facing is the absolute destruction of the manufacturing-production economy (which requires open space and other distributed capital), in favor of the finance-metagame economy (which doesn't). In this wider context talking about subsidies is a bit disingenuous, because if we had a balanced economy then resources would be flowing to the rural areas from the urban areas as revenue of private companies. Instead, most of the resources for building out non-urban infrastructure are flowing abroad, while the little remaining bit trying to mitigate the hollowing out gets called a subsidy. It's easy to get frustrated with the regressive hypocritical politics, especially with the last few years of objectively utter nonsense. But if that is ever going to get fixed it's going to require even more resources going to rural areas to alleviate the poverty driving the anger and spite. Ideally this would happen by fixing the market dynamics, but really it needs to happen any way possible.
    - nknezek 5y ago
      I understand your point - farming, mining, and manufacturing are all essential economic activities that have largely shifted overseas post-WWII. This has hollowed the rural economy in US and other western nations while also making goods vastly cheaper and bringing billions out of poverty worldwide. In my mind I am very willing to help and support many parts of a community and society. We need all sorts of work to build a society - finance, tech, manufacturing, non-remunerated work (raising children, etc). I’m in favor of gov investment in infrastructure as I believe it helps all of us grow. Same with healthcare and education. But it is _very_ important to make these benefits transparent and clear, otherwise we end up in the situation we now face, where the same voters that would be most helped by these investments argue against such programs and are strongly anti-government (see Trump, Brexit, Jan 6, etc).
      - mindslight 5y ago
        > But it is _very_ important to make these benefits transparent and clear, otherwise we end up in the situation we now face I strongly disagree on the causality here. The red state subsidies are a blue team talking point. To the extent the reality gets through to the red team, it's anticonvincing because the main thing they feel they're missing is self determination. Telling them to be appreciative of federal welfare, and they can get even more of it (eg UBI), is the exact opposite of what they want. They want purpose, hence the attraction to regressive ideologies promising that there is purpose to their suffering. Purpose cannot be provided by overt direct subsidies - it can only come from the feeling of earning one's way, regardless of the truth of the matter (eg how the metagame industries suffice). By extension this means revitalization of rural economies, no matter how artificial. Then again after decades of ZIRP what does "artificial" even mean?
- 8note 5y ago
  Is there data on people moving from urban to rural areas?
anamax 5y ago
> Not to mention the negative political externalities rural populations produce (maybe a modern US-only phenomenon). So you'd be happy with them if they agreed with you politically.... I do appreciate the honesty.
- vehemenz 5y ago
  That's not what I'm getting at. When a sizeable portion of the rural population are subject to conspiracy theories and misinformation and worships an incompetent slob, these effects can undermine the power of the government. This isn't mere "disagreement," unless the Overton window is that large now. As another poster suggested, I could have the causality backwards. Either way, the rural population is where the problem lives.

mindslight 5y ago

> the negative political externalities rural populations produce I'd argue that the causality goes the other way - people move to rural areas to escape the demands of the high-interdependency core. And I'd say much of our political divide is from that highly connected core extending its influence into the previously left-alone areas, first through broadcast media consolidation and now through social media and its consolidation.

nknezek 5y ago
I agree that many people move away from cities to "escape", but it's important to recognize that for many decades now, rural residents have received significantly more benefits from the government than they pay in taxes, while urban dwellers pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Essentially, those who live in cities are living within their means and subsidizing those who live in rural areas. From an economic perspective, rural areas are still highly connected and interdependent - think roads, infrastructure, food, water, electricity, internet, transport networks. Those who move from cities to rural areas to "escape the demands of the high-interdependency core" simply shift from majority "producing" to majority "receiving" benefits from our interdependent society. I'm a huge fan of rural living, but it is expensive. We as a society have decided to subsidize it to various degrees. I'm OK with this, but also think cheap, individual solutions should be used when feasible. For example, sewer lines are very expensive in rural areas, so most houses maintain their own septic tank. Rural houses often use a Propane tank they refill rather than a gas line hookup. They often have their own well for water. Thus, the high grid-connection fees in the article make sense, as rural residents can just build their own off-grid electricity production.
- mindslight 5y ago
  I agree with most of your comment, but it's a bit too judgemental. The main political wedge we're facing is the absolute destruction of the manufacturing-production economy (which requires open space and other distributed capital), in favor of the finance-metagame economy (which doesn't). In this wider context talking about subsidies is a bit disingenuous, because if we had a balanced economy then resources would be flowing to the rural areas from the urban areas as revenue of private companies. Instead, most of the resources for building out non-urban infrastructure are flowing abroad, while the little remaining bit trying to mitigate the hollowing out gets called a subsidy. It's easy to get frustrated with the regressive hypocritical politics, especially with the last few years of objectively utter nonsense. But if that is ever going to get fixed it's going to require even more resources going to rural areas to alleviate the poverty driving the anger and spite. Ideally this would happen by fixing the market dynamics, but really it needs to happen any way possible.
  - nknezek 5y ago
    I understand your point - farming, mining, and manufacturing are all essential economic activities that have largely shifted overseas post-WWII. This has hollowed the rural economy in US and other western nations while also making goods vastly cheaper and bringing billions out of poverty worldwide. In my mind I am very willing to help and support many parts of a community and society. We need all sorts of work to build a society - finance, tech, manufacturing, non-remunerated work (raising children, etc). I’m in favor of gov investment in infrastructure as I believe it helps all of us grow. Same with healthcare and education. But it is _very_ important to make these benefits transparent and clear, otherwise we end up in the situation we now face, where the same voters that would be most helped by these investments argue against such programs and are strongly anti-government (see Trump, Brexit, Jan 6, etc).
    - mindslight 5y ago
      > But it is _very_ important to make these benefits transparent and clear, otherwise we end up in the situation we now face I strongly disagree on the causality here. The red state subsidies are a blue team talking point. To the extent the reality gets through to the red team, it's anticonvincing because the main thing they feel they're missing is self determination. Telling them to be appreciative of federal welfare, and they can get even more of it (eg UBI), is the exact opposite of what they want. They want purpose, hence the attraction to regressive ideologies promising that there is purpose to their suffering. Purpose cannot be provided by overt direct subsidies - it can only come from the feeling of earning one's way, regardless of the truth of the matter (eg how the metagame industries suffice). By extension this means revitalization of rural economies, no matter how artificial. Then again after decades of ZIRP what does "artificial" even mean?
8note 5y ago
Is there data on people moving from urban to rural areas?

anamax 5y ago

> Not to mention the negative political externalities rural populations produce (maybe a modern US-only phenomenon). So you'd be happy with them if they agreed with you politically.... I do appreciate the honesty.

vehemenz 5y ago
That's not what I'm getting at. When a sizeable portion of the rural population are subject to conspiracy theories and misinformation and worships an incompetent slob, these effects can undermine the power of the government. This isn't mere "disagreement," unless the Overton window is that large now. As another poster suggested, I could have the causality backwards. Either way, the rural population is where the problem lives.