5 ms·

> The entire federal system in the US is built to favor rural areas That’s because those who choose not to live in filthy crime ridden cities shouldn’t have to

by coolso 5y ago

> The entire federal system in the US is built to favor rural areas That’s because those who choose not to live in filthy crime ridden cities shouldn’t have to suffer from the lowest common denominator laws and high taxes said cities “require” to not fall apart since people aren’t meant to live that close together.

scarface74 5y ago
Yet snd still it’s rural America that’s subsidized by those “filthy cities” where all of the economic activity is taking place. I’m not going to even mention the opioid epidemic in rural America is killing far more people than in the inner city. But why should the minority get to dictate policies if the majority? Is rural America willing to get rid of all of the farm subsidies? The unneeded military bases that the military is trying to close but politicians don’t let them?
- BirAdam 5y ago
  Most rural Americans would be willing to get rid of subsidies if the government was also willing to control inflation, pass right to repair so that equipment costs for farmers weren’t so high, and if government didn’t put quotas on the production of other crops. This before getting into monopolies that exist in the agricultural sector who lobby to keep the government from changing things and in many cases those companies have engaged in regulatory capture. People love to be pro-whatever but unless you’ve lived among the farmers and heard the crap they put up with you shouldn’t really be mouthing off on the topic. It’s complex with good and bad from corporate interest and government. This isn’t a matter of more or less government involvement, or of more or less market freedom… it’s fundamentally about a need for all of these interests to actually take the time to see the struggles farmers face before taking more action. The right to repair is a great example of this working well, where people did listen and John Deere may get a good come-uppance. One last thing, the way you worded that first part of your comment makes you sound like someone prejudiced against the rural poor. Nice and classist style. That is precisely why the majority of rural Americans hate urban Americans so much.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    No, they wouldn't be. I don't think you understand the full extent of subsidies that rural areas receive. Even with right to repair, and perpetual 2% inflation, the entire agricultural lifestyle in the US would crumble. There are no production quotas in the US, except on sugar. There are limits to subsidies, however. I know how the life of farmers goes, and not just in the US. You just have no idea what it looks like when what you're asking for happens. There is a reason that no major economy doesn't have agricultural subsidies. If those went away, US exports of agricultural products would essentially go to zero. But agricultural subsidies are far from the only, and perhaps not even the largest, type of subsidy that farmers receive. Indeed, farms in the US are greatly under-taxed. Despite the median farm household income being much higher than the overall median household income, farming households on average pay around 14% in income taxes, around 4900$ in property taxes. This is is much lower than the tax load of the average US household, and much lower still than the tax load of the average US household of the same income. Thus, if you wanted to actually end the support that farms are getting, you would also need to raise taxes on farms significantly, and cut subsidies. Then you'd also have the fact that the average farmer requires much costlier infrastructure than the average city dweller in per-capita equivalents. Would it really be possible for US farms to make a living if their taxes were almost doubled, if all subsidies were ended, and if prices were allowed to fluctuate? The answer is, definitely, absolutely, not at all.
- coolso 5y ago
  > Yet snd still it’s rural America that’s subsidized by those “filthy cities” where all of the economic activity is taking place. If you don't think rural America would trade those subsidies in the blink of an eye for the dissolution of those cities into their own separate union or something, you really don't know rural America. > But why should the minority get to dictate policies if the majority? Because a few pinprick-sized geographical locations overflowing with millions of people who think that's how everyone should live / does live (it's not) shouldn't get to dictate the policies of the entire rest of the country that is living in relative peace and comfort away from such overpopulated, crime-ridden areas with extremely high costs of living and an overall terrible QoL. Look at any US-wide election map, by county; see how few areas are truly blue. The homogeneous state of southern California should not get to decide how the rest of us live/suffer. The founders knew what they were doing.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Whatever they would do is irrelevant. If those things did happen, farmers would go into bankruptcy en masse and be utterly financially ruined. Whether they know this or not isn't relevant.
  - pnutjam 5y ago
    There has never been a "rural" empire. You're basically advocating a return to serfdom. Breaking the links between cities and rural areas will just strand people in rural areas. Cities will get fed, they have the people and the might. The current system is way more beneficial to rural people then any alternative.
    - nec4b 5y ago
      By whom will they get fed?
      - pnutjam 5y ago
        Take a look at the Irish potato famine for a good example.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
How close are people meant to live to each other? Source?
- coolso 5y ago
  > Source? Every single violent and property crime statistic ever.
  - croon 5y ago
    What do you think is the causality?
axiomsEnd 5y ago
The problem is that people for some reason are living in cities for thousands of years and this helped in progres of science/technology/art. It's a symbiotic, not parasitic relationship.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  It's both as there are good things and bad things about living in cities and it certainly isn't for everyone.
nkrisc 5y ago
Perhaps state/federal assistance, benefits, and investment should also be proportional to tax revenue as well. Don't want to pay taxes? Fine, you're on your own. Rural areas receive all kinds of investment and subsidies that far exceed their contribution in taxes. Fortunately for everybody, things don't work that way. Consider California, who's GDP would rank it among most countries. Most of the economic activity in the state is concentrated in the large, coastal cities. This generates massive amounts of state and federal taxes that rural areas ultimately benefit from. Cities pay for your rural lifestyle. You're welcome. No need to thank us, we're all in this together.
sudosysgen 5y ago
If you really want to see it in a zero sum way, which I disagree with, you need to realize that those living in suburbia or in rural areas are the lowest common denominators. Paying for their lifestyle is why taxes in cities are so high and why laws in cities are so harsh. It is logistically impossible for the people that live outside cities to have anywhere near the quality of life they currently enjoy without the existence of people living in cities. Indeed, without subsidies paid for by city folk, agricultural prices would plummet and become unstable, which would greatly hamper the prosperity of anyone related to the agricultural sector. Without cities, it would also be impossible to pay for the infrastructure enjoyed by suburbia and rural areas. The amount and quality of roads would have to decrease drastically, and suburbs would have to pay multiple times more for running water, electricity infrastructure, wastewater management (you would have to move to a septic tank with all of the costs those entail). This would have knock-on effects increasing the prices of all goods and it would make transportation either very expensive or impossible. This would lead to a complete collapse of rural and suburban life in North America. If you want to know what that would look like, you can envision life in rural China, or somewhat worse even. Urbanisation is absolutely necessary for the quality of life you enjoy. In the relationship, despite it being mutually beneficial, those who live in rural areas are the ones who are moreso compensated. As for suburbia, it's not clear that it is beneficial at all to those who live in cities.

by coolso 5y ago

scarface74 5y ago

Yet snd still it’s rural America that’s subsidized by those “filthy cities” where all of the economic activity is taking place. I’m not going to even mention the opioid epidemic in rural America is killing far more people than in the inner city. But why should the minority get to dictate policies if the majority? Is rural America willing to get rid of all of the farm subsidies? The unneeded military bases that the military is trying to close but politicians don’t let them?

BirAdam 5y ago
Most rural Americans would be willing to get rid of subsidies if the government was also willing to control inflation, pass right to repair so that equipment costs for farmers weren’t so high, and if government didn’t put quotas on the production of other crops. This before getting into monopolies that exist in the agricultural sector who lobby to keep the government from changing things and in many cases those companies have engaged in regulatory capture. People love to be pro-whatever but unless you’ve lived among the farmers and heard the crap they put up with you shouldn’t really be mouthing off on the topic. It’s complex with good and bad from corporate interest and government. This isn’t a matter of more or less government involvement, or of more or less market freedom… it’s fundamentally about a need for all of these interests to actually take the time to see the struggles farmers face before taking more action. The right to repair is a great example of this working well, where people did listen and John Deere may get a good come-uppance. One last thing, the way you worded that first part of your comment makes you sound like someone prejudiced against the rural poor. Nice and classist style. That is precisely why the majority of rural Americans hate urban Americans so much.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  No, they wouldn't be. I don't think you understand the full extent of subsidies that rural areas receive. Even with right to repair, and perpetual 2% inflation, the entire agricultural lifestyle in the US would crumble. There are no production quotas in the US, except on sugar. There are limits to subsidies, however. I know how the life of farmers goes, and not just in the US. You just have no idea what it looks like when what you're asking for happens. There is a reason that no major economy doesn't have agricultural subsidies. If those went away, US exports of agricultural products would essentially go to zero. But agricultural subsidies are far from the only, and perhaps not even the largest, type of subsidy that farmers receive. Indeed, farms in the US are greatly under-taxed. Despite the median farm household income being much higher than the overall median household income, farming households on average pay around 14% in income taxes, around 4900$ in property taxes. This is is much lower than the tax load of the average US household, and much lower still than the tax load of the average US household of the same income. Thus, if you wanted to actually end the support that farms are getting, you would also need to raise taxes on farms significantly, and cut subsidies. Then you'd also have the fact that the average farmer requires much costlier infrastructure than the average city dweller in per-capita equivalents. Would it really be possible for US farms to make a living if their taxes were almost doubled, if all subsidies were ended, and if prices were allowed to fluctuate? The answer is, definitely, absolutely, not at all.
coolso 5y ago
> Yet snd still it’s rural America that’s subsidized by those “filthy cities” where all of the economic activity is taking place. If you don't think rural America would trade those subsidies in the blink of an eye for the dissolution of those cities into their own separate union or something, you really don't know rural America. > But why should the minority get to dictate policies if the majority? Because a few pinprick-sized geographical locations overflowing with millions of people who think that's how everyone should live / does live (it's not) shouldn't get to dictate the policies of the entire rest of the country that is living in relative peace and comfort away from such overpopulated, crime-ridden areas with extremely high costs of living and an overall terrible QoL. Look at any US-wide election map, by county; see how few areas are truly blue. The homogeneous state of southern California should not get to decide how the rest of us live/suffer. The founders knew what they were doing.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Whatever they would do is irrelevant. If those things did happen, farmers would go into bankruptcy en masse and be utterly financially ruined. Whether they know this or not isn't relevant.
- pnutjam 5y ago
  There has never been a "rural" empire. You're basically advocating a return to serfdom. Breaking the links between cities and rural areas will just strand people in rural areas. Cities will get fed, they have the people and the might. The current system is way more beneficial to rural people then any alternative.
  - nec4b 5y ago
    By whom will they get fed?
    - pnutjam 5y ago
      Take a look at the Irish potato famine for a good example.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

How close are people meant to live to each other? Source?

coolso 5y ago
> Source? Every single violent and property crime statistic ever.
- croon 5y ago
  What do you think is the causality?

axiomsEnd 5y ago

The problem is that people for some reason are living in cities for thousands of years and this helped in progres of science/technology/art. It's a symbiotic, not parasitic relationship.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
It's both as there are good things and bad things about living in cities and it certainly isn't for everyone.

nkrisc 5y ago

Perhaps state/federal assistance, benefits, and investment should also be proportional to tax revenue as well. Don't want to pay taxes? Fine, you're on your own. Rural areas receive all kinds of investment and subsidies that far exceed their contribution in taxes. Fortunately for everybody, things don't work that way. Consider California, who's GDP would rank it among most countries. Most of the economic activity in the state is concentrated in the large, coastal cities. This generates massive amounts of state and federal taxes that rural areas ultimately benefit from. Cities pay for your rural lifestyle. You're welcome. No need to thank us, we're all in this together.

sudosysgen 5y ago

If you really want to see it in a zero sum way, which I disagree with, you need to realize that those living in suburbia or in rural areas are the lowest common denominators. Paying for their lifestyle is why taxes in cities are so high and why laws in cities are so harsh. It is logistically impossible for the people that live outside cities to have anywhere near the quality of life they currently enjoy without the existence of people living in cities. Indeed, without subsidies paid for by city folk, agricultural prices would plummet and become unstable, which would greatly hamper the prosperity of anyone related to the agricultural sector. Without cities, it would also be impossible to pay for the infrastructure enjoyed by suburbia and rural areas. The amount and quality of roads would have to decrease drastically, and suburbs would have to pay multiple times more for running water, electricity infrastructure, wastewater management (you would have to move to a septic tank with all of the costs those entail). This would have knock-on effects increasing the prices of all goods and it would make transportation either very expensive or impossible. This would lead to a complete collapse of rural and suburban life in North America. If you want to know what that would look like, you can envision life in rural China, or somewhat worse even. Urbanisation is absolutely necessary for the quality of life you enjoy. In the relationship, despite it being mutually beneficial, those who live in rural areas are the ones who are moreso compensated. As for suburbia, it's not clear that it is beneficial at all to those who live in cities.