7 ms·

Do most people in rural areas not live on a farm? Excuse my ignorance but genuine question.

ssl-3 2y ago
The people of the United States are broadly free to build a home wherever they can afford to, comrade, including on land that would otherwise be used for farming. (Actual answer: I know a bunch of people who live in houses in the middle of seemingly-nowhere in rural Ohio, and almost none of them farm anything at all. They just seem to like the space and the quiet and the desolate isolation. The only farmer who I know is my parents' neighbor, who has a house few miles away from their place.)
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Depends where you live. In my state you pretty much cannot build any kind of residence on land that is zoned for agriculture.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Generally you are allowed on resident per 40 acres or something similar - farms are getting larger and that leaves plenty of land that doesn't have a house that could.
- fragmede 2y ago
  I like your version of America. Sadly, California's not that free. Some billionaire can't just buy up some land and just put in apartment/office/factory tower as they please, the local government and residents just aren't going to stand for that.
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    That billionaire can probably just buy up some land and put their house there, though, since "affordability" is not part of the equation. (Some adjustments may have to be made, but that's only another also-irrelevant expense.)
    - fragmede 2y ago
      https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-07-22/silicon-valley-billionaires-put-plans-for-new-california-city-on-hold https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-07-22/silicon-... is what I'm referring to
      - ssl-3 2y ago
        > The people of the United States are broadly free to build a home vs > The tech billionaires backing a proposal to raise a brand-new city --- I think I see where the disconnect here is: We seem to be talking about completely different things.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > That billionaire can probably just buy up some land and put their house there, though, since "affordability" is not part of the equation. Not in California; we have an entire bureau, the Coastal Commission, that exists to prevent that very thing.
bluGill 2y ago
That is a tricky question to answer. Farms need small towns scattered all over - that is where many of the teachers, accountants, mechanics, hired hands, other services, and owners of the stores that serve all of the above live. Often small towns have factories that are not farm related and those employees live someplace. Do you count those small towns as rural? Many of the above have also realized that they can buy some build a house on marginal farmland cheap and so live rural but they are working a small town job - they may have a few goats or something but it isn't how they earn their money - hard they farmers? There are also people who retire to the country, hunting cabins (not residents), camp grounds (the owner lives there), and other non-farmers living in rural areas. Parents generally transfer the farm to the kid who will inherit it over decades, and part of that is the parents move to a small house off the farm but still rural - are they living on a farm? Depending on how you count the above you can say that most people in rural areas are not living on farms. Even if you don't count small towns residents, there are a lot of people who are not farmers living out there.
AngryData 2y ago
Certainly not. You will be lucky to find an area where 5% of the people living their are farmers or work on farms.
nozzlegear 2y ago
I don't have any real numbers to back this up, but I don't think so. Even in my quite rural area, most people live in towns despite the relatively vast, open farmland. My town's population is between 3-4000 people, but some are as small as 500. It'd take a lot of farms to spread all the people in my town out.
engineer_22 2y ago
No, in fact, many rural areas are not economical for farming. But in those areas they may have other extractive industries to support a population.

The people of the United States are broadly free to build a home wherever they can afford to, comrade, including on land that would otherwise be used for farming. (Actual answer: I know a bunch of people who live in houses in the middle of seemingly-nowhere in rural Ohio, and almost none of them farm anything at all. They just seem to like the space and the quiet and the desolate isolation. The only farmer who I know is my parents' neighbor, who has a house few miles away from their place.)

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Depends where you live. In my state you pretty much cannot build any kind of residence on land that is zoned for agriculture.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Generally you are allowed on resident per 40 acres or something similar - farms are getting larger and that leaves plenty of land that doesn't have a house that could.
fragmede 2y ago
I like your version of America. Sadly, California's not that free. Some billionaire can't just buy up some land and just put in apartment/office/factory tower as they please, the local government and residents just aren't going to stand for that.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  That billionaire can probably just buy up some land and put their house there, though, since "affordability" is not part of the equation. (Some adjustments may have to be made, but that's only another also-irrelevant expense.)
  - fragmede 2y ago
    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-07-22/silicon-valley-billionaires-put-plans-for-new-california-city-on-hold https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-07-22/silicon-... is what I'm referring to
    - ssl-3 2y ago
      > The people of the United States are broadly free to build a home vs > The tech billionaires backing a proposal to raise a brand-new city --- I think I see where the disconnect here is: We seem to be talking about completely different things.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > That billionaire can probably just buy up some land and put their house there, though, since "affordability" is not part of the equation. Not in California; we have an entire bureau, the Coastal Commission, that exists to prevent that very thing.

bluGill 2y ago

That is a tricky question to answer. Farms need small towns scattered all over - that is where many of the teachers, accountants, mechanics, hired hands, other services, and owners of the stores that serve all of the above live. Often small towns have factories that are not farm related and those employees live someplace. Do you count those small towns as rural? Many of the above have also realized that they can buy some build a house on marginal farmland cheap and so live rural but they are working a small town job - they may have a few goats or something but it isn't how they earn their money - hard they farmers? There are also people who retire to the country, hunting cabins (not residents), camp grounds (the owner lives there), and other non-farmers living in rural areas. Parents generally transfer the farm to the kid who will inherit it over decades, and part of that is the parents move to a small house off the farm but still rural - are they living on a farm? Depending on how you count the above you can say that most people in rural areas are not living on farms. Even if you don't count small towns residents, there are a lot of people who are not farmers living out there.

AngryData 2y ago

Certainly not. You will be lucky to find an area where 5% of the people living their are farmers or work on farms.

nozzlegear 2y ago

I don't have any real numbers to back this up, but I don't think so. Even in my quite rural area, most people live in towns despite the relatively vast, open farmland. My town's population is between 3-4000 people, but some are as small as 500. It'd take a lot of farms to spread all the people in my town out.

engineer_22 2y ago

No, in fact, many rural areas are not economical for farming. But in those areas they may have other extractive industries to support a population.