3 ms·

This has to be the most confidently incorrect take I’ve ever read here. The Rural Electrification Act not only brought power to rural areas, but also jobs to A

This has to be the most confidently incorrect take I’ve ever read here. The Rural Electrification Act not only brought power to rural areas, but also jobs to Americans when they were most needed, and countless follow-on benefits: increased farm productivity, longer lifespans and higher quality of life, etc. It’s also not that subsidized compared to many other industries; the entire point of co-ops is purchasing something in bulk, with no one taking the profits. They get loans, yes, but the default rate on them is absurdly low. And on that point, electric co-ops consistently produce reliable power at a lower cost than privately-owned utilities. I’ve experienced both, in multiple areas of the country, and by far co-ops beat everyone else. This doesn’t even touch on the fact that the infrastructure enabled by the REA is also the only reason high speed internet ever made it to rural areas. Fiber everywhere should absolutely be a goal.

lostlogin 2y ago
> This has to be the most confidently incorrect take I’ve ever read here. It’s funnier if we alter it a little, is it more or less true this way? >> It's also clear that rural voting was a huge error. People should live in clusters of at least a handful of structures where it's practical and affordable to provision government (and telecommunications), or they should be off the grid altogether. What we built in the 20th century was the worst possible thing: dispersed houses. This should never have been built and we should not perpetuate it with subsidies.
- sgarland 2y ago
  I don’t see how voting works as an analogy. Suburbs would be more apt. I live in one, but I’ll be the first to admit that there’s no defensible reason to do so beyond “I want to.” They’re typically a net negative for counties in terms of tax revenue, they perpetuate car-first infrastructure, they contribute to high housing costs, and they don’t produce anything of value, like rural areas can (farms, land preservation).
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    Well, people have to live somewhere, and that place will not generate a lot of revenue. US suburbs have problems due to single-use areas and forced low density. But you will aleays have some area that don't pay a lot of taxes.
ty6853 2y ago
Its hilarious city folks think rural power is subsidized. I recently extended a line about 1000 feet. For this, I paid $13000 -- primary transmission, poles, anchors, electricians, transformers, all at full rates. And it was a required donation, as in the power coop owns everything and it goes on public easement on to the next guy when they extend from mine. When they finished, I worked myself silly digging secondary transmission to where I was used on the property. It is the other way around, rural people shoulder the costs of massive mileage of the grid extension that aid intercity networking. The costs are privatized but the benefits are socialized.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  The cost of installing that stuff is way more than 13k
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Then they committed fraud.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      I’m not sure you read that correctly. You paid far less than the total cost of installing that infrastructure.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        The articles of my coop require someone extending a line to pay the full unsubsidized costs before installation. If I underpaid the coop defrauded the other members by charging them instead.
- sgarland 2y ago
  On the flip side, practically everything else about rural areas is subsidized. Most crops have price floors. Dairy is massively subsidized. Rural school districts siphon funding from cities. Much / all of this is arguably necessary for national security viz. food production, but I dislike when people in red states (not saying you’ve done this, just making a tangential point) make comments like, “let’s see how long the city lasts if we stop exporting food.” Uhhh how long do you think you’d last without practically every aspect of your life being subsidized? We need both groups in the country, and we need to support each other as each needs, but part of that dynamic being healthy means acknowledging that we’re receiving help.

lostlogin 2y ago

> This has to be the most confidently incorrect take I’ve ever read here. It’s funnier if we alter it a little, is it more or less true this way? >> It's also clear that rural voting was a huge error. People should live in clusters of at least a handful of structures where it's practical and affordable to provision government (and telecommunications), or they should be off the grid altogether. What we built in the 20th century was the worst possible thing: dispersed houses. This should never have been built and we should not perpetuate it with subsidies.

sgarland 2y ago
I don’t see how voting works as an analogy. Suburbs would be more apt. I live in one, but I’ll be the first to admit that there’s no defensible reason to do so beyond “I want to.” They’re typically a net negative for counties in terms of tax revenue, they perpetuate car-first infrastructure, they contribute to high housing costs, and they don’t produce anything of value, like rural areas can (farms, land preservation).
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  Well, people have to live somewhere, and that place will not generate a lot of revenue. US suburbs have problems due to single-use areas and forced low density. But you will aleays have some area that don't pay a lot of taxes.

ty6853 2y ago

Its hilarious city folks think rural power is subsidized. I recently extended a line about 1000 feet. For this, I paid $13000 -- primary transmission, poles, anchors, electricians, transformers, all at full rates. And it was a required donation, as in the power coop owns everything and it goes on public easement on to the next guy when they extend from mine. When they finished, I worked myself silly digging secondary transmission to where I was used on the property. It is the other way around, rural people shoulder the costs of massive mileage of the grid extension that aid intercity networking. The costs are privatized but the benefits are socialized.

jncfhnb 2y ago
The cost of installing that stuff is way more than 13k
- ty6853 2y ago
  Then they committed fraud.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    I’m not sure you read that correctly. You paid far less than the total cost of installing that infrastructure.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      The articles of my coop require someone extending a line to pay the full unsubsidized costs before installation. If I underpaid the coop defrauded the other members by charging them instead.
sgarland 2y ago
On the flip side, practically everything else about rural areas is subsidized. Most crops have price floors. Dairy is massively subsidized. Rural school districts siphon funding from cities. Much / all of this is arguably necessary for national security viz. food production, but I dislike when people in red states (not saying you’ve done this, just making a tangential point) make comments like, “let’s see how long the city lasts if we stop exporting food.” Uhhh how long do you think you’d last without practically every aspect of your life being subsidized? We need both groups in the country, and we need to support each other as each needs, but part of that dynamic being healthy means acknowledging that we’re receiving help.