3 ms·

You're really stretching by assuming rural Americans have the option of living somewhere else. I live in a relatively small town (~3000, though it's much bigge

You're really stretching by assuming rural Americans have the option of living somewhere else. I live in a relatively small town (~3000, though it's much bigger than other towns nearby). Most people here have never gone more than 100 miles from town. They have shit jobs (when they get them), live below the poverty line, have poor education. There is no transportation but rotted-out 20-year-old trucks or whatever $500 used car you could find in a nearby town. Their families have lived here their whole lives. They have no savings, no retirement, usually no health insurance. This isn't "an appeal" or "a deal" they took, like they decided it would be cute to live a libertarian dream in the sticks. They have no other choice. This is what being poor is: a lack of options and no recourse. Rural people who aren't poor still live there because... it's their home. You don't just decide move away from your family, friends, support structure, and entire way of life, because you want easier access to a pharmacy. Expecting people to just put up with pharmacy deserts or move, is a pretty hostile and careless position. It would be like expecting city people to get mugged every so often because that's the price you pay for wanting to have a pharmacy nearby. These things shouldn't be expectations, they are problems to be solved, as in most other developed nations they largely are solved. We're the freaks for putting up with ridiculous amounts of crime, death, inconvenience, and needless expense.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> Rural people who aren't poor still live there because... it's their home. You don't just decide move away from your family, friends, support structure, and entire way of life, because you want easier access to a pharmacy. It absolutely is all of that. It's also the money. $10k in flames is the low end of an interstate move. Supporting yourself and arranging all the pieces (ex:training) into a job that pays the bills - maybe quadruple that. Maybe more. And all of that assumes luck.
- relaxing 2y ago
  Who said anything about an interstate move?
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    I did because the term interstate move strongly reflects the resources required to get to a job-rich area. Most counties are that kind of distance from job-rich areas.
throwawaysleep 2y ago
> You don't just decide move away from your family, friends, support structure, and entire way of life, because you want easier access to a pharmacy. That’s how those people got there a few generations ago in the first place.
- 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
  Can't tell if this is a weak troll, or you literally have a very tenuous grip on reality. The land was not covered with pharmacies and people migrating to find new pharmacies. Let me explain how the current residents ended up here: - Indian tribes used this land as hunting grounds. - English surveyors came and mapped out the area. - The land was granted to a wealthy business owner by the King of England. - A few wealthy families buy more land, form homesteads, moving away from NYC after the Revolutionary War. - Over time those families develop more of the land and invest in property and business, and more families move in over time as the town grows. - Factories and farms nearby provide a steady source of income and the town flourishes. The outer village is connected to the town after the county is officially formed. - Eventually due to economic pressure from overseas, the factories and farms dwindle. Those who have enough money move away to find work; those who have lots of money, or none at all, stay. - Most of the small businesses disappear as franchises move in. The small yet sizeable population is enough to keep a few big-name, low-cost stores in profit. The story of America is rich people taking advantage of cheap land, and poor people struggling to survive.
relaxing 2y ago
> Expecting people to just put up with pharmacy deserts or move, is a pretty hostile and careless position. What other option is there? They won’t vote for a government solution. Can’t have socialism forcing a pharmacy to exist where the market says it can’t. The idea that moving into town, or the next town over, is going to mean giving up your family and friends seems overstated. Everyone I know in the sticks has some family that’s an hour away because they married or got a job.
- 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
  Is everyone supposed to move a town over? Two towns, three? Is there housing for that? Services? Jobs? Or are we also expecting some kind of magic pixie dust to pick all these people up and move them all and everything be okay? And how does voting solve the problem? Who's putting what propositions forward? How does voting magically solve tax shortfalls, a lack of capital, deficits, state-wide or nation-wide political bullshit? How does voting create pharmacies, much less bring in people to staff them? The point isn't that there's an easy solution. The point is, saying "just move" is as ridiculous and unrealistic as "just change our economic structure". There is no easy solution. But that also doesn't mean we should abandon our people because we don't want to deal with hard problems.
  - relaxing 2y ago
    > Is everyone supposed to move a town over? No, only the people who want to. The people who want rugged individualism stay rugged. > And how does voting solve the problem? They vote in representatives who will enact change through federal, state, and local governments. There probably aren’t many candidates like that currently because the electorate demands candidates far to the right of that, but that could change. > But that also doesn't mean we should abandon our people because we don't want to deal with hard problems. Who’s abandoning them? They asked for small government and unchecked corporate power. Everyone on the left wants to deal with these hard problems, but you can’t force it on them.
- piva00 2y ago
  > Can’t have socialism forcing a pharmacy to exist where the market says it can’t. Strange that small towns (500-5000) in Brazil are able to have a pharmacy, same in many countries in Europe, just found this one in Portugal in a town of 600 people: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fnFZMFtU3ZqbBAVk8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/fnFZMFtU3ZqbBAVk8 Perhaps the over-reliance on massive corporations like Walmart, CVS, Walgrens, etc. instead of small shops owned by private individuals is not really very good for society to fill in basic needs like groceries, medicine, etc. where "the market says it can't".
Yeul 2y ago
Funny they all vote Republican. Turkeys and Christmas.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

> Rural people who aren't poor still live there because... it's their home. You don't just decide move away from your family, friends, support structure, and entire way of life, because you want easier access to a pharmacy. It absolutely is all of that. It's also the money. $10k in flames is the low end of an interstate move. Supporting yourself and arranging all the pieces (ex:training) into a job that pays the bills - maybe quadruple that. Maybe more. And all of that assumes luck.

relaxing 2y ago
Who said anything about an interstate move?
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  I did because the term interstate move strongly reflects the resources required to get to a job-rich area. Most counties are that kind of distance from job-rich areas.

throwawaysleep 2y ago

> You don't just decide move away from your family, friends, support structure, and entire way of life, because you want easier access to a pharmacy. That’s how those people got there a few generations ago in the first place.

0xbadcafebee 2y ago
Can't tell if this is a weak troll, or you literally have a very tenuous grip on reality. The land was not covered with pharmacies and people migrating to find new pharmacies. Let me explain how the current residents ended up here: - Indian tribes used this land as hunting grounds. - English surveyors came and mapped out the area. - The land was granted to a wealthy business owner by the King of England. - A few wealthy families buy more land, form homesteads, moving away from NYC after the Revolutionary War. - Over time those families develop more of the land and invest in property and business, and more families move in over time as the town grows. - Factories and farms nearby provide a steady source of income and the town flourishes. The outer village is connected to the town after the county is officially formed. - Eventually due to economic pressure from overseas, the factories and farms dwindle. Those who have enough money move away to find work; those who have lots of money, or none at all, stay. - Most of the small businesses disappear as franchises move in. The small yet sizeable population is enough to keep a few big-name, low-cost stores in profit. The story of America is rich people taking advantage of cheap land, and poor people struggling to survive.

relaxing 2y ago

> Expecting people to just put up with pharmacy deserts or move, is a pretty hostile and careless position. What other option is there? They won’t vote for a government solution. Can’t have socialism forcing a pharmacy to exist where the market says it can’t. The idea that moving into town, or the next town over, is going to mean giving up your family and friends seems overstated. Everyone I know in the sticks has some family that’s an hour away because they married or got a job.

0xbadcafebee 2y ago
Is everyone supposed to move a town over? Two towns, three? Is there housing for that? Services? Jobs? Or are we also expecting some kind of magic pixie dust to pick all these people up and move them all and everything be okay? And how does voting solve the problem? Who's putting what propositions forward? How does voting magically solve tax shortfalls, a lack of capital, deficits, state-wide or nation-wide political bullshit? How does voting create pharmacies, much less bring in people to staff them? The point isn't that there's an easy solution. The point is, saying "just move" is as ridiculous and unrealistic as "just change our economic structure". There is no easy solution. But that also doesn't mean we should abandon our people because we don't want to deal with hard problems.
- relaxing 2y ago
  > Is everyone supposed to move a town over? No, only the people who want to. The people who want rugged individualism stay rugged. > And how does voting solve the problem? They vote in representatives who will enact change through federal, state, and local governments. There probably aren’t many candidates like that currently because the electorate demands candidates far to the right of that, but that could change. > But that also doesn't mean we should abandon our people because we don't want to deal with hard problems. Who’s abandoning them? They asked for small government and unchecked corporate power. Everyone on the left wants to deal with these hard problems, but you can’t force it on them.
piva00 2y ago
> Can’t have socialism forcing a pharmacy to exist where the market says it can’t. Strange that small towns (500-5000) in Brazil are able to have a pharmacy, same in many countries in Europe, just found this one in Portugal in a town of 600 people: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fnFZMFtU3ZqbBAVk8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/fnFZMFtU3ZqbBAVk8 Perhaps the over-reliance on massive corporations like Walmart, CVS, Walgrens, etc. instead of small shops owned by private individuals is not really very good for society to fill in basic needs like groceries, medicine, etc. where "the market says it can't".

Yeul 2y ago

Funny they all vote Republican. Turkeys and Christmas.