3 ms·

> But it is extremely important to point out that the American "rat race" cities 100% subsidize areas like this. It's even more important to point out that pla

by ars 1y ago

> But it is extremely important to point out that the American "rat race" cities 100% subsidize areas like this. It's even more important to point out that places like this grow the food and do the manufacturing that those "cities" you like would collapse without.

titanomachy 1y ago
Yeah, but the farmers and factory workers are working more than one ten-hour shift per week.
- harvey9 1y ago
  Which implies the public roads have a positive economic value - the earlier post did refer to the area not to the people like the author of the blog post
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dangus 1y ago
Don’t mistake my comment as being pro-city at the expense of rural areas. The author isn’t growing any food, they’re just living adjacent to those people. Most manufacturing happens in close proximity to major cities.
- sarchertech 1y ago
  The author is ostensibly part of the community that supports the people growing food. Not many people want to live around absolutely no one. Farmers want someone to staff the local convenience store, the local school, the local pharmacy, fire department, etc… Farms need rural infrastructure which is what the anti rural subsidy people don’t seem to understand.
  - dangus 1y ago
    Rural subsidy for agriculture and other purposes makes a ton of sense. And not all rural areas are subsidy areas, many involved in energy and mineral extraction are economic surplus contributors. I have no problem with rural subsidy. I think part of my objection to this lifestyle is that the author is essentially a burden on their community by their own choice. The community would be healthier economically if this person wasn’t in it. Now, all of us may eventually become a burden as we age or if we become disabled. But doing it by choice is a different thing philosophically. It’s bad for the person doing it in that they are going to depend on external factors keeping that lifestyle staying stable. If the library closes [1] or rural public transportation gets cut [2] this author now has to change up their life a whole lot to compensate. If you’re already a person who generates an economic surplus you can roll with those punches more easily. It’s bad for the community because this person is consuming more resources than they produce. Everyone in the community is slightly poorer because their tax dollars are supporting an able-bodied person who essentially refuses to work. People don’t like to admit that they live in a metaphorical anthill. The ants who aren’t working and haven’t saved for retirement are factually a burden. I’m not saying we should all be wage slaves and we must work or else we have no value, but I think the author is essentially describing an undesirable extreme. [1] https://members.olc.org/news/Details/ohio-house-budget-reduces-public-library-funding-by-100-million-259735 https://members.olc.org/news/Details/ohio-house-budget-reduc... [2] https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/news/55292030/us-deep-cuts-to-bus-and-rail-services-loom-across-big-cities-small-towns https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/news/55292030/us-d...
    - sarchertech 1y ago
      Excluding the possible exception of healthcare I’m not sure what you mean. The hypothetical person is paying property taxes on the house they own. He’s paying income tax on his income. He’s paying sales tax on the food and necessities he buys. I live in state with no income tax. If I decide to live in a cheap house, eat cheaply, and save most of my income does that mean I’m a burden on my community because I’m not paying enough property tax and sales tax? In addition to the taxes he’s paying, he’s taking a previously blighted property, fixing it up, and maintaining it. He’s providing a service to the owner of the gas station by working there a few days a month. He’s presumably purchasing things from local stores instead of driving outside the community to shop. Maybe he’s even volunteering or providing other help to people in the community. All in exchange for a few library books and some bus trips. I think most communities would love to have him.

by ars 1y ago

titanomachy 1y ago

Yeah, but the farmers and factory workers are working more than one ten-hour shift per week.

harvey9 1y ago
Which implies the public roads have a positive economic value - the earlier post did refer to the area not to the people like the author of the blog post

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

dangus 1y ago

Don’t mistake my comment as being pro-city at the expense of rural areas. The author isn’t growing any food, they’re just living adjacent to those people. Most manufacturing happens in close proximity to major cities.

sarchertech 1y ago
The author is ostensibly part of the community that supports the people growing food. Not many people want to live around absolutely no one. Farmers want someone to staff the local convenience store, the local school, the local pharmacy, fire department, etc… Farms need rural infrastructure which is what the anti rural subsidy people don’t seem to understand.
- dangus 1y ago
  Rural subsidy for agriculture and other purposes makes a ton of sense. And not all rural areas are subsidy areas, many involved in energy and mineral extraction are economic surplus contributors. I have no problem with rural subsidy. I think part of my objection to this lifestyle is that the author is essentially a burden on their community by their own choice. The community would be healthier economically if this person wasn’t in it. Now, all of us may eventually become a burden as we age or if we become disabled. But doing it by choice is a different thing philosophically. It’s bad for the person doing it in that they are going to depend on external factors keeping that lifestyle staying stable. If the library closes [1] or rural public transportation gets cut [2] this author now has to change up their life a whole lot to compensate. If you’re already a person who generates an economic surplus you can roll with those punches more easily. It’s bad for the community because this person is consuming more resources than they produce. Everyone in the community is slightly poorer because their tax dollars are supporting an able-bodied person who essentially refuses to work. People don’t like to admit that they live in a metaphorical anthill. The ants who aren’t working and haven’t saved for retirement are factually a burden. I’m not saying we should all be wage slaves and we must work or else we have no value, but I think the author is essentially describing an undesirable extreme. [1] https://members.olc.org/news/Details/ohio-house-budget-reduces-public-library-funding-by-100-million-259735 https://members.olc.org/news/Details/ohio-house-budget-reduc... [2] https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/news/55292030/us-deep-cuts-to-bus-and-rail-services-loom-across-big-cities-small-towns https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/news/55292030/us-d...
  - sarchertech 1y ago
    Excluding the possible exception of healthcare I’m not sure what you mean. The hypothetical person is paying property taxes on the house they own. He’s paying income tax on his income. He’s paying sales tax on the food and necessities he buys. I live in state with no income tax. If I decide to live in a cheap house, eat cheaply, and save most of my income does that mean I’m a burden on my community because I’m not paying enough property tax and sales tax? In addition to the taxes he’s paying, he’s taking a previously blighted property, fixing it up, and maintaining it. He’s providing a service to the owner of the gas station by working there a few days a month. He’s presumably purchasing things from local stores instead of driving outside the community to shop. Maybe he’s even volunteering or providing other help to people in the community. All in exchange for a few library books and some bus trips. I think most communities would love to have him.