Why Rural America Needs Cities

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

At the time? A maximum security jail cell.

Why were you checked in to the grey bar hotel?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Nice Anecdote cities still have most of the violent crime and murders.

Really? 80% of the population has more than 50% of the murders? Could you be anymore off topic? Nice tangent to distract from the actual thread topic, which is the inevitable death of rural America.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...p-decline.html

The Hard Truths of Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

There are 60 million people, almost one in five Americans, living on farms, in hamlets and in small towns across the landscape. For the last quarter century the story of these places has been one of relentless economic decline.

[dc_denizen]

no farms, no food.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by Obadno

You are out of your mind: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.18c8376009e2

Crime is higher in urban areas. How can you even pretend to believe otherwise.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Because it's the truth? Crime isn't higher in metropolitan areas.

And, putting aside your desperate attempt to change the subject (we were talking about the dangers of private trespass, not regional crime rates) because your link has nothing to do with what we're talking about? Gun-related homicides aren't linked to overall crime rates, and overall crime rates are linked to dangers of private trespass.

Originally Posted by BrownTown

You're delusional.

Originally Posted by Vlajos

https://thecrimereport.org/2018/05/1...e-u-s-average/

Originally Posted by emathias

I grew up in rural America. The only person I knew who was murdered, was murdered in rural America. The only people I know who have been burgled by strangers are in rural America. The only murderer I've known personally (and who was not the person who killed the victim I knew) was in rural America. As an Adult, I've lived in Central Chicago for longer than any other place, and yet have never known a murderer, never known a friend or acquaintance who was murdered, and never known a friend whose home was burgled.

I've also known many people in rural areas who have committed assaults that would have gotten them arrested and convicted in an urban area who got away scott free because the victim didn't report it. Personally, I believe that crime has been higher on rural areas for a long time and is just under-reported.

Originally Posted by Obadno

Nice Anecdote cities still have most of the violent crime and murders.

Originally Posted by BrownTown

We can play this pointless game all day. I've known at least a dozen murderers and they were all in an urban area. So I guess by my personal experience 100% of murderers are in urban areas. This is obviously a ridiculous statement (especially since I've never really lived in a rural area) and what we need to discuss here is statistics, not irrelevant personal stories with minuscule sample sizes (your sample size is literally one murderer).

Originally Posted by Crawford

Really? 80% of the population has more than 50% of the murders?

Rather than argue it back and forth why not just look at the figures?

The FBI produces reported crime rate statistics for different crimes and compares them between large, medium and small cities plus non-metropolitan areas.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ables/table-16

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

Rather than argue it back and forth why not just look at the figures?

Because Crawford refuses to accept those figures.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

Rather than argue it back and forth why not just look at the figures?

The FBI produces reported crime rate statistics for different crimes and compares them between large, medium and small cities plus non-metropolitan areas.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ables/table-16

That's pretty clear large cites are much more violent in every category of crime than rural areas. Its also known cities are more diverse and certain populations are more violent than others.

The stats don't lie.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by bnk

That's pretty clear large cites are much more violent in every category of crime than rural areas. Its also known cities are more diverse and certain populations are more violent than others.

The stats don't lie.

In other words: it's common sense.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by bnk

That's pretty clear large cites are much more violent in every category of crime than rural areas. Its also known cities are more diverse and certain populations are more violent than others.

The stats don't lie.

But A. We aren't talking large cities, we're talking metro areas (which are overwhelmingly suburban, and suburbs have lower crime than cities or rural areas) and B. That has nothing to do with anything, just an attempt to change the subject from dying rural America.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Because Crawford refuses to accept those figures.

I shouldn't indulge the off-topic dumbassery, but yes, please show us these figures.

Please show us the figures that rural America has lower overall crime rates than metropolitan America. Then explain what this has to do with anything.

[SIGSEGV]

Very anectodal, but despite me only having lived in cities, the only person I know who was shot (my sister's boyfriend... he survived) was shot in middle-of-nowhere Wyoming.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I shouldn't indulge the off-topic dumbassery, but yes, please show us these figures.

Please show us the figures that rural America has lower overall crime rates than metropolitan America. Then explain what this has to do with anything.

Lol, it's there in the link I posted. Of course that may be of topic, but I think the stats seem pretty clear.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by emathias

I grew up in rural America. The only person I knew who was murdered, was murdered in rural America. The only people I know who have been burgled by strangers are in rural America. The only murderer I've known personally (and who was not the person who killed the victim I knew) was in rural America. As an Adult, I've lived in Central Chicago for longer than any other place, and yet have never known a murderer, never known a friend or acquaintance who was murdered, and never known a friend whose home was burgled.

I've also known many people in rural areas who have committed assaults that would have gotten them arrested and convicted in an urban area who got away scott free because the victim didn't report it. Personally, I believe that crime has been higher on rural areas for a long time and is just under-reported.

Although I of course appreciate anyone's experiences in any conversation, those experiences are anecdotal. But in any case, don't you think massive amounts of crime go unreported in Chicago too? I don't think people in the Austin neighborhood call the cops often.

[Gordo]

I don't really know why there are comments here like "no food without rural America" or similar. Of course some number of people are needed in rural America to grow food. The problem is that we need far fewer people in that line of work than we did in the past, but we use massive subsidies to keep more people there than the market would otherwise allocate. And even with those subsidies, there are still too many people in rural America, most not living a life that has anything to do with farming.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Gordo

I don't really know why there are comments here like "no food without rural America" or similar. Of course some number of people are needed in rural America to grow food. The problem is that we need far fewer people in that line of work than we did in the past, but we use massive subsidies to keep more people there than the market would otherwise allocate. And even with those subsidies, there are still too many people in rural America, most not living a life that has anything to do with farming.

I don't understand what we are saying or trying to say here though...

People shouldn't live in rural areas if they don't farm?
We shouldn't subsidize farming?

I mean, I really don't know what we're saying. I am at my mom's house right now in rural Arkansas. Its terrible. Trucks everywhere. Driving forever to get anywhere. Terrible built environment. Overall an environmentalist/urbanist nightmare. But, I dont even remember the original point of this thread... Do we want to ban them from the rural areas or are we just saying those dumb rednecks need *us* and we don't need them?

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I don't understand what we are saying or trying to say here though...

People shouldn't live in rural areas if they don't farm?
We shouldn't subsidize farming?

I mean, I really don't know what we're saying. I am at my mom's house right now in rural Arkansas. Its terrible. Trucks everywhere. Driving forever to get anywhere. Terrible built environment. Overall an environmentalist/urbanist nightmare. But, I dont even remember the original point of this thread... Do we want to ban them from the rural areas or are we just saying those dumb rednecks need *us* and we don't need them?

I'm saying that there's no argument about whether we need people to live in rural areas to farm. There is a good argument that we shouldn't be encouraging more people to live there than would be supported by the market naturally, which is what we're doing now. If we remove all subsidies and people still want to live there, more power to them.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Gordo

I'm saying that there's no argument about whether we need people to live in rural areas to farm. There is a good argument that we shouldn't be encouraging more people to live there than would be supported by the market naturally, which is what we're doing now. If we remove all subsidies and people still want to live there, more power to them.

I got you.

I mean if I were to play God I would have all "non-essential" people move from rural areas and into the city(not metro area, but city). I would then allow nature to do her thing and take back the land and we would then have massive amounts of more wilderness. Like 70% of Arkansas would be pure nature and the other 30% farming.

But in the real world...some people just have preferences. I don't like farming subsidies because of my politics...but I cannot imagine they will go away anytime soon.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Gordo

The problem is that we need far fewer people in that line of work than we did in the past, but we use massive subsidies to keep more people there than the market would otherwise allocate.

This applies everywhere and that is the problem. Too many people all wanting a comfortable lifestyle, but don’t want to pay for it [the cost of living comfortably]

So what will happen? More people or the elite determining we can do more with less?

[10023]

Most farm subsidies have nothing to do with helping rural populations (which, as mentioned by others, are mostly not actually engaged in farming). The vast majority of those subsidies go straight to big agribusiness.

[Leveled]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I got you.

I mean if I were to play God I would have all "non-essential" people move from rural areas and into the city(not metro area, but city). I would then allow nature to do her thing and take back the land and we would then have massive amounts of more wilderness. Like 70% of Arkansas would be pure nature and the other 30% farming.

But in the real world...some people just have preferences. I don't like farming subsidies because of my politics...but I cannot imagine they will go away anytime soon.

Why should I pay for your preferences?

[Leveled]

Originally Posted by 10023

Most farm subsidies have nothing to do with helping rural populations (which, as mentioned by others, are mostly not actually engaged in farming). The vast majority of those subsidies go straight to big agribusiness.

Are they still buying big ass luxury trucks that are subsidized?