Why Rural America Needs Cities

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

To be fair not every city dweller is as delusional as 10023.

I am a city dweller so I am aware, some of the comments on here require a response

[llamaorama]

People in rural areas do not grow all their food and live like its 1900. They go shopping at the store and buy a lot of the same stuff people in cities do. If their consumption and lifestyle is about the same their ecological footprints will match.

At least in cities, transportation related energy and resources put into infrastructure and building can be utilized more efficiently. Not all cities are alike, I'd expect that affluent people in very tall skyscrapers do have a bigger impact than people living in more traditional apartment buildings.

Outside of that cartoonish assesment of rural america (almost all gun crime and shootings happen in urban areas)

This is itself a cartoonish assessment. Rural communities vary quite a bit in terms of crime and other social issues like drugs, long term unemployment, low education attainment, etc.

[dubu]

most cities are a grid and thats good for cars. most people in cities work everyday away from there house usually 30 min away. i think living in the country is more efficient.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

This is itself a cartoonish assessment. Rural communities vary quite a bit in terms of crime and other social issues like drugs, long term unemployment, low education attainment, etc.

Its a statistically accurate assessment.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

People in rural areas do not grow all their food and live like its 1900. They go shopping at the store and buy a lot of the same stuff people in cities do. If their consumption and lifestyle is about the same their ecological footprints will match.

At least in cities, transportation related energy and resources put into infrastructure and building can be utilized more efficiently. Not all cities are alike, I'd expect that affluent people in very tall skyscrapers do have a bigger impact than people living in more traditional apartment buildings.



This is itself a cartoonish assessment. Rural communities vary quite a bit in terms of crime and other social issues like drugs, long term unemployment, low education attainment, etc.

I agree, rural America is just as different from one another as urban areas are. There are quaint little wealthy towns in virtually every state and region. There are also bombed out, methvilles in every part of the country. It's all based on the economy of the area and the purpose of that place existing in the first place.

I also find this aristocratic view of cities very disturbing. Some people on these urbanist forums think that ever large metropolitan area is super successful, dynamic, diverse, highly educated and headed to urban utopia. Those super star cities represent probably less than 10% of the American population. There are just as many large metros dealing with social inequality/instability, blight, infrastructure deficits, financial crisis, etc. There have been several large riots and protests in our large cities recently, the idea that they are some walled off silos from the rural peasants is fiction at best. Even in our "wealthiest" cities, there are literally thousands of homeless people and millions living in squalor. Not to mention millions of "middle class" suburbanites that are one missed paycheck from the soup kitchen. The point is, whether a person lives in a rural or urban area the common denominator is money.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Its a statistically accurate assessment.

That's not true, and irrelevant. Rural areas include some of the most dangerous communities in the U.S. Metropolitan areas, generally speaking, have lower than average gun violence.

And you aren't even following the conversation, because no one was talking about homicide rates or gun violence, but rather the risks of treading on privatized rural property. Urban areas have public streets, obviously, so no one needs to travel through others' property.

[Sun Belt]

N/m - not worth the time or energy to rebut non-sense.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

To be fair not every city dweller is as delusional as 10023.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

You made up the idea that you can’t make a good living in a small town in America —

Can the average american find high-paying jobs in rural America?

[10023]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I am a city dweller so I am aware, some of the comments on here require a response

Are you? What do you define as a “city”?

You’ve already said that suburbs are “urban” when in fact most are not, which calls into question whether we are really on the same page.

Regardless it is impossible for the entire global population to be self-sufficient farmers. The fact that we are not is what led to the massive explosion in population in the Industrial Age.

And I know why people have trucks. The difference of opinion is that I admit that most of them don’t need these “work vehicles” to do work, but rather because they think they’re manly and cool.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by 10023

Are you? What do you define as a “city”?

You’ve already said that suburbs are “urban” when in fact most are not, which calls into question whether we are really on the same page.

I think the more pertinent question is how YOU define it? Seeing as the government considers any city over 2,500 people to be urban whereas I get the feeling you wouldn't even consider a lot of cities with 100,000 people as urban and even in big cuties you want to discount the suburbs where 90% of the people live.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

People in rural areas do not grow all their food and live like its 1900. They go shopping at the store and buy a lot of the same stuff people in cities do. If their consumption and lifestyle is about the same their ecological footprints will match.

At least in cities, transportation related energy and resources put into infrastructure and building can be utilized more efficiently. Not all cities are alike, I'd expect that affluent people in very tall skyscrapers do have a bigger impact than people living in more traditional apartment buildings.

Yeah, all things considered, the carbon footprint of urban dwellers is way, way less than that of people in rural areas.

It's one reason people mock the whole "tiny homes" movement - at least those who try to claim environmental sustainability. Given tiny homes are new construction, and almost always end up situated in rural areas due zoning/utility concerns in cities, the residents need a car, and need to drive long distances in day-to-day life - effectively more than canceling out any carbon savings gained by living in a small home.

Originally Posted by goat314

I also find this aristocratic view of cities very disturbing. Some people on these urbanist forums think that ever large metropolitan area is super successful, dynamic, diverse, highly educated and headed to urban utopia. Those super star cities represent probably less than 10% of the American population. There are just as many large metros dealing with social inequality/instability, blight, infrastructure deficits, financial crisis, etc. There have been several large riots and protests in our large cities recently, the idea that they are some walled off silos from the rural peasants is fiction at best. Even in our "wealthiest" cities, there are literally thousands of homeless people and millions living in squalor. Not to mention millions of "middle class" suburbanites that are one missed paycheck from the soup kitchen. The point is, whether a person lives in a rural or urban area the common denominator is money.

Personally, I'm not trying to be elitist about this. But it's just a fact of modern life - largely related to corporate consolidation - that jobs are flowing away from rural areas and into major metropolitan areas. Even the late 20th century pattern of putting a runaway manufacturing shop in a tiny impoverished town in the South is falling out of favor. Many of the original runaways are getting offshored too, and new manufacturing - while still southern focused - tends to be in metropolitan areas.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Can the average american find high-paying jobs in rural America?

Like anywhere else, those with skills, trades - yes. The guy running the farm is doing great. The guy picking the lettuce is not. The banker is doing well, the cashier at McDonald's is not.

A plumber making 65k is living very well compared to a tech bro making 110k.
The plumber probably owns his home, has a vehicle and a family. The tech bro is sharing a room and riding a google bus and complaining about the cost of living at every single stop light.

But hey, he can at least talk about how much he makes and how bad a life rural people live.
E] and us nerds on SSP can talk about how wealthy Californians are living in the 6th largest economy, even though it has the highest poverty rate in the nation at nearly 21%.

E2] If you look at the 2010-2014 Supplemental Poverty rate average, rural state Iowa has the lowest poverty rate, followed by North Dakota and Wyoming. Wait, how is that possible?! Those rural folk live miserable lives and they don't have a city bus to commute to a farm to table restaurant.

[10023]

^ Since when are there bankers in rural America? The small town Main Street bank disappeared a long time ago.

And what does “having a vehicle” have to do with living well? Or a family for that matter? Especially when one is in the middle of nowhere and does the same thing every day.

Not to mention that your hypothetical small town plumber is probably mid-career and that $65k is a stable number, whereas the “tech bro” making $110k is in his mid-20s and looking at earning at least an income starting in the 2’s, if not 3’s, as he reaches his late 30s and actually looks to start a family.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Like anywhere else, those with skills, trades - yes. The guy running the farm is doing great. The guy picking the lettuce is not. The banker is doing well, the cashier at McDonald's is not.

A plumber making 65k is living very well compared to a tech bro making 110k.
The plumber probably owns his home, has a vehicle and a family. The tech bro is sharing a room and riding a google bus and complaining about the cost of living at every single stop light.

But hey, he can at least talk about how much he makes and how bad a life rural people live.
E] and us nerds on SSP can talk about how wealthy Californians are living in the 6th largest economy, even though it has the highest poverty rate in the nation at nearly 21%.

Rural areas without substantial export industries have all kinds of jobs of course. Local demand means there will be hospitals, schools, post offices, nursing homes, retail establishments, small law firms, general contractors, day cares, and other establishments.

The problem is, as I said upthread, these are not growing industries. They're tied to population and income. If a rural area has a slight decline in population, the utilization of all of these will also decline. This in turn will cause more people to move away, which causes yet more population decline. Without an industry with growing employment that exports to the wider market - whether it be natural resource extraction (including agriculture), manufacturing, or service companies that compete on a national/global scale - rural economies are doomed.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by 10023

Are you? What do you define as a “city”?

I was waiting for this response. Thank you.

City: a place where miserable people pass judgment on non-City dwellers for things like:
1] how they chose to cover their legs in warm weather
2] what food they eat when their blood sugar drops
3] what cars they drive
4] the size of their. . . carbon footprint
5] the length of their. . . um rapid transit system
6] the girth of their, uhh, urban green belt

So on and so forth.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by 10023

Are you? What do you define as a “city”?

You’ve already said that suburbs are “urban” when in fact most are not, which calls into question whether we are really on the same page.

Regardless it is impossible for the entire global population to be self-sufficient farmers. The fact that we are not is what led to the massive explosion in population in the Industrial Age.

And I know why people have trucks. The difference of opinion is that I admit that most of them don’t need these “work vehicles” to do work, but rather because they think they’re manly and cool.

Your definition of urban is clearly an arbitrary line of density. Even most "urban" American "cities" have areas you wouldn't consider "urban" is Staten Island Urban to you? Thats NYC, what about the North West end of Chicago? Is that an Urban area to you?

Historically it was either Urban or Rural more or less the creation of "sub-urban" is a modern definition but by the historical demarcation all but the most spread out of suburbs would fit the Urban definition and is in fact defined as so.

There is a reason why something like 75% of the USA is "urban" Not because they live in Manhattan, but because they live in suburban sprawl.

And lastly, no everyone cannot be self sufficient farmers and we haven't been for 10,000 years at least.

[10023]

^ Wrong, all of it.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ Wrong, all of it.

Then please what a "city" is to you.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That's not true, and irrelevant. Rural areas include some of the most dangerous communities in the U.S. Metropolitan areas, generally speaking, have lower than average gun violence.

And you aren't even following the conversation, because no one was talking about homicide rates or gun violence, but rather the risks of treading on privatized rural property. Urban areas have public streets, obviously, so no one needs to travel through others' property.

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.