Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 337 posts

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#271

Post by rayiner »

nexuist wrote: post #199
nmcfarl wrote: post #84

Grocery Stores closing really is happening, and really is a problem. And it's part of what's killing towns - if only because attracting new folk without one is hard. We live in John Day, Or (pop 1700)(County pop 7200, area: about 2x Delaware), which we chose partially because of it's supermarket. The next closest supermarket is 90min away. (Walmart: 2h). Not having to commute hours for groceries is a big deal, as is…

> Not having to commute hours for groceries is a big deal, as is being able to get vegetables of season - and in the rural west these things not a given. What you are describing is a de facto food desert: https://www.cdc.gov/features/FoodDeserts/index.html There might be an easy (albeit costly) way to fix this. Just today I learned about a govt agency called the Essential Air Service: > The United States Department o…

The essential air service is an enormous waste of money that could be going to people who really need it: https://crankyflier.com/2008/01/08/essential-air-service-thi...

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#272

Post by rayiner »

chimi wrote: post #263
Retric wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone hates government spending, until they want another handout. We already massively subsidize rural living costs, stop that and the free market would raise wages to compensate without the need for government intervention. Subsidized, farms, roads, healthcare, telecoms, deliveries, airports, etc etc it’s just wasteful.

The "free market" is a myth . Do you have a mortgage? Do you drive a car? Do you use the internet? Do you eat food? Do you spend money? Go to national parks? Drink water? You are the recipient of govt subsidies. We are a society and as such, some things are more valuable than people are willing to pay for them, but yet still essential to keeping society functioning.

Sure we’re a society, but we’re not a post scarcity society and wasteful programs divert money from things that are more important. When we have guaranteed lunches for every school student, then we can talk about subsidizing services for people in rural areas. (Who often aren’t exactly poor, because of the massive subsidies we pay for agriculture.)

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#273

Post by rayiner »

Bartweiss wrote: post #31
maxerickson wrote: post #2

So the town in the article is going to be nearly completely unlivable without a vehicle and is about 20 miles from a Walmart. There will be few decent jobs that are walkable, limited medical care, etc, in a town of 1,500, it is just the way it is. Which isn't to say that these folks can't lament reduced access to food, but the literal availability of food is low there only if you ignore that other circumstances alrea…

The car dependency of rural America is certainly worth discussing, and this specific grocery store case does have consequences. As one example, in towns like this retirement homes or apartments catering to older people are often within walking or shuttle distance of a town center with a grocery store, which helps preserve independence for people who no longer drive. But the focus of the article is strange, and seems…

45 miles is like what, a 35 minute drive in a rural area? Costco runs in Westchester NY took about that long when we depended on public transit.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#274

Post by paranoidrobot »

Retric wrote: post #244
core-questions wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever, like, left the city, man? Do you really think everyone can just live in the city without anyone out in the rural areas, you know, growing your fucking food?

Everyone hates government spending, until they want another handout. We already massively subsidize rural living costs, stop that and the free market would raise wages to compensate without the need for government intervention. Subsidized, farms, roads, healthcare, telecoms, deliveries, airports, etc etc it’s just wasteful.

If you think the free market would serve markets better, then why are there food deserts?

The truth is that the free market optimises for maximised ROI to the exclusion of all else.

There used to be a lot of smaller retailers serving communities - smaller markets, corner stores, delis, etc. Large retailers came in and set up super stores which offered comparable goods at lower prices (due to the larger purchasing power and ability to take a local loss subsidised by other areas).

Once the local retailers were run out of business - the business eventually looked at what stores wern't turning enough profit and shut them down. After all, there's no local competition - customers will be required to go further.

This lead to lots of local unemployment and communities in which it's impossible to get food and other necessities locally.

In a free market, wages only rise where the business doesn't have control over the market. Once they do (through consolidation and driving out competitors) - wages drop, positions disappear, and conditions degrade.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#275

Post by pm90 »

eaandkw wrote: post #240
techsupporter wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If so why do these stores close? Because for every one or two fantastically wealthy-beyond-all-belief-for-the-area technologist who moves in, five people who don't have a job like that leave the region in search of something that pays an income. A lot of these bucolic rural areas with a few thousand people in a county exist because of an industry that was present decades ago that has now collapsed. So, sure, the pr…

I always like using the example of minimalism. It really only works when a small number of people do it. If everyone did it the economy would collapse. And the coffee shops would be unusable because everyone would be in there trying to use the Wifi.

Capitalism kicks in. The proprietor would build a bigger coffeeshop. Or someone would open a Starbucks.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#276

Post by paranoidrobot »

rayiner wrote: post #272
chimi wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "free market" is a myth . Do you have a mortgage? Do you drive a car? Do you use the internet? Do you eat food? Do you spend money? Go to national parks? Drink water? You are the recipient of govt subsidies. We are a society and as such, some things are more valuable than people are willing to pay for them, but yet still essential to keeping society functioning.

Sure we’re a society, but we’re not a post scarcity society and wasteful programs divert money from things that are more important. When we have guaranteed lunches for every school student, then we can talk about subsidizing services for people in rural areas. (Who often aren’t exactly poor, because of the massive subsidies we pay for agriculture.)

> When we have guaranteed lunches for every school student, then we can talk about subsidizing services for people in rural areas.

Why do these have to be a one or the other?

It's like the argument of "Why are we doing stuff in space while we still have poor people".

As a society we're capable of solving multiple problems simultaneously.

Many farmers are going out of business because of major corporations driving out independent farmers.

There's huge numbers of farmers that are being required to undertake terrible short-sighted practices because that's what they're contractually required to do for $BrandName to buy their product.

As for 'not exactly poor' - no, they're the modern working class, for the most part. They're asset rich, but free cashflow low, and operate in conditions that are highly unpredictable, and much of their ability to turn a profit is based entirely on things out of their control. They depend on huge amounts of credit to buy the machinery and resources they need to operate.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#277

Post by repiret »

stevehawk wrote: post #100
genieyclo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity: why did you choose to live in such a remote/rural place?

As a nerd who also married a doctor and went rural - 1) Doctors tend to make more money in rural areas. Hospitals/practices tend to offer higher salaries/bonuses/etc in order to draw talent. My wife makes roughly 50% more in an area of 30,000 people (mind you, we're talking a pretty large geographic area) than she would in Miami. 2) Money goes further. My 4500sq ft home on 1.2 acres of land is worth considerably less…

As yet another nerd married to a doc in a rural area (Hines, OR, 90 min south of GP's John Day, and similarly remote), I'll also point out that rural docs have a broader scope of practice - to some extend they make more money because they do some work that is done by specialists in urban and suburban areas.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#278

Post by aSplash0fDerp »

aSplash0fDerp wrote: post #29

We're just a blink away from a new era of autonomous vehicles, which should make most of this a moot point. For all of these small rural communities, it makes sense for each of the local governments to purchase a fleet of vehicles that offer free shipping to its community from distant urban areas and subsidize on a local level. The future of bricks-and-mortar (or cinder blocks and cement) is anyones guess, but fricti…

The karma on this is going up and down today. Dunno what thats all about.

Perhaps I'm a little more optimistic about logistics than most, but in all likelyhood, we'll see an exodus from the urban areas that will drive the growth of same day/next day shipping to these smaller communities.

That would fix the "retail deserts" explained in the article and in the comments faster than shining up the facade of small town retail and hoping for the best.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#279

Post by jdkee »

jumbopapa wrote: post #97
refurb wrote: post #18

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Stores like Walmart and Dollar stores opened up, and consumer made the choice to shop there rather than at local grocery stores . Sounds like they are getting exactly what they wanted? Reminds me of folks in SF who bemoan the loss of a local butcher store. Sure, they may like buying organic cuts of meat at $15/lb, but it's obviously most people don't, that's why those stores we…

This is how I feel. A major point that is missed is that Walmart has brought many more products to a small market that otherwise would not have been there. You can cry that Walmart killed the town square, but when pushes comes to shoves consumers value lower prices and greater variety.

The town square has more value that that which can be measured in simple economic terms.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#280

Post by Retric »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #276
rayiner wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure we’re a society, but we’re not a post scarcity society and wasteful programs divert money from things that are more important. When we have guaranteed lunches for every school student, then we can talk about subsidizing services for people in rural areas. (Who often aren’t exactly poor, because of the massive subsidies we pay for agriculture.)

> When we have guaranteed lunches for every school student, then we can talk about subsidizing services for people in rural areas. Why do these have to be a one or the other? It's like the argument of "Why are we doing stuff in space while we still have poor people". As a society we're capable of solving multiple problems simultaneously. Many farmers are going out of business because of major corporations driving out…

For individual issues it’s not one or the other, but collectively it becomes that way due to finite resources. In a finite economy wasteful spending ends up costing lives in the short and long term.

Subsidies rarely help people in the long term because the markets adapt. Increase corn production and prices drop to match, but now you need to dump all that food on the market. Worse this is directly resulting in increased obesity and related health issues.

Post reply on HN