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

Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 257 posts

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#71

Post by dsfyu404ed »

mr_tristan wrote: post #43

I suspect this is a much bigger deal in the US, since we have rural power bias built into our political system. Thus, the rural voter has a much bigger "say" in how things run. (Subsequently, if their life continues to get worse, well, I suspect more tendencies towards authoritarianism.) This is where I sense the tension. At least in the US, the political system seems to want to maintain people in rural areas, but th…

>I suspect this is a much bigger deal in the US, since we have rural power bias built into our political system. Thus, the rural voter has a much bigger "say" in how things run.

At the federal level there is a bias toward rural states mostly because of how the senate works. At the state level pretty much every state is ruled by a couple counties that have the biggest cities in the state in them and everyone else is along for the ride.

I personally think this is pretty well balanced but would prefer for there to be far less federal authority (so it matters much less who controls each branch of the federal government) and far more (like 100 or so) states so that both groups can do what they want, in their own state, without much federal interference (and without fighting as much over everything) but that will never happen because the cities depend on the rural areas for resources and the rural areas depend on the cities for money so states will never split (and even if that were solved you'd never be able to divide states in a way that wasn't gerry-mandered to hell and back which would defeat the point).

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#72

Post by freehunter »

Kalium wrote: post #54
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pray tell, where do you expect all those agricultural products, lumber, livestock, and so forth that we all depend on to come from without small towns and rural communities? They have to grow somewhere after all.

You're completely correct. We depend utterly on a lot of basic products of small towns and rural communities. That said, just because food and lumber has to be grown somewhere doesn't mean it has to be grown in American small towns and rural communities. My wheat and rice can come from Mexico and Thailand and my beef from Argentina.

What's the delta between the environmental impact of growing wheat and beef etc locally vs shipping it 8000 miles?

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#73

Post by mr_tristan »

mrdodge wrote: post #69
mr_tristan wrote: post #43

I suspect this is a much bigger deal in the US, since we have rural power bias built into our political system. Thus, the rural voter has a much bigger "say" in how things run. (Subsequently, if their life continues to get worse, well, I suspect more tendencies towards authoritarianism.) This is where I sense the tension. At least in the US, the political system seems to want to maintain people in rural areas, but th…

What was different about America that small towns thrived? The economic system is short sighted, and doesn't always have to drive politics - this may be a recent phenomena.

When the US was founded, about 95% of the population was rural, and notably, Thomas Jefferson was famously pro-rural, and viewed cities as corrupt.

You can just search "thomas jefferson agrarian quotes" and get tons of pro-ag, anti-city statements from him, such as:

“Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bonds. As long, therefore, as they can find employment in this line, I would not convert them into mariners, artisans, or anything else.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1785.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#74

Post by Kalium »

freehunter wrote: post #72
Kalium wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're completely correct. We depend utterly on a lot of basic products of small towns and rural communities. That said, just because food and lumber has to be grown somewhere doesn't mean it has to be grown in American small towns and rural communities. My wheat and rice can come from Mexico and Thailand and my beef from Argentina.

What's the delta between the environmental impact of growing wheat and beef etc locally vs shipping it 8000 miles?

Trans-oceanic shipping and trains are surprisingly low-impact per unit of food. When you add in the environmental impact of things like growing rice in Texas deserts and almonds in California, the results can easily come out in favor of trade.

There are other considerations, too. Favoring local products is a good way to keep poor food-exporting countries poor. I don't want that, though I understand some people have different priorities from me.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#75

Post by mrdodge »

mr_tristan wrote: post #73
mrdodge wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was different about America that small towns thrived? The economic system is short sighted, and doesn't always have to drive politics - this may be a recent phenomena.

When the US was founded, about 95% of the population was rural, and notably, Thomas Jefferson was famously pro-rural, and viewed cities as corrupt. You can just search "thomas jefferson agrarian quotes" and get tons of pro-ag, anti-city statements from him, such as: “Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their…

We've become a nation of employees.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#76

Post by rb808 »

I can't read the article - did it mention globalization? I don't know why you'd want to hire someone remotely in small country town USA when you could get 10 people for the same price in other countries.

Now there are pretty resort towns where skilled people want to live, that is different. But old Mid-Western agricultural towns don't have that draw.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#77

Post by mr_tristan »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #71
mr_tristan wrote: post #43

I suspect this is a much bigger deal in the US, since we have rural power bias built into our political system. Thus, the rural voter has a much bigger "say" in how things run. (Subsequently, if their life continues to get worse, well, I suspect more tendencies towards authoritarianism.) This is where I sense the tension. At least in the US, the political system seems to want to maintain people in rural areas, but th…

>I suspect this is a much bigger deal in the US, since we have rural power bias built into our political system. Thus, the rural voter has a much bigger "say" in how things run. At the federal level there is a bias toward rural states mostly because of how the senate works. At the state level pretty much every state is ruled by a couple counties that have the biggest cities in the state in them and everyone else is a…

I don't think states are particularly balanced, either. States tend to put capitals away from population centers, and have the same tendencies to bias toward rural voters:

"Even states that had constitutions requiring equal population districts were ignoring them. Florida, Georgia and New Mexico gave small counties 100 times the voting power of the most populous ones. Decades ago in California, Amador County (population 14,294) had the same representation in the state’s Senate as Los Angeles County (with a population over six million)."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-app...

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#78

Post by jbhatab »

I feel a sense of inevitability with rural America fading in importance and massive hubs being the dominant players. The only solution I can think of is pushing for more remote labor in these rural areas as an acceptable lifestyle choice. Maybe restructuring the towns with more of an appeal for 30-45 year old software engineers to work out of. The biggest problem I see though is top tier education systems in these places being the biggest deterrent.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#80

Post by felipeccastro »

This looks somewhat familiar with the centralization vs decentralization debate in tech. It seems the network effects benefits don't apply only for tech products, but for cities as well.

While there are many efforts in overcoming those effects through decentralization in various aspects (from remote work to blockchain projects), it seems none of these really achieved as much success as we were expecting, probably because the benefits of decentralization don't outweigh (yet) the advantages of strong networks.

Perhaps once we solve this equation in tech, and make decentralized options more appealing than their centralized counterparts, we may be able to transfer that knowledge to city planning somehow.

Post reply on HN