Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NYC gets its water supply from upstate reservoirs, constructed and built using NYC money. Not a single dollar was spent by the federal or state government for any of those projects, including Water Tunnel #2.
A city generates enough money to just buy everything they need with money, there is no intrinsic need to subsidize rural communities at all. If all of the sudden all of the residents of upstate got bubonic plague and died... nothing would happen to NYC. We'd just buy food from NJ, Midwest, California, or China; ditto for everything else. That is because the productivity of people in the city is vastly superior to the productivity of people in the country, and in the time of 21st century global trade you can just buy everything you cannot produce by yourself.
Self-sufficiency is a 17th century outdated concept. Cities are the engines of growth, progress, innovation, and global trade and communication. Cities define civilizations. The only self-sufficient country nowadays is North Korea and we all know how far it got them.
Yes. Cities are efficient factories of wealth generation. That's the reason that for 300+ years people have been leaving the countryside to live in cities (including the surrounding suburbs). It is much easier to raise your standard of living in an urban area versus a rural area.
That is why urban areas are wealthier than rural areas. Not because urban areas pilfer or mooch off rural areas, but because urban areas generate more wealth.
Chicago gets what it wants, it's large enough and powerful enough to warrant that from Illinois. Other than that you think of cities like Indianapolis, Atlanta and Phoenix which are the largest cities in their respective states and being the state capital only adds to it.
As far as the rural v urban debate, one area can't survive without the other. Cities do not produce the grains/fruits/vegetables/dairy for our dinner tables, nor do they provide the beef, pork and poultry. Sure you have people with small gardens and you have some that have slightly larger land tracts that allow them to produce these things but when it comes to being able to provide for the masses, you need large swaths of land which are not available in the cities/suburbs. On the other side, farming is a very time consuming and expensive venture. It's very difficult for farmers to be able to afford the amount of land they have with what they sell at market (depending on market rates of course). They need help economically and urban areas help provide that. It's give and take. I personally have a lot of respect for farmers, it's some of the hardest work you can ever do and they never get so much as a thank you. In the city, a person can hit a throw a 75 yard td pass and they are the greatest thing since sliced bread.
No city bleeds a state dry like Detroit does to the rest of Michigan. Not only does Detroit drain the state of its revenue, but it also has damaged the entire states reputation to the point that it has cost us outside investment opportunities as well. Many people now associate Michigan with Detroits problems, and what business would locate here when they think we have a high crime rate, corrupt goverment and militant unions. Michigan is NOT Detroit, it is no different than any other midwest state. Detroit has become an anchor wrapped around our states neck. Detroit has very little good about it, too bad we cant just make Ohio take it, or maybe Ontario.
^ I agree. I LOVE Michigan, but that's a very frustrating fact. Michigan is NOT Detroit. Something like 7% of the entire state lives in the city of Detroit.
NYC gets its water supply from upstate reservoirs, constructed and built using NYC money. Not a single dollar was spent by the federal or state government for any of those projects, including Water Tunnel #3.
A city generates enough money to just buy everything they need with money, there is no intrinsic need to subsidize rural communities at all. If all of the sudden all of the residents of upstate got bubonic plague and died... nothing would happen to NYC. We'd just buy food from NJ, Midwest, California, or China; ditto for everything else. That is because the productivity of people in the city is vastly superior to the productivity of people in the country, and in the time of 21st century global trade you can just buy everything you cannot produce by yourself.
Self-sufficiency is a 17th century outdated concept. Cities are the engines of growth, progress, innovation, and global trade and communication. Cities define civilizations. The only self-sufficient country nowadays is North Korea and we all know how far it got them.
Get real. A city generates the wealth out of thin air? No it doesn't. The city is a concept, an environment that grew FROM and still relies HEAVILY on rural resources to the tune of over 90% of what a city engages in is generated using rural resource. What generates the wealth was big business, taxes, job....all of those are reliant on rural resources. Global trade and communication is not possible without rural resources. If cities are the engines of growth, what is their #1 fuel?
Yes. Cities are efficient factories of wealth generation. That's the reason that for 300+ years people have been leaving the countryside to live in cities (including the surrounding suburbs). It is much easier to raise your standard of living in an urban area versus a rural area.
That is why urban areas are wealthier than rural areas. Not because urban areas pilfer or mooch off rural areas, but because urban areas generate more wealth.
The city of Chicago is broke. The state of Illinois is nearly bankrupt. The people are wealthier in the pocketbook in cities, but also live up to their eyeballs in debt just as farmers do..and .. and the cultural advantages and standard of living are debatable. There are atrocious living conditions in big cities. All that supposed "wealth" and yet 50% of all people on earth still do not live in cities. I suppose in the merry ol land of Oz, there are are no farms producing all that wonderful food city folks buy and eat. Its all harvested and cared for by flying robots and such? What of all the raw materials and resources it takes to run the cities every single day. Can't be done without wealth of the cities, that's very true, but their wealth wouldn't even exist without rural resources. And many farms wouldn't exist without the cities right? Maybe. Humans got along without cities for thousands of years. Cities are the ones who collapse in the end.
Last edited by dosequis man; 09-28-2011 at 01:00 PM..
The city of Chicago is broke. The state of Illinois is nearly bankrupt. The people are wealthier in the pocketbook in cities, and I suppose in the m erry land of Oz, there are are no farms producing all that wonderful food city folks buy and eat. Its all harvested and cared for by robots? What of all the raw materials and resources it takes to run the cities every single day. Can't be done without wealthn of the cities, but their wealth wouldn't even exist without rural resources. And many farms wouldn't exist without the cities right? Maybe. Humans got along without cities for thousands of years. Cities are the ones who collapse in the end.
A city is like a factory for wealth. It takes commodity inputs: food, minerals, labor and spits out value added goods. Yes, of course cities are reliant on rural inputs. Only a fool would deny that. Yes, people can live and have lived without cities. People can also live a simple hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but few choose to do so voluntarily. What exactly is your point?
I think most major cities exist in some sort of reciprocity with the rest of their state, whereby money may leave a populated metro area for rural areas, but goods and (especially) resources are sent in larger amounts to the major metro area. I think a number of major metros are more reliant on the rural parts of their state than the metro's residents would be willing to admit.
Get real. A city generates the wealth out of thin air? No it doesn't. The city is a concept, an environment that grew FROM and still relies HEAVILY on rural resources to the tune of over 90% of what a city engages in is generated using rural resource. What generates the wealth was big business, taxes, job....all of those are reliant on rural resources. Global trade and communication is not possible without rural resources. If cities are the engines of growth, what is their #1 fuel?
My argument clearly was not that the cities exist in a vacuum and are self-sufficient. Your argument is a straw man.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wealthier in the pocketbook in cities, but also live up to their eyeballs in debt just as farmers do..and .. and the cultural advantages and standard of living are debatable. There are atrocious living conditions in big cities. All that supposed "wealth" and yet 50% of all people on earth still do not live in cities. I suppose in the merry ol land of Oz, there are are no farms producing all that wonderful food city folks buy and eat. Its all harvested and cared for by flying robots and such? What of all the raw materials and resources it takes to run the cities every single day. Can't be done without wealth of the cities, that's very true, but their wealth wouldn't even exist without rural resources. And many farms wouldn't exist without the cities right? Maybe. Humans got along without cities for thousands of years. Cities are the ones who collapse in the end.
