U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-03-2012, 05:35 PM
 
1,981 posts, read 3,173,279 times
Reputation: 1575

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
What's "smug" about that? It's factual. Truth is, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia account for 60% of the state's population, but 70% of the state's GDP, and yet, they only get 50% of the spending. (The percentages are approximate.)
I wish more people interested in geography would study location theory. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are major centers. They provide goods and services that smaller markets can not. People from outside those cities must conduct significant business with those centers both directly and indirectly.

Build a wall around Pittsburgh, don't let anyone in or out and see how well it fares.

Major cities are in part of what they are because of their surrounding areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-03-2012, 05:45 PM
 
Location: Florida
398 posts, read 621,910 times
Reputation: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I wish more people interested in geography would study location theory. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are major centers. They provide goods and services that smaller markets can not. People from outside those cities must conduct significant business with those centers both directly and indirectly.

Build a wall around Pittsburgh, don't let anyone in or out and see how well it fares.

Major cities are in part of what they are because of their surrounding areas.
Of course they are, and you see the peak concentration of services in them. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way, and efficiency doesn't always equal a better quality of life, better educated people, or anything like that.
Just for instance how automobiles changed the land scape in relations to schools, it basically did away with one room school houses, because now people could be bused from farther distances to larger and larger schools. Everything in essence can be consolidated, doesn't mean it should be though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 05:47 PM
 
Location: LBC
4,155 posts, read 4,484,668 times
Reputation: 3543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
You live in Massachusetts, with terrible geography for agriculture. Your rural areas are filled with colleges and professionals who commute to larger centers. Massachusetts is not a good example of the urban/rural divide in America.

Neighboring New York would be a better example. For example Delaware County, NY was once the #1 producing dairy county in the country. Now days it is rare to find a working dairy farm due to regulations imposed on the area from urban interests.

In Washington, rural areas were forced into the Growth Management Act which greatly limited their spatial economic pursuits. On top of that heavy handed regulations from DNR and other agencies, again from urban interests, are limiting what they can do with their land.

Rural area hate the urban areas for sticking their nose in their business and wrecking their lifestyle and economic pursuits.
There are dairy farms in Riverside County, CA. Until not too long ago, cattle waste “lagoons” on these farms would top off, or even breach, then flow into the Santa Ana River during a heavy rain. The filth also carried a huge amount of fertilizer. All this would make its way into the Upper Newport Bay, where all the nutrient rich goodness would cause massive algal blooms, and slowly kill that wetland eco-system, to say nothing about the property values of those living around Newport (whom I care nothing about). Considering Orange County was one of the largest markets for that industry, what it unreasonable to expect the dairy farmers to stop externalizing that cost? These farmers thought they exempt from being responsible neighbors, as this resulted in litigation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 06:06 PM
 
Location: LBC
4,155 posts, read 4,484,668 times
Reputation: 3543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizz0rd View Post
Gnutella and nslander, but you need to go back into history and figure out why things are that way.
This might be an off putting example, but it is kind of like those who want to do away with Affirmative Action... Basically the political powers that be, largely based in cities consolidated power in the cities and concentrated wealth to unprecedented levels due to largely greed and industrialization. Railroad companies got illegal deals, so did mining and steel companies among others... Massive corruption went on that did not help the farmer.
Major examples include projects like the Hoover Dam and TVA.
The rural areas of the country were also largely screwed throughout history and those subsidies were long into law that were agreed upon back when farmers unions and such were forming like the **** (Southern Tenant Farmers Union) (no pun intended), or due to things that were passed during the New Deal that people are still arguing over.
So basically no, I don't think it is unfair they are being subsidized, because in reality they were downright screwed.
Yeah, I'm not going to address a farmer/slavery analogy.

My grandparents farmed under simply brutal conditions. Think Dustbowl. My grandmother NEVER whined to me about how put-upon they were. They ended up in cities but never defined their lives as town vs country.

But farming aside, what about the majority of those living in rural/semi-rural areas who don't farm? Why is it ok for them to whine about their region being "transgressed upon" by Big Government when it receives more from the Feds than it contributes? It says more about a desire for victimhood than anything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 06:38 PM
 
9,382 posts, read 9,541,753 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
You live in Massachusetts, with terrible geography for agriculture. Your rural areas are filled with colleges and professionals who commute to larger centers. Massachusetts is not a good example of the urban/rural divide in America.

Neighboring New York would be a better example. For example Delaware County, NY was once the #1 producing dairy county in the country. Now days it is rare to find a working dairy farm due to regulations imposed on the area from urban interests.

In Washington, rural areas were forced into the Growth Management Act which greatly limited their spatial economic pursuits. On top of that heavy handed regulations from DNR and other agencies, again from urban interests, are limiting what they can do with their land.

Rural area hate the urban areas for sticking their nose in their business and wrecking their lifestyle and economic pursuits.
Not to mention that Western MA is connected to Hartford/Springfield. OF which the majority or jobs are in CT, not MA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 07:02 PM
 
Location: plano
6,569 posts, read 8,103,218 times
Reputation: 5805
Quote:
Originally Posted by nslander View Post
Yeah, I'm not going to address a farmer/slavery analogy.

My grandparents farmed under simply brutal conditions. Think Dustbowl. My grandmother NEVER whined to me about how put-upon they were. They ended up in cities but never defined their lives as town vs country.

But farming aside, what about the majority of those living in rural/semi-rural areas who don't farm? Why is it ok for them to whine about their region being "transgressed upon" by Big Government when it receives more from the Feds than it contributes? It says more about a desire for victimhood than anything else.
Where is the data to support the contention that more tax revenue goes to rural areas then is collected from them? If you are talking agi subsidies perhaps but few are in farming now. Like it not city slickers, you need rural to live either in this country or import it from a farm someplace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 09:43 PM
 
Location: LBC
4,155 posts, read 4,484,668 times
Reputation: 3543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnhw2 View Post
Where is the data to support the contention that more tax revenue goes to rural areas then is collected from them? If you are talking agi subsidies perhaps but few are in farming now. Like it not city slickers, you need rural to live either in this country or import it from a farm someplace.
Firstly, what up with "city slickers"? I've not reduced you to a stereotype, and it'd be nice if you were to return the courtesy. But it is representative of the double standard, preemptively defensive BS that always frames this discussion.

Secondly, I've already posted the data, but I can't make you drink the water. There are donor states and recipient states. Recipient states are the low population density, largely rural states. If you don't trust this city slicker, please feel free to research this subject yourself.

Honestly, its disheartening to hear anybody with such a strong opinion on this matter fail to recognize this. The very fact so many refuse to acknowledge simple math helps explain the divide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 12:10 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
1,392 posts, read 1,276,102 times
Reputation: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
I already illustrated one way. Pennsylvania spends more money subsidizing rural roads than they do mass transit. The real money pit in Pennsylvania is the rural areas. U.S. 15 through Lycoming and Tioga Counties gets turned into a four-lane limited-access highway even though traffic levels don't justify it. Meanwhile, I-376 remains a pair of cattle chutes through the Pittsburgh area. The money spent upgrading U.S. 15 would have been put to better use modernizing I-376.
This is one example though...and a rather poor one at that. If you look at Pennsylvania's state constitution for example the thing was completely written by lawyers from Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and gives to much power to those cities compared to other areas of PA.

US 15 being expanded is due to commercial truck traffic since if you want to go directly north in PA to New York from the Carlisle-Harrisburg metro area (which is a significant trucking and warehousing area) you are going to use US 15. Hell the thing should be completely free way anyhow from Harrisburg up till New York so you could travel by Free Way from Baltimore up to Rochester New York. Using I-83 from Baltimore then getting on US 15 in Harrisburg Pa to New York then get on NY 417 to I-390. I'm not arguing I-376 shouldn't be upgraded but your comment here about expanding US 15 being a waste is way off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 12:15 AM
 
10 posts, read 17,086 times
Reputation: 18
people fight in city as well as in country because of there bad thinkings on other citys or in jelous of development
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 06:04 AM
 
Location: South Central Nebraska
350 posts, read 630,358 times
Reputation: 280
My contentions with cities usually revolve around politics, whose legislators, because of the numbers involved, tend to dominate the political scene. Some of the proposals they come up with are just plain stupid and they fail to consider the workability of said plans for the rural areas of the state.

Other than the city politicians, I don't hate all "city people" but I don't like some aspects of "city people" for the following reasons:
(1) Driving - lot less patient drivers, drivers go far over the speed limit (drivers are typically much more compliant/drive slower in rural areas or even outside of our big Metro (Lincoln/Omaha) area.
(2) Work - I generally find the urban counterparts in my line of business to be more hostile, less cooperative, and more dog-eat-dog. Maybe in a different line of business I would enjoy my urban counterparts but not my current one. There seems to be less value placed on time spent with family in an urban area. Additionally there seems to be less job security and less employer loyalty in an urban area. Some of these things seem difficult to stomach and other than the huge reason that I don't live in an urban area because I love living in a rural area, the work environment is enough to make me not want to be in an urban area.

Otherwise I enjoy your restaurants, stores, and experiencing a different pace from time-to-time on the weekend. That's why many "country people" come visit. But I think your leaders and politicians give you all a bad rap. There are states far worse than Nebraska for this - just look at Illinois - the hatred/divide between the Chicago area and Downstate Illinois (mostly because of Chicago politicians) couldn't be any larger!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top