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.
Because some are making it sound as though it is only a rural problem. The point is the exact same problems being pointed out that some small rural towns are dealing with are the exact same problems some areas of NOT small rural towns are dealing with. Addiction, poverty, unemployment. Why is it rural areas need help yet my question, what have the urban/metro areas done about their drug, alcohol, poverty, unemployment, migration issues has not been answered? Why is it these areas dont need *help*. Why isnt the question the USA has issues with drug addiction, alcohol use, poverty, homelessness, and unemployment and what can be done to help those affected by these issues?
As has been stated municipalities generally find a way attract new business and industry and create jobs through tax incentives, government grants, etc. If they fail to and even if they succeed some people will move away, some people will remain in poverty and unemployed. Not every small town is going to be revived.
I don't see people here making it out to be only a rural problem. I think everyone knows there is drug use in the cities. But the topic here is rural economies, the article was simply about the unique challenges faced in rebuilding those rural communities that struggle. The solutions for these areas are likely different than those in rural communities. Heck many poor rural folk probably feel their problems are ignored in favor of metro areas.
I feel like people here think for some reason it's an insult to say anyone in a rural community might need help, or that by saying some rural areas need help, that they aren't as good as metro areas. I really don't get this idea of competition between them.
I don't see people here making it out to be only a rural problem. I think everyone knows there is drug use in the cities. But the topic here is rural economies, the article was simply about the unique challenges faced in rebuilding those rural communities that struggle. The solutions for these areas are likely different than those in rural communities. Heck many poor rural folk probably feel their problems are ignored in favor of metro areas.
I feel like people here think for some reason it's an insult to say anyone in a rural community might need help, or that by saying some rural areas need help, that they aren't as good as metro areas. I really don't get this idea of competition between them.
Just about every poster has said the problem is the article reads as though nearly all rural communities and people are in need of help and the argument is that while some rural areas are economically depressed most are not in need of help. As well most rural inhabitants are there by choice.
It is not a competition, posters are just pointing out the same issues occur in metro areas and like metro the economic issues dont encompass all metro areas. Personally I would like people to stop saying rural america and Appalachia as those regions were one homogeneous entity.
Areas that were dependent on one particular industry, lumber, mines, etc. or largely manufacturing are hardest hit when those industries disappear. Mining, timber, oil etc. may never come back. Manufacturing has been outsourced. Stop outsourcing, stop illegal workers, bring the factories back. That is what fueled many now economically depressed areas. Trying to turn a blue collar area into a white collar area with no existing resources is not the answer.
What people are not aware of addiction, poverty and unemployment in rural areas? The people that live there and have experienced it over the many decades or people living in metro areas.
Surely you've heard people say they want to move to a rural area to get away from "city problems." Hence, people have different expectations of rural areas. So, rural areas are changing.
Surely you've heard people say they want to move to a rural area to get away from "city problems." Hence, people have different expectations of rural areas. So, rural areas are changing.
Not necessarily problems. Generally higher taxes, traffic, noise, rudeness, regulations, restrictions.
So your answer is people who have absolutely no real idea of what constitutes a rural area? Like those who live in metro areas and think rural areas are like Bluebell or Mayberry? Or perhaps Green acres or Petticoat Junction? They glean their knowledge from TV shows and the NYT.
Not necessarily problems. Generally higher taxes, traffic, noise, rudeness, regulations, restrictions.
And higher Cost-Of-Living, street lights, gangs, all the city nonsense.
Quote:
... So your answer is people who have absolutely no real idea of what constitutes a rural area? Like those who live in metro areas and think rural areas are like Bluebell or Mayberry? Or perhaps Green acres or Petticoat Junction? They glean their knowledge from TV shows and the NYT.
I have no idea where people get ideas.
FBI crime statistics break it down as incidents per 100,000 people.
There are cities where 100,000 people make one city block.
There are also counties with 100,000 people spread out among one city, 40 towns, and a bunch of rural areas [less than 10 people per square-mile].
If your FBI crime statistics says one rape per 100,000 people. In a big city you could have one on each block, every year. In my small town [population 235] there might hear of one every 425 generations.
With the same exact crime stats, in a city there could be one rape every year on your block. In a small town you could go for over 400 generations before statistics would predict one rape.
So, let me see if I understand this. Every single rural area in Anerica is just plum dandy. All this talk of dying towns, meth and opioids, poor accesd to healthcare, lack of jobs, etc, are all lies. Is that it? Even when those from rural areas speak of these things, they are also lying? J.D. Vance is a liar?
The rural towns where the coal mines and factories closed? Those towns...are just doing fine.
In fact, concerned US citizens and those in state & federal government can just ignore the rural areas because things are just peachy keen everywhere.
Do I have it?
Last edited by charlygal; 01-03-2019 at 07:23 PM..
So, let me see if I understand this. Every single rural area in Anerica is just plum dandy. All this talk of dying towns, meth and opioids, poor accesd to healthcare, lack of jobs, etc, are all lies. Is that it? Even when those from rural areas speak of these things, they are also lying? J.D. Vance is a liar?
The rural towns where the coal mines and factories closed? Those towns...are just doing fine.
In fact, concerned US citizens and those in state & federal government can just ignore the rural areas because things are just peachy keen everywhere.
Do I have it?
No you still dont. No one said anything remotely resembling "Every single rural area in Anerica is just plum dandy". No need for me to continue to explain, you can go back and read the post again if your actually open to comprehending them.
So, let me see if I understand this. Every single rural area in Anerica is just plum dandy. All this talk of dying towns, meth and opioids, poor accesd to healthcare, lack of jobs, etc, are all lies. Is that it? Even when those from rural areas speak of these things, they are also lying? J.D. Vance is a liar?
The rural towns where the coal mines and factories closed? Those towns...are just doing fine.
In fact, concerned US citizens and those in state & federal government can just ignore the rural areas because things are just peachy keen everywhere.
Do I have it?
No.
Go back and read the article. The author expressly states that the only rural areas that aren't suffering are those with oil and gas jobs and those that are agricultural hubs. This isn't true, and is what is being disputed.
Yes, there are rural areas that are struggling. But there are also many that are thriving. You can't look at a comprehensive set of statistics and broadly assign them to the entire country.
The author accentuates the negatives while ignoring the positives. If it were a more balanced article, or if it focused on a specific area that truly is struggling instead of throwing all of rural America into the same pot, this thread would have died on page two.
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.
I should have know by your posts.
