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.
The US has been getting continuously more urban since the first census in 1790. Back then, about 5.1% of the country's four million people (including slaves) lived in or next to cities. By 2010, that was 80.7%. The only gap in that trend was from 1810 to 1820, when the percentage fell from 7.3 to 7.2. But it bounced up to 8.8% by 1830, and accelerated from there.
On a global basis, 80.7% is a fairly high rate of urbanization. The world average is about 50%. Canada is close to the same as the US. Switzerland is lower at 74%, Russia is about the same, but China is way down at 51%. The US would actually have to de-urbanize substantially to match those numbers.
There is no great clamoring in the US to move out to the countryside. I grew up in the countryside; the general trend was for people to slowly move away. Government policies may have made life in the country more or less economically viable in certain ways, but the main reasons for leaving included complaints about boredom and access to jobs. Same as it has been - I suspect - for a couple centuries now.
1. US rural settlement has avoided forming farming villages, and generally organized itself into isolated family farms.
2. The emphasis on "making money" over self sufficient farming skewed labor to leave farms and head for "the money."
3. The inherent loneliness of family farms and lack of access to a more diverse vocational pool didn't help matters.
....
2. The emphasis on "making money" over self sufficient farming skewed labor to leave farms and head for "the money."
There's a reason "self sufficient farming" -- also called "subsistence farming" -- is synonymous with "grinding poverty".
As for the zoning mentioned above... what it's done is make it so if farming becomes uneconomical, the farmer has a whole lot of nothing instead of valuable land people could put to use for other things.
There's a reason "self sufficient farming" -- also called "subsistence farming" -- is synonymous with "grinding poverty".
As for the zoning mentioned above... what it's done is make it so if farming becomes uneconomical, the farmer has a whole lot of nothing instead of valuable land people could put to use for other things.
You've also gone from the majority of the population working in agriculture to something in the order of 2-3%. You also have the hated car and much greater prosperity That means 97-98% of the population no longer has to live within walking distance of the field they work in. It isn't really any different in England where they formed these quaint little villages. There's now 1000 times as many people living in these now much larger quaint farming villagers than can work in the fields they can walk to. The village grew up and became more urban.
I would say that the war on poverty has had a slight effect. The inner city poor are the minority, but if you look at where the focus of the war on poverty is, it's almost exclusively on the inner city. Recently now you're having some people who live very sheltered lives become amazed that poor people live other places as well, like the suburbs. Rural poverty, however, is still mostly ignored. There's no job programs, they don't build free housing, they don't provide free daycare, they don't have lots of health clinics and nutrition programs, there's much more limited employment opportunities yet it's the rural poor that are most likely to be working poor. Rural poverty is more self-reliant and reliant on community and family.
You've also gone from the majority of the population working in agriculture to something in the order of 2-3%. You also have the hated car and much greater prosperity That means 97-98% of the population no longer has to live within walking distance of the field they work in. It isn't really any different in England where they formed these quaint little villages. There's now 1000 times as many people living in these now much larger quaint farming villagers than can work in the fields they can walk to. The village grew up and became more urban.
Or less urban, in the sense of steady population decline. Take this French village:
Other than those who can rely on generous French farming subsidies, there's little economic reasons to stay there. Apparently, the French don't like to be self-sufficient farmers, either. Nor does farming villages prevent population decline.
Quote:
I would say that the war on poverty has had a slight effect. The inner city poor are the minority, but if you look at where the focus of the war on poverty is, it's almost exclusively on the inner city. Recently now you're having some people who live very sheltered lives become amazed that poor people live other places as well, like the suburbs. Rural poverty, however, is still mostly ignored. There's no job programs, they don't build free housing, they don't provide free daycare, they don't have lots of health clinics and nutrition programs, there's much more limited employment opportunities yet it's the rural poor that are most likely to be working poor. Rural poverty is more self-reliant and reliant on community and family.
The 60s era war on poverty did focus on rural areas (Appalachia in particular)
As for the zoning mentioned above... what it's done is make it so if farming becomes uneconomical, the farmer has a whole lot of nothing instead of valuable land people could put to use for other things.
True, though the origional purpose of owning the land for the farmer was farming purpose. But that's the point of a law like that, to prevent rural land for being used for anything other than agriculture. I don't want the rural land in my area turning into tract homes, there's enough space closer to towns for people to live.
Here, in the valley farmland is good and economical but there's also the most housing demand. There isn't much else in the area that's farmable so it'd be a shame to lose it to 1+ acre housing lots. What I thought might be a good idea here would be instead of having a minimum lot size a maximum lot size in the rural valley areas (1/4-1/2 acre ?) so that housing could be built but the land consumed won't be large enough to lose farmland.* Up in the hills, farming is unprofitable and much of it has returned to forest. Hopefully, it could stay intact. The hilltowns are another similar example of population loss.
Note the post-1960 recovery as it became fashionable for people to move out to the country. That's fine, but a building boom would ruin the area.
*And yes, before one goes ahead and says "the US is not running out of farmland". That is true and an irrelevant argument. My interest is in preserving a bit of local agriculture where it can survive in the region, and keeping open space, this has nothing to do with the national food supply.
True, though the origional purpose of owning the land for the farmer was farming purpose. But that's the point of a law like that, to prevent rural land for being used for anything other than agriculture. I don't want the rural land in my area turning into tract homes, there's enough space closer to towns for people to live.
Sure, you got yours (and so did the farmers who sold the land already turned into tract homes) -- now everyone else stay out.
Quote:
Up in the hills, farming is unprofitable and much of it has returned to forest.
Sure, you got yours (and so did the farmers who sold the land already turned into tract homes) -- now everyone else stay out.
I'm not trying to live in a large lot in a rural area, I don't have mine. But yes, I do want everyone to stay out: besides keeping local agriculture, it'd spoil local bike rides.
Quote:
And what happened to the farmers?
Either moved to towns (a lot to work in the factories) or moved to the Midwest for better farmland. If you explore the hills, you can find stone walls in the forest in what used to farmland.
I am sick of all of the Nimbys acting like CAHSR knocking down two burgerjoints and a suburban development is the end of the world. Have you ever heard of HIGHWAYS!!!!!!! Honestly, I think that what is being removed is a small price for a transportation system better that any highway out there. If Highways were allowed to be built through thousands of dense urban areas, than those farmers better suck it up, and lose 1/20th of their farms.
I am sick of all of the Nimbys acting like CAHSR knocking down two burgerjoints and a suburban development is the end of the world. Have you ever heard of HIGHWAYS!!!!!!! Honestly, I think that what is being removed is a small price for a transportation system better that any highway out there. If Highways were allowed to be built through thousands of dense urban areas, than those farmers better suck it up, and lose 1/20th of their farms.
I am no fan of the apparent desire to regulate everyone else's daily existence in the name of "planning" or "greater common good", or whatever other fairy tale of the day seems to dominate too much of the "thinking" at this forum, but nobody's seriously thinking of expanding the highway system on the fringes of most urban areas. The finite supply of land on the outskirts of most major cities (with a few exceptions like Houston) has made this impossible, and supply and demand are two police officers that can't be ignored, or legislated around.
And interestingly enough, the decay, demolition and smaller-scale redevelopment within some of the older, de-industrializing, (and often corrupt) cities has spawned some other unexpected side effects. According to Charlie LeDuff's American Autopsy, an occasional whitetail (deer) is occasionally seen in the most-deserted parts of what used to be Detroit.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 09-29-2013 at 12:41 PM..
Sure, you got yours (and so did the farmers who sold the land already turned into tract homes) -- now everyone else stay out.
And what happened to the farmers?
Exactly. It does seem very unfair, and such a policy punishes farmers by preventing them from making the best possible use of their own property in terms of their personal life; if a farmer believes he'd be better off moving elsewhere, and he would get more money by selling to someone other than a farmer, then that extra money he gets will be spent, saved, or invested wherever he moved, where that wealth would circulate and benefit the whole economy over time. If the all-knowing planners stop him from doing so, he would either get less money to save/spend/invest, or not be able to sell it at all, in which case he'd be left with nothing and that process I described wouldn't take place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the city
I would think if any of the rail goes through even part of some one's land, then they will take all of the land or make the land unfarmable as the rail goes through rural property.
I regularly drive by a farm that is divided into 5 sections by two divided highways and a railroad, but the farmer still grows and harvests a crop every year, and with the exception of the ROWs for the road and rail the land has not been taken by anyone. A similar but less extreme pattern is seen elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
At first glance, I thought it was : "I heard people living in rural areas is being deceased..." Dead farmers walking?
No, that would be some zombies that wandered in from Detroit.
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.
.
