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.
Much ink has been spilt bemoaning the economic decline of rural and small-town America. 760 counties in the United States are losing population. Politicians have all kinds of ideas about how to revive these areas, none of them particularly insightful.
Although there are multiple issues contributing to this phenomenon, including changes in agricultural productivity, the largest contributing factor is America's declining birth rate.
Families in small towns and rural areas have always lost a percentage of their children to the big cities. That's nothing new. What is new is that families are getting smaller, and in rural areas they are too small to sustain their local economies. If a small town family with six children loses 50% of them to the big city, there are still three children who remain home - three producers, consumers, and taxpayers - to support the local economy. If a small town family with just two or three children loses 50% of them to the big city, then only one remains at home and the family's presence in the area shrinks dramatically.
Big cities don't need high birthrates to survive. Their populations grow naturally through in-migration. Small towns and rural areas, on the other hand, must have a birthrate that is significantly higher than replacement level in order to survive.
The solution for reviving the nation's rural economy is simple: have more children. Just once I'd like to see a mainstream article on this topic point out the obvious.
760 counties in the United States are losing population ... Although there are multiple issues
contributing to this phenomenon, including changes in agricultural productivity,
the largest contributing factor is America's declining birth rate.
Which is rooted directly in the success of that modern agricultural productivity and farm machinery.
Families don't NEED to breed help anymore.
You're talking in circles.
Quote:
The solution for reviving the nation's rural economy is simple: have more children.
How can you possibly advocate deliberately increasing population (at all)...
but especially in areas with less and less employment for these people?
That is outrageous.
Want more people in Podunk Iowa? Give them a reason to BE there.
They'll move in tomorrow.
Have more children? I don't think that is the answer. The only ones here that can afford more than 1 or 2 children are on public assistance and the farmers in the county mostly just scrape by as it is. If we had jobs in these smaller communities, jobs farmed outside the US, the children would be staying in the communities. Having more children is not the answer to any question I can think of except "How can I get additional public assistance?"
If your theoretical three do remain at home do they actually find work that will provide a decent income or do they support the family farm until the parents get too old to remain? Then who runs the farm? Which one of the three inherits and what do the other two do for a living? Work for the senior brother?
Under current birth rates one kid stays behind and runs the farm with hired help while the others make their fortune in the big city. Farmers were complaining about this when Babylon was the big city. I do not think it is birth rate but the sheer decline in need for people as farms become mechanized even more.
Besides, How ya gonna keep em down on the farm once they've seen Paree?
The way to save a rural life is to make it more prosperous and interesting.
u gonna PAY for these extra kids? Cause I aint. They don't benefit me at all. In fact, they cost me a lot of money, even if they AINT mine, and that's not going anywhere with me. They restrict my hunting and shooting spaces, probably aint NRA members, etc.
How can you possibly advocate deliberately increasing population (at all)... but especially in areas with less and less employment for these people? That is outrageous.
I'm afraid you're putting the cart before the horse, economically speaking. It takes people to start a business, people to sustain a business, and people to grow a business. Those kids who stay home will be more likely to do something entrepreneurial in their own communities, to help grow the business of a local employer, and to spend their earnings in local markets.
Let me tell you a little secret about small towns: there is more money in these towns than can be spent in them. That's right: locals spend their dollars outside because that's where the markets are. With more people remaining in the community, there will be more places to spend money in the community.
not true anymore. it takes PRODUCTIVE people to grow or support a biz, and that just AINT the majority of our population anymore.
Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. It is also the mother of entrepreneurship. People who feel the need to stay close to home for family reasons will find a way to make a living. But without those people, nothing happens.
There are lots of folks in the small town I live in who could make more money elsewhere, but they've chosen to operate a business here because this is where they want to live. Their families have been here for generations. Larger families means more people will want to live in these places, thereby reviving their local economies.
I'm afraid you're putting the cart before the horse, economically speaking. It takes people to start a business, people to sustain a business, and people to grow a business. Those kids who stay home will be more likely to do something entrepreneurial in their own communities, to help grow the business of a local employer, and to spend their earnings in local markets.
Let me tell you a little secret about small towns: there is more money in these towns than can be spent in them. That's right: locals spend their dollars outside because that's where the markets are. With more people remaining in the community, there will be more places to spend money in the community.
Econ 101, folks. People first. Business follows.
There are plenty of transplants running from the big cities and plenty of illegals to fill the slots of the farm kids that leave rural areas. Experience 101.
Which is rooted directly in the success of that modern agricultural productivity and farm machinery.
Families don't NEED to breed help anymore.
You're talking in circles.
How can you possibly advocate deliberately increasing population (at all)...
but especially in areas with less and less employment for these people?
That is outrageous.
Want more people in Podunk Iowa? Give them a reason to BE there.
They'll move in tomorrow.
^^ 1+ ^^
Hopefully, with the trend toward producing and buying locally grown produce, we will see a re-emergence of the family farm. Until such time, however, what you say, MrRational is exactly correct, the reason that America's youth are migrating to the cities is because that is where the jobs are.
The fact of the matter is that people tend to prefer jobs where they use their brain and not their brawn. Although there are rural jobs available other than farming/ranching, by and large *most* gainful employment involves a lot of hard labor. Unlike generations passed, the X, Y, and Z generations are not particularly interested in working up a sweat while earning their daily bread. They want to sashay into the workplace be paid $50,000 (out of college), for simply showing up. In most cases, the concept of actually working is distasteful, and physical labor, even moreso.
We have come to that strange fork in the road where people WANT to support rural, domestic, locally grown and manufactured items, and yet few people want to do it. At least, not many people under 40.
Having more children solves nothing. Instead of 3 of them moving away to the city and 3 of them staying home, you will have all 6 of them moving away to the city and using up even more and more precious resources.
In case the OP hasn't noticed, given the choice between having 2 or 3 or 9 or 10 children MOST women would much prefer the former and not the latter. Good luck talking most women into birthing and caring for a big family these days. LOL
20yrsinBranson
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.
