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.
Low crime
Low taxes
Low nanny statism
More freedom
More privacy
Tell you what lefttist stay in the city, we keep the suburbs and country.
Also Agenda 21 and its affects on this nation are being to became very self evident.
Low taxes due to a lack of services
Not true in the slightest, especially in little towns run by corrupt nepotists who nickle and dime every outsider that comes through
Again, not necessarily. Some small towns have corrupt police forces, mostly, again, feeding on outsiders
Not true. Your neighbors are more likely to get into your business and spread rumors about you whenever you have drama going on, and then you become the talk of the town
I also hate to break down to you, but there are also leftists out in the country as well. I'm a country boy and I'm a former communist, and so was a close friend of mine before I got out of Dodge. In the past, guess where the Progressive Movement started? If you guessed the rural Great Plains, you get a gold star! If you thought it was the big, bad, evil librul city, sorry but you're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
The rural plains are just fine. Don't worry you will be fed.
Blabbing about Fox news or the the former fatso is just plain liberal nonsense. I live on the evil rural plains and have done so for many years. Your whole mantra is just idiotic. Leave us alone liberal.
Don't worry, you'll be fed, too.
My whole mantra is right. I used to listen to that pathetic crowd of idiots always blathering on about Middle America, the hardworking American in the Heartland, Sarah Palin being put on a pedestal, all of that screams idolization of rural America. Right-wing cultural populists are fakers.
People move to and from places according to their own desires for a place to live within the limits of financial and economic opportunities. Often this leads to regions losing people; in places where the economics have changed such that the region cannot support as many people as it had previously that is a good thing, and will eventually lead to a population small enough for the region to nurture economically. Of course this process is a lot rougher in real life than it is in theory, as Detroit demonstrates, but the viable population for a city depends, ranging from as much as 70% of the peak in certain Rust Belt cities to near total depopulation in a few rural regions.
I don't think the Great Plains is one of those regions; the pace of depopulation in the region as a whole peaked decades ago, and is reversing to robust growth because the economy there is booming due to industries hitherto unknown to the Plains. Nowhere is this reversal starker than in North Dakota. The economic fundamentals driving the Great Plains growth spurt are among the best in the country, and if it continues in a generation the central states will be the U.S. economy's center of gravity.
If you all want to see a real example of rural depopulation, try the Mississippi Delta (the floodplain in NW Mississippi). Most towns there are dying, there is no sign of recovery, no viable and competitive industry anyone has thought of, the region has already depopulated by almost half from the peak and the pace is speeding up rather than slowing down. The population currently there is designed for an economy that no longer exists and is not coming back, and so anyone that can leave for better opportunity elsewhere is leaving. If absolute losses typical of the past 50 years continue for the rest of the century, by 2100 the population will have dropped to around 50 000 (compared to 360 000 now and 600 000 at peak). This would be fewer people than the region had in 1850, when the Delta was an undeveloped frontier woodland with only a few plantations and mansions hugging the rivers. If any part of America is to completely revert to nature in this century that will be the one to do it. Interestingly, if the derelict farming areas of Mississippi reverted to woodland it would make Mississippi one of the most forested states in the country, possibly the most forested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diva360
Don't get me wrong--I'm not knocking rural middle America at all: both my parents came from there. I'm just saying that people who do not choose to live there but are rather stuck there face particular challenges, including access to health care, adequate healthy food, and cultural outlets. Food deserts are particularly devastating for both the highly urbanized and poor and the equally poor and rural U.S.
Rural America is not defined by dying small towns; most people in rural areas are doing fine with regards to access to services. Sure, in the rural Plains it's a long drive to cultural outlets, bigshot grocery stores, and hospitals, but that's the way it's always been, and as long as you have a good car and good roads (which are congestion-free in those parts) that 100 miles you need to drive to those places is a piece of cake and may even be a pleasant journey. What people do in remote areas is they make the drive to these amenities occasionally* usually as part of a combined day trip, or they have goods delivered to them by an online retailer. The advent of the Internet and services like Amazon has helped remote areas more than anywhere else; online shopping has more of an edge over in-person shopping out in the bush than it does in NYC. If you don't like driving or online shopping life will be more difficult for you, but most of these types of people have already moved out of the rural Plains. If you're poor and disabled life in general and access to services in particular will be very difficult, but it's horrible to be poor and/or disabled anywhere, not just in the country. Some environs are less horrible than others, but city life is obviously far from a cure for those suffering poverty and disability. The pleasures and pains of income and wealth are experienced in every environment.
*Every few weeks if they're affluent and really like using them, perhaps every few months if they're poorer and/or don't like using them. In the Alaskan Bush an annual trip to the nearest big city is common (and by big city we're talking Fairbanks at the biggest, which in fairness does have more than one would expect), and the crowd in the Bush is usually lower income and further out.
People move to and from places according to their own desires for a place to live within the limits of financial and economic opportunities. Often this leads to regions losing people; in places where the economics have changed such that the region cannot support as many people as it had previously that is a good thing, and will eventually lead to a population small enough for the region to nurture economically. Of course this process is a lot rougher in real life than it is in theory, as Detroit demonstrates, but the viable population for a city depends, ranging from as much as 70% of the peak in certain Rust Belt cities to near total depopulation in a few rural regions.
I don't think the Great Plains is one of those regions; the pace of depopulation in the region as a whole peaked decades ago, and is reversing to robust growth because the economy there is booming due to industries hitherto unknown to the Plains. Nowhere is this reversal starker than in North Dakota. The economic fundamentals driving the Great Plains growth spurt are among the best in the country, and if it continues in a generation the central states will be the U.S. economy's center of gravity.
If you all want to see a real example of rural depopulation, try the Mississippi Delta (the floodplain in NW Mississippi). Most towns there are dying, there is no sign of recovery, no viable and competitive industry anyone has thought of, the region has already depopulated by almost half from the peak and the pace is speeding up rather than slowing down. The population currently there is designed for an economy that no longer exists and is not coming back, and so anyone that can leave for better opportunity elsewhere is leaving. If absolute losses typical of the past 50 years continue for the rest of the century, by 2100 the population will have dropped to around 50 000 (compared to 360 000 now and 600 000 at peak). This would be fewer people than the region had in 1850, when the Delta was an undeveloped frontier woodland with only a few plantations and mansions hugging the rivers. If any part of America is to completely revert to nature in this century that will be the one to do it. Interestingly, if the derelict farming areas of Mississippi reverted to woodland it would make Mississippi one of the most forested states in the country, possibly the most forested.
Rural America is not defined by dying small towns; most people in rural areas are doing fine with regards to access to services. Sure, in the rural Plains it's a long drive to cultural outlets, bigshot grocery stores, and hospitals, but that's the way it's always been, and as long as you have a good car and good roads (which are congestion-free in those parts) that 100 miles you need to drive to those places is a piece of cake and may even be a pleasant journey. What people do in remote areas is they make the drive to these amenities occasionally* usually as part of a combined day trip, or they have goods delivered to them by an online retailer. The advent of the Internet and services like Amazon has helped remote areas more than anywhere else; online shopping has more of an edge over in-person shopping out in the bush than it does in NYC. If you don't like driving or online shopping life will be more difficult for you, but most of these types of people have already moved out of the rural Plains. If you're poor and disabled life in general and access to services in particular will be very difficult, but it's horrible to be poor and/or disabled anywhere, not just in the country. Some environs are less horrible than others, but city life is obviously far from a cure for those suffering poverty and disability. The pleasures and pains of income and wealth are experienced in every environment.
*Every few weeks if they're affluent and really like using them, perhaps every few months if they're poorer and/or don't like using them. In the Alaskan Bush an annual trip to the nearest big city is common (and by big city we're talking Fairbanks at the biggest, which in fairness does have more than one would expect), and the crowd in the Bush is usually lower income and further out.
IMO, I find nothing wrong with the Great Plains. I'd much rather live there than in the South, but in the cities. You won't catch me dead living in these tiny towns out there
Low taxes due to a lack of services
Not true in the slightest, especially in little towns run by corrupt nepotists who nickle and dime every outsider that comes through
Again, not necessarily. Some small towns have corrupt police forces, mostly, again, feeding on outsiders
Not true. Your neighbors are more likely to get into your business and spread rumors about you whenever you have drama going on, and then you become the talk of the town
I also hate to break down to you, but there are also leftists out in the country as well. I'm a country boy and I'm a former communist, and so was a close friend of mine before I got out of Dodge. In the past, guess where the Progressive Movement started? If you guessed the rural Great Plains, you get a gold star! If you thought it was the big, bad, evil librul city, sorry but you're wrong.
Don't worry, you'll be fed, too.
My whole mantra is right. I used to listen to that pathetic crowd of idiots always blathering on about Middle America, the hardworking American in the Heartland, Sarah Palin being put on a pedestal, all of that screams idolization of rural America. Right-wing cultural populists are fakers.
YOU get fed don't you? Go find your own food. Those stupid bible thumping gun toters can do it if need be. Something you don't understand I guess.
You go on screaming about the toters............you will need one soon and be looking around wondering why you don't have one.
It seems like you guys are all ignoring the article so you can post hyperbole about wherever you do not live...
Funny because you make no sense. Why would one attack others for where they live? You live where you want. Go ahead and do it. Where others live is not an issue you should take on. You don't want to live in the evil midwest then don't.
YOU get fed don't you? Go find your own food. Those stupid bible thumping gun toters can do it if need be. Something you don't understand I guess.
You go on screaming about the toters............you will need one soon and be looking around wondering why you don't have one.
I know how to find my own food, thanks, and I've grown my own fruit before. I also have zero, absolutely nothing against people owning a firearm. You seem to have this weird misconception of what liberals are. Do you think every liberal is someone that looks like this? Or this, and supports the Brady Campaign? Get out of the bubble you trapped yourself in, and stop believing in stereotypes that don't exist.
It seems like you guys are all ignoring the article so you can post hyperbole about wherever you do not live...
Anyway, like the article says, people are moving to the Great Plains because of low unemployment and the energy boom. But, most people are moving to the one or two largest urban centers in each state. ND is the notable exception, since the all the energy extraction is in the small towns of the western part. But, the bust will come and these towns will revert back to what they once were, slowly depopulating to the eastern part of the state or elsewhere
Funny because you make no sense. Why would one attack others for where they live? You live where you want. Go ahead and do it. Where others live is not an issue you should take on. You don't want to live in the evil midwest then don't.
You make no sense!
I never said people are "attacking others for where they live", I said they are "posting hyperbole about wherever you do not live..."
YET AGAIN, you completely make up a quote and attribute it to another person.
(I don't know if you know this, but different words mean different things.)
Anyway, like the article says, people are moving to the Great Plains because of low unemployment and the energy boom.
No it doesn't. It specifically says that the reasons people are moving there are not limited to those things.
Quote:
But the Great Plains’ economic dynamism extends well beyond energy. The region’s farms and ranches cover an area exceeding 500 million acres,or over 790,000 square miles — larger than Mexico — and account for roughly a quarter of the nation’s agricultural production. These farms have benefited from the long-term increase in food commodity prices — notably wheat, corn, soybeans — and record exports. Since 2007 the Plains share of food shipments abroad has surged from 20% to nearly 25%.
At the same time, the region’s industrial sector. The region has become a location of choice for expanding industries, in part due to low costs, cheap energy and a favorable regulatory environment.
Quote:
But, most people are moving to the one or two largest urban centers in each state. ND is the notable exception, since the all the energy extraction is in the small towns of the western part. But, the bust will come and these towns will revert back to what they once were, slowly depopulating to the eastern part of the state or elsewhere
You sound exactly like the people mentioned in the article who had written off the great plains previously....
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.
