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.
Festivals? Bars? Clubs? Concerts? Sports games? Museums? Clubs and societies? Jogging, biking? Visiting landmarks? I haven't even begun to scratch the surface.
So, pretty much the same things we (can) do in small towns, just on a bigger scale? (I was never much into watching sports and don't care for "clubbing" so I don't make use of those options anyway. Not that interesting to me).
call the whambulance for another thread that's basically about the electoral college and the uneducated rednecks that are so ignorant for not wanting to see Hillary Clinton in office. Blame yourselves for nominating Hillary. The whole reason Trump won has everything to do with who the democrat nominee was and not about the party itself. Maybe it was partly about wanting to get rid of the elite and people being tired of political correctness but it wouldn't have been enough for Trump to win had the democrats ran ANYONE else.
I don't disagree with you on the small towns, though.. the free market should dictate whether a town survives. You assume all these new factories would be built in rural areas.. not necessarily. They will be built near population centers. They're not going to build where they can't find labor, that would not be very smart. For someone living in NYC I can understand how Milwaukee, Des Moines, and all those other mid sized cities in "flyover territory" could be seen as "rural"
Not enough room for people in the cities? Maybe not in Manhattan, but every city ranging from Atlanta to Detroit to Philadelphia to LA has plenty of empty or underused lots and infrastructure that can be built on and reused. Cities like Detroit and Chicago once held a million more people than they do now and they can easily do it again.
Also cities can be quite bucolic. One can find a nice single-family bungalow in inner city Chicago complete with a yard-nobody says you have to live in a Lower East Side walk up. City living options are like a spectrum, not a black and white opposite to rural living.
Nothing is pushing anyone out of rural areas except the market's invisible hand.
.
The *global* market's quite visible hand. We will have to see what the orange fist can or will do about that.
Rural people are not going to be lining up to move to Detroit or Atlanta.
Actually it may be Cities that become unsustainable. We no longer need to pile everyone together in a single location to do business. You can do form your home office in small town USA all of the same things you can do by sitting in traffic, breathing polluted air, risking crime and increasing stress commuting to a big city location. there is no longer any need for a cluster of retail outlets where someone can go and get all their shopping don, compare products and prices ect. It is right there in your living room now. While Cities still offer the advantage of random socializing (bar hopping), this is also dying out. Today's young people like to socialize and communicate over the internet and text. the whole social scene is unnecessary and fewer and fewer people know how to socialize anyway. Just get together for some quick sex through tinder. Otherwise, no need to leave your basement which can be in a small town or a big city. Since small town are less stressful and more pleasant, cities are more likely to become obsolete than small towns.
Physical universities are on their way out, virtual classrooms, video and skpe discussion ections are replacing them. Shopping malls and downtown shopping districts are being replaced by Amazon. Conference rooms are being replaced by Skype. File rooms are being replaced with electronic storage. Libraries are being replaced with google, Westlaw, and the like. Bars are being replaced with tinder and health clubs get replaced with Fit bit and home gyms. What do we need cities or even suburbs for?
You know all of these sad, economically depressed, former mill/mining towns? There's no reason for them to exist. Once upon a time, Americans moved for economic opportunity. They didn't demand that jobs come to them. If the only reason your town existed or group was the presence of some factory or mine, then in the absence of said factory or mine, your town has no reason to exist. We have let people who feel that they are entitled to an unsustainable, small-town lifestyle dictate the political and economic fate of our nation. They'd rather gamble on someone who promises to reopen the factories then re-train or go to the major population centers where the work is.
I am very impressed by your concern... I think the same thing about my neighbors, no reason for them to exist, they are just a drain on America... You should move to North Korea, you will feel more at home there... /end sarcasm
Bull crap. The vast majority of people even in the South and living in small towns did not own slaves. You should either try to educate yourself a little bit or make an honest attempt at not spewing out stupid hateful comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford
Like those Amish people Give it a rest man!
I was talking about advocates of agrarian life like Thomas Jefferson. Yes, he really did own slaves.
And "women". But definitely children. Here in Pennsylvania, the Amish get an exemption from the state so they don't have to educate their kids be out in eighth grade. They can put them straight to work.
The small towns do great when the economy is roaring and resources are being harvested.
Self sufficiently.
When one has to rely on government to make a move, you are not self sufficient.
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.