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.
No, they did not say that. They are discussing the problems of rural America. However, to be grown up, fair, and honest, some (not all) rural areas are toast. The mines and factories aren't coming back. They will have to adapt, reinvent, or perish. This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It's reality.
Wrong. Mines of some types in the west are doing great. Gold, Platinum, Silver and hard western coal going great and new ones opening. Oil production reaching all time highs. Some factories are running, and yes even start ups, depends on your product.
Parts of the USA are prospering and small towns doing great, and some old remote towns, are dead. Florence Oregon on the Oregon Coast, saw the lumber industry die, looked around and considering how beautiful the area, put in medical and other facilities for elderly retired and the town is booming.
The hard luck small town stories, only tell part of the story. A lot of big cities, are doing a lot worse than a lot of small towns, and many of them are a lot more dangerous to live in, than many small towns.
Yep and when the move to rural areas the fist thing they want is street lights, regulations, restrictions, paved roads, more amenities (higher taxes).
could you elaborate on the hierarchy and timeline involved that stipulates when new residents in a rural area have an equal say in how their community and resources are used. Do they get to vote after 5 years? ten years? never?
Yep and when the move to rural areas the fist thing they want is street lights, regulations, restrictions, paved roads, more amenities (higher taxes).
This is nonsense. The people working to turn rural America into Detroit and Chicago are entrenched politicians who are looking for government grants, appropriations, bigger payrolls, etc. The new people who move to these areas are doing so to escape these same things.
Some people feel it unfair that some more rural states receive more federal money, than they pay into the system. Lets look at my state of Montana as an example why.
1...We are the 4th largest state in size, with only 1,000,000 people in the whole state.
2...Due to our size we have lots of miles of Interstate highway, and other federal roads and highway federal government pays for.
3...We have 7 Indian reservations paid for by federal funds. Largest exceed smallest state in size.
4...We have 8 national parks, supported by federal government.
5...Federal government owns 26,921,861 acres of land, and pay nearly $30,000,000 in payments in lieu of taxes in lieu of taxes for services provided by state.
Add it all up, and Montana gets more than they pay in, due to the whole country is so involved in Montana. they owe us to pay their share. And same goes for several other states.
Some people move to a "country" area within 20 miles of a large city limit and think it'll always remain as it is then. Don't do it, unless you understand that large cities will to some degree swallow up the out-lying areas faster than you'd think and that's okay with you. If you want a true country area, it will probably have to be fairly far from a city. Even a small town will extend out and grow, depending on how attractive it is to new residents. Some towns shrink, some stay about the same over time and most expand quite a bit. Also, some people think they want to live far out from a city, but their city jobs require long commutes, which can get tiring and expensive as time goes by. I've seen city people move out here and within a year...discontent sets in and they are gone! So don't buy unless you're sure, try renting first!
I live in a rural area, a county with 200,000 people that is the size of Connecticut. My wife and I were just talking last week that the local economy seems to be doing just fine. Construction is up, unemployment is down, and we have a new farm store chain moving into the county.
The base for the economy is timber. With about a million acres of private timber, that's a big resource base. Over a harvest rotation, timber land will produce (at current prices) about $50 per acre per year in new fiber, so that's $50 million a year in brand new money, not WalMart pass through profit margin that is mostly new money to the Chinese.
And somehow those living in urban areas pretend to speak for the whole Rural America overlooking the fact that urban areas are also facing drug problems and poverty. Every area of our country faces its own problems, all have negatives and positives and we are free to live where ever we choose. I think metro, urban and rural areas should worry about their own issues.
You made a good point (as it is true that many urbanites arrogantly pretend to know how to fix the broken things in Rural America w/o looking at their own issues.)
It is a good point, yet is is irrelevant to the topic at hand (you taking offense at a factual, neutral newspaper piece.)
Keep hitting that mitt no one is holding. Whatever gives you release.
I know this post is over a year old, but by God, such a ridiculous strawman demands a retort.
I live in a rural area, a county with 200,000 people that is the size of Connecticut. My wife and I were just talking last week that the local economy seems to be doing just fine. Construction is up, unemployment is down, and we have a new farm store chain moving into the county.
The base for the economy is timber. With about a million acres of private timber, that's a big resource base. Over a harvest rotation, timber land will produce (at current prices) about $50 per acre per year in new fiber, so that's $50 million a year in brand new money, not WalMart pass through profit margin that is mostly new money to the Chinese.
Yep. As I've said on other posts and forums, there are areas of rural prosperity, specially if there's a valuable commodity with a continuous demand. Workers who moved to North Dakota during the oil boom, man they did a killing ($$$). It is still a good place to try one's luck.
Same with urban areas. Some (actually most) prosper.
Others just fall off in gradual and yet cataclysmic fashion (think Detroit.) Shades of Enrico Moretti's "The New Geography of Jobs" (excellent book btw.)
Things are complex, economies are complex. Nothing of that nature can be capture with simplistic feelings.
The things we see at the urban and rural levels in America, they are also playing out in all countries, poor and rich, independently of demographics.
They are just the inevitable outcome of a world moving a post-industrial reality (even in most poor countries, except the poorest of all.)
People shouldn't stop being mindless passionate about it and make an attempt to look at these things more objectively to find ways to exploit the positives and prevent/counteract the negatives.
Some people feel it unfair that some more rural states receive more federal money, than they pay into the system. Lets look at my state of Montana as an example why.
1...We are the 4th largest state in size, with only 1,000,000 people in the whole state.
2...Due to our size we have lots of miles of Interstate highway, and other federal roads and highway federal government pays for.
3...We have 7 Indian reservations paid for by federal funds. Largest exceed smallest state in size.
4...We have 8 national parks, supported by federal government.
5...Federal government owns 26,921,861 acres of land, and pay nearly $30,000,000 in payments in lieu of taxes in lieu of taxes for services provided by state.
Add it all up, and Montana gets more than they pay in, due to the whole country is so involved in Montana. they owe us to pay their share. And same goes for several other states.
I think most rational people are OK with such arrangements. I call such things "federal investment", the type of investment that all of us benefit from, one way or another.
What I think people find unfair is other people living in certain areas (*) with a significant usage of federal funds going into, say, going about trashing other states or cities (with larger, more black-than-red economic activity and larger fed tax contributions.)
This is a rational complaint from rational people. Alas, we do not live in rational times. To paraphrase Thomas Sowel, we confuse thinking with feeling.
(*) I will not mention location or political affiliation or what have you. The reader is free to fill the blanks in whichever way they need/want.
This is nonsense. The people working to turn rural America into Detroit and Chicago are entrenched politicians who are looking for government grants, appropriations, bigger payrolls, etc. The new people who move to these areas are doing so to escape these same things.
Makes me wonder then why three of the folks who move to our dead end rural road suggested gates, street lights and pavement, garbage pick up, more restaurants, more shopping, complain about farm animals, 4-wheeler, mud, snakes........................
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.
Makes me wonder then why three of the folks who move to our dead end rural road suggested gates, street lights and pavement, garbage pick up, more restaurants, more shopping, complain about farm animals, 4-wheeler, mud, snakes........................
