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 it doesn't. You want tax returns? And there is no evidence that rural Americans need saving. Some make it seem as all of rural America (97% land area) is unemployed, in poverty and addicted to drugs. Rural areas dont have career opportunities or populations urban and metro areas have. Never did and wont. That is what rural is.
Rural areas are experiencing the same issues that urban and metro areas face. We are catching up.
You all are missing the point. This is not a city living vs rural living debate. It's about the new issues facing rural areas.
The ones urban and metro areas have been/are facing?
There is a saying "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
My town has internet access through the phone company. That is it. The only other option is satellite service. What other options are you thinking about?
if rural areas want broadband, they have to pay for it themselves. they should not be asking the federal govt or states to subsidize them just like they dont want to be taxed for services that mostly benefit city dwellers
No it doesn't. You want tax returns? And there is no evidence that rural Americans need saving. Some make it seem as all of rural America (97% land area) is unemployed, in poverty and addicted to drugs. Rural areas dont have career opportunities or populations urban and metro areas have. Never did and wont. That is what rural is.
Rural areas are experiencing the same issues that urban and metro areas face. We are catching up.
This is not the first article, or book, or government/think tank study that's been done on this issue. I mean, you can dismiss all the work that has been and is being done on this topic just because it's not applicable to you and your close circle all you want. Doesn't make the reality any less factual, though.
This is not the first article, or book, or government/think tank study that's been done on this issue. I mean, you can dismiss all the work that has been and is being done on this topic just because it's not applicable to you and your close circle all you want. Doesn't make the reality any less factual, though.
Again, there is drug abuse and poverty everywhere.
What has the government/think tank study done to address the dilemma of gang violence, drugs and poverty in Chicago, Boston, the homeless people in the streets of New York and LA, poverty and violence in the inner cities?
"Rural America is getting old. The median age is 43, seven years older than city dwellers. "
So younger people move to cities for careers and amenities. Retired folks are moving to rural areas.
Nothing new here. You see this as a dilemma?
"Its productivity, defined as output per worker, is lower than urban America’s."
Why wouldn't it be. More people, more jobs. Nothing new. A dilemma?
"Its families have lower incomes."
And the cost of living is lower. Nothing new. A dilemma?
And its share of the population is shrinking: The United States has grown by 75 million people since 1990, but this has mostly occurred in cities and suburbs.
People have always moved to the city. Nothing new. A dilemma?
"Since the 1990s, problems such as crime and opioid abuse, once associated with urban areas, are increasingly rural phenomena."
Drug abuse and crime is catching up to urban areas.
Ok, yes a dilemma one shared with the rest of the country.
"Rural communities once captured a greater share of the nation’s prosperity. Jobs and wages in small town America played catch-up with big cities until the mid 1980s. During the economic recovery of 1992 to 1996, 135,000 new businesses were started in small counties, a third of the nation’s total. Employment in small counties shot up by 2.5 million, or 16 percent, twice the pace experienced in counties with million-plus populations.
These days, economic growth bypasses rural economies. In the first four years of the recovery after the 2008 recession, counties with fewer than 100,000 people lost 17,500 businesses, according to the Economic Innovation Group. By contrast, counties with more than 1 million residents added, altogether, 99,000 firms. By 2017, the largest metropolitan areas had almost 10 percent more jobs than they did at the start of the financial crisis. Rural areas still had fewer."
There is no easy answer to the rural dilemma of a declining local economy."
We have seen a shift from manufacturing jobs which began outsourcing in the late 90s to Tech jobs. Some rural areas are declining some are prospering. Just as some urban and metro areas are declining and some are prospering.
Nothing has really changed the spotlight is just on rural america now since the 2016 election.
Again, there is drug abuse and poverty everywhere.
What has the government/think tank study done to address the dilemma of gang violence, drugs and poverty in Chicago, Boston, the homeless people in the streets of New York and LA, poverty and violence in the inner cities?
A ton of stuff has been done for urban areas. Some has worked and some has not.
As a city girl, I was hoping that this thread would educate me on what's going on with rural areas. I've seen news reports where rural folks say they feel ignored by politicians. Well, if you don't have any problems (per this thread), then what is there to ignore?
It's almost as if rural folks feel insulted by highlighting their issues. If you all want the rest of the country to go back to ignoring you, then so be it.
A ton of stuff has been done for urban areas. Some has worked and some has not.
What has been done for urban areas, for drug abuse, poverty and the other dilemmas that rural areas are facing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
As a city girl, I was hoping that this thread would educate me on what's going on with rural areas. I've seen news reports where rural folks say they feel ignored by politicians. Well, if you don't have any problems (per this thread), then what is there to ignore?
It's almost as if rural folks feel insulted by highlighting their issues. If you all want the rest of the country to go back to ignoring you, then so be it.
You mean one or two people that live in a rural area said they felt ignored by politicians? No one in urban or metro areas ever felt that way? I wonder if these people even voted?
Many of the things mentioned are not problems. Low populations, young people moving to more populated areas, fewer job opportunities, lower wages. These are merely trade offs for living in rural areas.
No one said there are no problems. As with urban and metro areas some rural areas are declining while others are prospering. Some areas have high poverty, some have drug problems. What is being said is these are the same problems that are seen in urban and metro areas.
What is going on with some rural areas is the same thing that is going on in some urban areas and some metro areas.
What is it you think "the rest of the county" is going to do stop drug abuse, end poverty and generate an abundance of high paying jobs in isolated rural areas that you haven't been able to do in your own communities?
if rural areas want broadband, they have to pay for it themselves. they should not be asking the federal govt or states to subsidize them just like they dont want to be taxed for services that mostly benefit city dwellers
'broadband' providers are for-profit companies. They are only going to install broadband in areas where they can turn a profit.
This is not the first article, or book, or government/think tank study that's been done on this issue. I mean, you can dismiss all the work that has been and is being done on this topic just because it's not applicable to you and your close circle all you want. Doesn't make the reality any less factual, though.
I live in a fairly rural area. The 'reality' around here is that the Cost-Of-Living is much lower than any of the cities where I have lived previously.
Homes cost less.
Land costs less.
Fresh local food costs less and it is abundant.
Taxes are lower.
Articles being published try to make it sound the opposite. They want to compare an expensive tiny 1,000sq ft city apartment to a low cost 3,000sq ft house with attached barn on 300 acres of land. The two homes are not equal to one another.
After the next world war, it will be the self sufficient rural population that repopulates the earth.
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.
