19 ms·

I agree that many people move away from cities to "escape", but it's important to recognize that for many decades now, rural residents have received significant

I agree that many people move away from cities to "escape", but it's important to recognize that for many decades now, rural residents have received significantly more benefits from the government than they pay in taxes, while urban dwellers pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Essentially, those who live in cities are living within their means and subsidizing those who live in rural areas. From an economic perspective, rural areas are still highly connected and interdependent - think roads, infrastructure, food, water, electricity, internet, transport networks. Those who move from cities to rural areas to "escape the demands of the high-interdependency core" simply shift from majority "producing" to majority "receiving" benefits from our interdependent society. I'm a huge fan of rural living, but it is expensive. We as a society have decided to subsidize it to various degrees. I'm OK with this, but also think cheap, individual solutions should be used when feasible. For example, sewer lines are very expensive in rural areas, so most houses maintain their own septic tank. Rural houses often use a Propane tank they refill rather than a gas line hookup. They often have their own well for water. Thus, the high grid-connection fees in the article make sense, as rural residents can just build their own off-grid electricity production.

colin_mccabe 5y ago
I agree that many people move away from cities to "escape", but it's important to recognize that for many decades now, rural residents have received significantly more benefits from the government than they pay in taxes, while urban dwellers pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Essentially, those who live in cities are living within their means and subsidizing those who live in rural areas. This is a commonly repeated factoid, but it's not really true. Or at least, it's very misleading. Let me explain. Rural populations tend to be older. That means more spent on Social Security, more spent on Medicare, and so on. This is by far the largest reason why people say that cities "subsidize" rural areas. But if those old people moved to cities, they would still be receiving Social Security and Medicaid. So it would be more accurate to say that young people subsidize old people. Farm subsidies exist and probably should be reduced (or eliminated) but in the grand scheme of things, we're not talking about much money. It was about 22 billion in 2019, according to NPR [https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/12/31/790261705/farmers-got-billions-from-taxpayers-in-2019-and-hardly-anyone-objected https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/12/31/790261705/fa...]. That's comparable to some of the increases in yearly budget that are being talked about for Amtrak, a program that mainly benefits cities. So don't move to a rural area believing that the federal government will shower you with cash. In general, it won't, or at least not more than it does for city dwellers. On the other hand, being old or poor may cause the Feds to shower you with cash, but not more than you would have gotten in a city (and many things will be more expensive in a rural area than a city).
- mindslight 5y ago
  From my experience taking Amtrak cross country a few times, the places benefiting the most are the rural areas that Amtrak runs through. A large contingent of people on the train were traveling to/from places that had train stations, and no airports. There were very few people doing city-city trips. That isn't taking into account the Northeast corridor though.
- nknezek 5y ago
  I've seen other strong studies showing that government cost per-capita is _much_ high for suburban and rural areas. Intuitively this makes sense when considering infrastructure - more people use a road in a city than in a suburb, and vastly more than in a rural area. Yet those roads cost a similar amount to construct and maintain. One of the best analyses I've seen is from Strong Towns - a blog devoted to building livable and financially solvent towns and cities. In their deep-dive analysis of Lafayette, LA, they find that the only part of the region generating enough revenue to sustain the maintenance costs was the dense old-town city center. [1] Most of the costs examined come from infrastructure (roads, power, gas, water), not social services. I imagine the calculus is different when considering federal government expenditures (as you point out), as the majority of federal expenditures are towards social security, medicare, medicaid, and the military. However, there is significant federal subsidies to farmers as you point out, and huge sums of cash for highways, power, and other infrastructure. [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...
mindslight 5y ago
I agree with most of your comment, but it's a bit too judgemental. The main political wedge we're facing is the absolute destruction of the manufacturing-production economy (which requires open space and other distributed capital), in favor of the finance-metagame economy (which doesn't). In this wider context talking about subsidies is a bit disingenuous, because if we had a balanced economy then resources would be flowing to the rural areas from the urban areas as revenue of private companies. Instead, most of the resources for building out non-urban infrastructure are flowing abroad, while the little remaining bit trying to mitigate the hollowing out gets called a subsidy. It's easy to get frustrated with the regressive hypocritical politics, especially with the last few years of objectively utter nonsense. But if that is ever going to get fixed it's going to require even more resources going to rural areas to alleviate the poverty driving the anger and spite. Ideally this would happen by fixing the market dynamics, but really it needs to happen any way possible.
- nknezek 5y ago
  I understand your point - farming, mining, and manufacturing are all essential economic activities that have largely shifted overseas post-WWII. This has hollowed the rural economy in US and other western nations while also making goods vastly cheaper and bringing billions out of poverty worldwide. In my mind I am very willing to help and support many parts of a community and society. We need all sorts of work to build a society - finance, tech, manufacturing, non-remunerated work (raising children, etc). I’m in favor of gov investment in infrastructure as I believe it helps all of us grow. Same with healthcare and education. But it is _very_ important to make these benefits transparent and clear, otherwise we end up in the situation we now face, where the same voters that would be most helped by these investments argue against such programs and are strongly anti-government (see Trump, Brexit, Jan 6, etc).
  - mindslight 5y ago
    > But it is _very_ important to make these benefits transparent and clear, otherwise we end up in the situation we now face I strongly disagree on the causality here. The red state subsidies are a blue team talking point. To the extent the reality gets through to the red team, it's anticonvincing because the main thing they feel they're missing is self determination. Telling them to be appreciative of federal welfare, and they can get even more of it (eg UBI), is the exact opposite of what they want. They want purpose, hence the attraction to regressive ideologies promising that there is purpose to their suffering. Purpose cannot be provided by overt direct subsidies - it can only come from the feeling of earning one's way, regardless of the truth of the matter (eg how the metagame industries suffice). By extension this means revitalization of rural economies, no matter how artificial. Then again after decades of ZIRP what does "artificial" even mean?

colin_mccabe 5y ago

I agree that many people move away from cities to "escape", but it's important to recognize that for many decades now, rural residents have received significantly more benefits from the government than they pay in taxes, while urban dwellers pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Essentially, those who live in cities are living within their means and subsidizing those who live in rural areas. This is a commonly repeated factoid, but it's not really true. Or at least, it's very misleading. Let me explain. Rural populations tend to be older. That means more spent on Social Security, more spent on Medicare, and so on. This is by far the largest reason why people say that cities "subsidize" rural areas. But if those old people moved to cities, they would still be receiving Social Security and Medicaid. So it would be more accurate to say that young people subsidize old people. Farm subsidies exist and probably should be reduced (or eliminated) but in the grand scheme of things, we're not talking about much money. It was about 22 billion in 2019, according to NPR [https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/12/31/790261705/farmers-got-billions-from-taxpayers-in-2019-and-hardly-anyone-objected https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/12/31/790261705/fa...]. That's comparable to some of the increases in yearly budget that are being talked about for Amtrak, a program that mainly benefits cities. So don't move to a rural area believing that the federal government will shower you with cash. In general, it won't, or at least not more than it does for city dwellers. On the other hand, being old or poor may cause the Feds to shower you with cash, but not more than you would have gotten in a city (and many things will be more expensive in a rural area than a city).

mindslight 5y ago
From my experience taking Amtrak cross country a few times, the places benefiting the most are the rural areas that Amtrak runs through. A large contingent of people on the train were traveling to/from places that had train stations, and no airports. There were very few people doing city-city trips. That isn't taking into account the Northeast corridor though.
nknezek 5y ago
I've seen other strong studies showing that government cost per-capita is _much_ high for suburban and rural areas. Intuitively this makes sense when considering infrastructure - more people use a road in a city than in a suburb, and vastly more than in a rural area. Yet those roads cost a similar amount to construct and maintain. One of the best analyses I've seen is from Strong Towns - a blog devoted to building livable and financially solvent towns and cities. In their deep-dive analysis of Lafayette, LA, they find that the only part of the region generating enough revenue to sustain the maintenance costs was the dense old-town city center. [1] Most of the costs examined come from infrastructure (roads, power, gas, water), not social services. I imagine the calculus is different when considering federal government expenditures (as you point out), as the majority of federal expenditures are towards social security, medicare, medicaid, and the military. However, there is significant federal subsidies to farmers as you point out, and huge sums of cash for highways, power, and other infrastructure. [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...

mindslight 5y ago

I agree with most of your comment, but it's a bit too judgemental. The main political wedge we're facing is the absolute destruction of the manufacturing-production economy (which requires open space and other distributed capital), in favor of the finance-metagame economy (which doesn't). In this wider context talking about subsidies is a bit disingenuous, because if we had a balanced economy then resources would be flowing to the rural areas from the urban areas as revenue of private companies. Instead, most of the resources for building out non-urban infrastructure are flowing abroad, while the little remaining bit trying to mitigate the hollowing out gets called a subsidy. It's easy to get frustrated with the regressive hypocritical politics, especially with the last few years of objectively utter nonsense. But if that is ever going to get fixed it's going to require even more resources going to rural areas to alleviate the poverty driving the anger and spite. Ideally this would happen by fixing the market dynamics, but really it needs to happen any way possible.

nknezek 5y ago
I understand your point - farming, mining, and manufacturing are all essential economic activities that have largely shifted overseas post-WWII. This has hollowed the rural economy in US and other western nations while also making goods vastly cheaper and bringing billions out of poverty worldwide. In my mind I am very willing to help and support many parts of a community and society. We need all sorts of work to build a society - finance, tech, manufacturing, non-remunerated work (raising children, etc). I’m in favor of gov investment in infrastructure as I believe it helps all of us grow. Same with healthcare and education. But it is _very_ important to make these benefits transparent and clear, otherwise we end up in the situation we now face, where the same voters that would be most helped by these investments argue against such programs and are strongly anti-government (see Trump, Brexit, Jan 6, etc).
- mindslight 5y ago
  > But it is _very_ important to make these benefits transparent and clear, otherwise we end up in the situation we now face I strongly disagree on the causality here. The red state subsidies are a blue team talking point. To the extent the reality gets through to the red team, it's anticonvincing because the main thing they feel they're missing is self determination. Telling them to be appreciative of federal welfare, and they can get even more of it (eg UBI), is the exact opposite of what they want. They want purpose, hence the attraction to regressive ideologies promising that there is purpose to their suffering. Purpose cannot be provided by overt direct subsidies - it can only come from the feeling of earning one's way, regardless of the truth of the matter (eg how the metagame industries suffice). By extension this means revitalization of rural economies, no matter how artificial. Then again after decades of ZIRP what does "artificial" even mean?