Rural America Is the New ‘Inner City’
- Thread starter dgordo
- Start date
Yeah, I'm sure I'd fair much better on a dark street in Chicago than on the streets of State Center. 
Yeah, I'm sure I'd fair much better on a dark street in Chicago than on the streets of State Center.
That wasn't the point.
I read the article and I don't know what the point. You can show me a chart showing the percentage over 16 who are divorced and it has ZERO meaning unless there is a chart of percentage of 16 years and above that have been married. I don't have the chart but I'm going to assume that the marriage rate in rural areas is higher then one can assume that the percentage of those that are divorced is higher.
Then I can break most all of those "shocking" charts down to age. The median age is high in rural areas. So is there any surprise that the charts on all of the health related charts? No, older people are generally sicker. The only thing that really stands out is the trajectory of lung cancer.
People used to want to live in rural America and employers followed. People are choosing cities now and employers have followed.
People wanted to live in rural America? You mean in the 1800 when they left the city to find available land?
I don't think the employers followed was really the case. There were factories in large cities. People went out into rural America. Industrious people started small business in these local areas, small factories like your Pella Windows. But as the world changed into a more global market with multi nationals importing lower cost goods and government regulation strangling small business ability to complete they died off. The educated move to bigger cities for careers in tech and creative industries and it created a cycle.
I don't think the employers followed was really the case. There were factories in large cities. People went out into rural America. Industrious people started small business in these local areas, small factories like your Pella Windows. But as the world changed into a more global market with multi nationals importing lower cost goods and government regulation strangling small business ability to complete they died off. The educated move to bigger cities for careers in tech and creative industries and it created a cycle.
I don't know. The article talks about amazon building a deployment facility in small town Kansas, light manufacturing plants and large companies building outposts.
Read the comments section. This entire trend can be blamed on liberals and illegal immigrants which of course also implicates liberals.
I doubt there's much of an end in sight as millenials age/advance.
I doubt there's much of an end in sight as millenials age/advance.
Are you skeptical of this claim they've made:
"And even after adjusting for the aging population, rural areas have become markedly less healthy than America’s cities."
Or is it something else?
Small segments of Chicago are dangerous. The bulk of Chicago is extremely safe. In Chicago you could find a job, versus rural America.Yeah, I'm sure I'd fair much better on a dark street in Chicago than on the streets of State Center.
It is age and also education/economic class. There is a larger population of high school educated low income people concentrated in rural areas. The cities have a larger group mixed in of middle to upper class educated people. True, a wealthier city has better health outcomes. Educated and middle to upper class people have better health outcomes. Now if you were going to take cities with low average levels of education and household income and compared them to rural areas I think health outcomes would be comparable. It is not rural vs city it is income and education level.
Even after all of that the headline "New Inner City" is way off. The people in rural areas might love their Mountain Dew and diabetes but their quality of life is nothing like the inner city. They have a lower chance of being a victim of violent crime. Less traffic, less pollution, lower stress levels, better schools than the inner city. Look at heat maps when they do the "happiest" places to live. Far higher happiness in rural areas than the inner city.
I don't know if the crime rate thing is true anymore. According to the internet coffeevile has the same violent crime rate as Chicago. When you consider that much of Chicagos rate comes from areas no one goes to I think you can see why people would feel safer in chicago.
You have this backwards.
No, not at all. As usual things are more complicated than your simplistic view. When rural America dominated it was because county seats sprung up all within a days horse ride of all the farms in the county, hence 99 counties in Iowa with most of them being dead center in the county. Every county seat had all the necessities of life while even smaller towns provided some of those. ( like today's convenient stores ). As farming modernized less hands needed on the farms so kids ( most with great work ethics ) moved to towns and took factory jobs or other non farming jobs. Farmers who had 7 or 8 kids could not pass on enough ground to all of them to stay in farming, so they had to leave.
Some factories sprung up in rural towns because the farm kids were better educated, spoke the language and had better work ethics than the immigrants the factory owners were stuck with in the cities. The farm work ethic has eroded over the years along with the rural education system.
You can chose to live in a flat or apartment in the city. I'll stay here in Iowa.
In Iowa the county seats did not spring up, they were surveyed that way. Iowa is laid out in a grid pattern. This grid allows East to West county seats to be roughly 24 miles apart, and the North South grid to be 17 miles apart. The grid has two rows of counties then then next two rows slide over to compensate for the contours of the geographic shape of the state, basically the path of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The counties were set up so that a person anywhere in the county could ride his horse to the county seat and back in one day. Lee county in SE Iowa has two seats and two court house, one in Fort Madison the other in Keokuk.
I find it cute that you don't believe these things exist. It's funny too, because they have no problem believing in you.
Yeah, that's sounds just like what I stated. Born in Ft. Madison BTW.
That your view was simplistic and also incorrect. Thanks for deleting it!
I haven't deleted anything, re-read your own post with a focus on identifying something overly simplified and maybe you'll grasp the irony.
What do you think bailouts are? Where do you think the HQs of the banks are located? You should really stop and think before posting more often.
Look it up. Rural areas take more tax dollars to support than they generate. Country fokes are takers. The urban folks pay for the bailouts too. That's not going to the people you fool.
All those farm subsidies and miles of country roads aren't being covered by just rural taxpayers. Of course the main population centers support rural America. To a certain degree they should. But, let's not pretend that it isn't happening.
I believe the employers are first.. They need to find enough people to fill their jobs. It's not a build it and tjey will come deal. In addition, they do not have the services they need to attract many new people
We should bus them. Move those city folks to your neighborhoods. Win for everyone.
How? By putting them both on the same level? You call that an insult?
Whenever I read articles in the Washington Post about rural Americans dying of opiod overdoses, I e-mail the writers telling them they (rural Americans) need to meditate. Usually the writers e-mail me back saying thanks.
CSB.
CSB.
So do urban centers. Until the midwest starts getting 6 and 7 trillion dollar bailouts, there's no contest.
What are you saying? That you were wrong? Both urban and rural can't take more than they return. Think it through. You'll get it.
Cities generate the funds that keep country life tolerable. Everything small town folks love, they owe to blue city folks who get nothing for their generosity. It's time to starve the countryside. Give the reds what they vote for. Cut the rural utilities, social structures and infrastructure. Make the reds be self sufficient. It's time for a reckoning.
No, I'm saying that when you see the midwest getting bailouts of 7+ trillion dollars, then we might be able to take your ridiculous assessment seriously. How did you not get that?
Your point is not relevant. The cities aren't getting that money either. You got a lot to learn about wealth redistribution comrade.
They obviously benefit from that money though. You understand that those banks go under, those people lose their jobs, and you lose all the wealth that was being introduced into the urban economy because of said banks, right? Seriously, do you not understand anything remotely business/economics?
Your soup'ness is showing. Just tell him he doesn't understand your agruememt and post the moss gif.
I realize he doesn't understand, although I don't completely understand your post. Do you think anything I said was wrong?
No. Your point is not substantive. Cities are far more able to find alternative credit, the bailouts are mainly about helping the weak with few options, which would be rural voters. We are taking about which sector of the nation takes in the most taxes and where the most taxes are spent in relation. The cities pay for everything. They pay their own way and subsidize the country folks. They pay for their own bailouts and subsidies for the farmers. If you are voting with rural voters, you are a welfare queen.
For some reason, you don't think introducing 7 trillion dollars into an economy will do anything to that economy. I'll just pat you on the head and take my leave.
