Well my Wife and I most certainly don’t live in poverty, but you calling it a small sacrifice shows that you don’t really understand why many of us prefer rural living.
Jesus Christ on a rollerskate… people live in cities because they can have there what they need, want and like, and other people live out in the country because they can have there what THEY need, want and like.
Yet others live in either place in spite of themselves because they’re somehow stuck there.
And there’s plenty of mutual looking down to balance things out anyway
Then count yourselves amongst the lucky ones. Since you are seeming to do well for yourselves, could you tell me why your rural neighbors are not fairing so well?
The entire point of this is that the rural people are living in poverty, and would rather continue to do so, than to move to where there are jobs.
Now, to be fair, when I was a kid, we did move a few times (because my father made the choice to move to where the jobs were, rather than stay in place and be poor), so I understand what it is like to have to have to adapt to a new environment. It isn’t always easy, or pleasant, I’ll agree.
So yeah, there is a sacrifice involved in moving to a new place. There is also a sacrifice involved in refusing to move to where the jobs are.
As an individual, you can choose which sacrifice is more important to you. If you just can’t stand the thought of someone else living within a hundred yards of you, if you can’t stand the traffic (that’s understandable, actually), if you can’t stand the noise or smells, and you can’t stand to be in a more diverse population, then living closer to a city may not be best for you. But, if you want out of the cycle of poverty in which you are complaining about being trapped, and that is important enough to you to try something new, then moving a might bit closer to the city may be in your best interest.
I live right next to the biggest US city, and in a very dense urban area itself. And I come from a long line of NY’ers. But I’m probably closer to nowadays’ stereotypes of rural dweller politically and culturally. Anyway I like the NY area, some west coast cities, DC isn’t so bad but otherwise I avoid US cities when travelling. To me there are smaller much less interesting but significantly more dangerous versions of NY. I love the US countryside, to travel through.
However in general I think it’s largely BS to pigeonhole people based on where they live. Not in some kumbaya sense, but rather the most conservative and liberal states, have 10’s of % voters on other side. In 1860 Lincoln go zero popular votes in a number of soon to secede states. Literally nobody voted for him. To listen to some oversimplifications now you’d think it was like that now, but it really isn’t anywhere close.
Every story is different. Trying to force them to move to the cities is not something that I support. And IMHO ridiculous.
“Move them to the cities so they vote Democrat” (I’m referring to Salvors other thread) Is just as, or worse than some Republican positions.
(I’m left leaning centrist and would NEVER think of voting for Trump). Anyway, it’s their choice.
Who said anything about forcing? Forcing anyone to move anywhere is pretty uncool, and not something that I support.
Showing them that the cities and their surroundings aren’t all that bad, and that they can break their cycle of poverty by embracing a few changes is a completely different matter, and one that I would support.
If people choose to stay, and live in poverty, that is their choice, one that I would question the wisdom of, to be sure, but one that I would completely support as their right to choose.
The problem comes when they don’t want to live with the consequences of their choice, and wish for everyone else to be beholden to their wants.
It’s called “taking the piss”. Note, from the same post:
“All I’ve ever done is post hopeful posts about expanding cities so more rurals out in the dirt patches of this nation can move to civilization and have a better life.”
Emphasis mine.
He’s joking, and making it very clear that he, like many others, do in fact disparage such people.
Despite their “high crime” and “immorality” (whatever the fuck that means; I’m guessing it has something to do with gay people not being afraid for their lives if they don’t pretend to be straight) cities are still safer to live in. But look who’s disparaging now? Cities are “not civilized”? Impressive. Does that kind of hypocrisy phase you at all?
See, this is why we ask if english is your first language - you clearly misunderstood me, or what an “ad hominem” means. An ad hominem attack is when you attack someone’s idea based on their person, for example: “Your ideas are bad because we already know you’re an idiot”. That’s not what I’m doing here. I’m not attacking anyone’s ideas. This is not an “ad hominem”. This is just an insult. I’m insulting the chucklefucks who thought voting for Trump was a good idea. Not saying that all their ideas are bad because they did that, just insulting them. There’s a difference. One is a logical fallacy. The other is being a dick. I am often a dick; I try very hard not to be fallacious. You want a fallacy? Try the Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy!
To be fair: I know what an ad hominem is, and you do not. I voted for Clinton, and you seem to have voted for Trump. That gives us two very firm clues.
No. He implied that they are less diverse, innovative, and cultured. All of which is true based on the data. Cities are more diverse, foster more innovation (you could add up all of rural America and it still wouldn’t match Silicon Valley alone), and essentially define our pop culture (or maybe you can tell me how often you see a movie that wasn’t greenlit by some suit in Los Angeles, California?)
Illinois is pretty clearly a red state if you cut out Chicago. But keep in mind that if you cut out Chicago, you’ve cut out 21% of the population of the state. Cut out the entire Chicago metropolitan area, and you’ve cut out 75 percent of the state’s population. This is what your analysis is missing. If you look at these cities on a map, it may look like it’s a tiny portion of the state controlling the rest… But those tiny portions contain massive numbers of people. In the case of Illinois, the vast majority. And that’s what’s missing in this analysis.
And that’s insulting and wrong. While you can complain about crime all you want, the fact is that the cities are, economically, where it’s at.
Not surprisingly, the study found that the most high-skilled, high-paying occupations tend to cluster in urban areas. Urban centers tend to specialize in knowledge-based work, with high concentrations of scientists, technicians, engineers, and executives. When it comes to pay, the closer to the city center a job cluster is, the higher the pay.
Others have pointed out how, artistically, the city is far more influential and important - you could have the most brilliant theater production in the history of mankind, but if you’re performing at “The Barn” in Tremont, Maine, your odds of being as famous or influential as even a middling Broadway production (let alone a smash hit like “Hamilton” or “The Book of Mormon”) is essentially nil.
Additionally, you have far more options. Living in Bumfuck, Missouri, your options for an open mic night are probably the one decent bar in town, and that’s it. Living in Boston, you’re a 10-minute drive from more venues and locations than you can shake a stick at. Want to be a doctor in the city? They always need more of those! Want to be a doctor in a small town that already has a doctor? Better hope that guy dies.
Urban living has its disadvantages, as you so kindly point out. They are largely structural and occur when you have so many people living so close together. But the structural advantages are nothing to scoff at. There’s a reason so many people move to the city.
Apart from point one (which is demonstrably false - urban areas certainly at least more woke, partially because there is more diversity in them, and pointing to redlining as a counterexample doesn’t help you much there), this is shockingly well-thought-out and cogent statement.
And then I realized you just lifted it wholesale.
At least you offered a source.
-_-
Buddy, with all due respect, your advice is neither good nor interesting, and we don’t need it. Most of the problems most cities face are structural. Economically, urban areas are substantially better-off than rural areas, with lower unemployment and far more job options. The view you have of the city is absurd. No wonder, if you listen to Rush “Rape Police” Limbaugh.
Fair enough. But do understand that not all Trump voters where poor out of work miners. It’s anecdotal I realize, but the only Trump voters that I know personally are VERY well to do country folks.
Because Detroit is a blighted city.
Take the average measure of prosperity of rural counties vs the average measure of prosperity of people living in cities, then for fun take the median. I’d be surprised if cities do worse.
In crime they probably do, but then it’s hard to get robbed when you live at the top of a mountain surrounded by wild boars and poisonous snakes where most human beings choose not to tread for fear of death and boredom.
In my defense, I was not advocating forced movement to cities, just figuring out a way to make cities so ridiculously attractive that even the Duck Dynasties of the world feel more of a pull.
Once they come to the city, I think conservatism of the sort that thrives in rural america will be greatly dulled.
And there you go again. Every chance you get you take a shot at rural living. This is why people are getting defensive.
So, does that mean that you do not personally know any poor people in your area? That all the people you know are VERY well to do?
How exactly are you as in touch with the poor rural Americans as you seem to be claiming here, then?
Of course, if you are one of the people living out away from the city, and being fortunate enough to make that work and prosper, then why would you want to change? I kinda dream of making my fortune, then retiring to the countryside myself one day, when proximity to the city and the economic opportunities it provides is of less importance.
The Trump voters we are talking about are not as fortunate as you and your friends are, so their drives, motivations and goals are very different than yours.
I find it funny that the same people that complain that political correctness is ruining the country, and said that we need someone that tells it like it is, are now complaining that people are saying mean things to them and should be nicer.
Which is it?
So, you deny that, to a city dweller, the country side has no dangers to encounter that may take them unawares?
And you also contend that, to a city dweller, the countryside will be as engaging and interesting as the venues available in a city?
Some are VERY well to do. Most are middle class. I understand it is not typical. Actually most people in my area live in the country and have a small commute into one of two small towns. Some by choice and others because it makes the most economic sense. Town is Insanely expensive. Like I said before. Whatever floats your boat.
Where did I claim that?
Your not talking about me my friend. I didn’t vote for the Cheeto.
Salvos was talking about people that already live in the country.
We’re talking about those people in this thread though, and our besaddled friend definitely fits my comment.
So, you do not live in a typical rural area.
This at least implies that you do know why people prefer to live in a rural areas. Definitely implies that you have some sort of knowledge about the life that I do not. This is belied by the fact that you don’t actually know any of the poor rural Americans who swung the election in Trump’s favor.
At this point, I think that my going camping gives me just as much, or more (since you said you don’t anymore) authority on this subject.
I have. I haven’t. and I did.
However, your assumption simply proves my point. Small town America, you either “integrate” or you get “put down hard”.