If the Great Plains of the United States are naturally destined to be lightly populated why fight with nature?
A struggle to retain people on the Plains -Lawmakers seek tax breaks to slow shrinking population
[sub]
I’m not saying I support the proposed bill, but I disagree with you that the Great Plains are “naturally destined” to have low populations. The Great Plains have low populations because it is not currently economically viable to have large populations there. IOW, the situation that existed there before the original Homestead Act in 1862. Change the economics and you change the population.
So the three questions about the New Homestead Act are:
- Is this appropriate use of government funds?;
- If yes, will it work?; and
- If yes, will the result be beneficial or detrimental to the US?
Sua
Because having a higher population, especially of young people, increases the tax base and brings jobs to the area. It also increases an area’s congressional representation.
I do not believe it is the role of the government to do this. Let the people and the free economy decide. It seems silly at a time when many people complain about urban sprawl.
I would point out that this would help fight urabn sprawl - these people are moving from relatively lightly settled cities to bigger ones East or West.
Regardless, the government is merely changing the economics of the situation, so I’m not sure this qualifies as interference in the free economy.
The goverment is proposing on giving tax breaks to people to live here rather than there which is clearly interfering with the free market. If jobs are more productive elsewhere the government should not be subsidising unproductive jobs. That is what the market is for.
smiling bandit, “changing the economics” is effectively the definition of interference in the free economy. 
Sua
Well, more people in the Great Plains means less urban sprawl elsewhere. 
Still, while I don’t mind tax breaks to get people into an area, other types of subsidies are suspect in my mind, unless they actually bring enough people to these areas that the larger tax base makes up for the other cost.
I’m not sure that can happen here. Normally, subsidies are given out by a locale (state, city) on the hopes that the larger tax base will makes up for the lost revenue from the subsidy. But here, the proposed subsidies are federal, so there can be no increase in the tax base. If the people lured to the Great Plains by the subsidies had remained in Ohio, they still would have paid federal taxes, and without the subsidies, they’d pay more.
Only if these subsidies were only offered to immigrants could the tax revenue increase.
Sua
::waiting patiently for someone to point out my poor education in economics::
Nope SuaSponte, you’ve got it exactly right. It’s a “zero-sum game”, and the intention is to either transplant people (or tax base, as it were) from urban areas or create more incentive for a rural area’s current residents to stay there. It’s possible that a net increase in jobs will occur, but I don’t think it’s terribly likely. Jobs, however, are only a means to the end of boosting population levels.
The fact of the matter is, most people prefer to live in areas with access to shopping, restaurants, services, all of the fun stuff you find in a metropolitan area. They also like having lots and lots of different job options. Some people prefer quiet country living, and rural towns will still exist to cater to such people. To artificially support higher population levels in such towns (with federal money) would require a fair amount of money in either tax credits/breaks or even direct subsidies. To my mind, you would need some kind of value to come from this that offsets these costs. What kind of value do we get from transplanting people from one part of the nation to another? Here’s one possibilty: It’s handy for the nation’s interstate highway system to have at least some population centers between major destinations, if at the very least to operate travel-related industries such as motels, gas stations, restaurants, etc. There are probably many others. To be honest, this is the first time I’ve seriously asked myself why population decline in rural communities should or shouldn’t be a federal concern.
For hard data on population counts, the obvious cite here is the U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov). Look at a map of counties in any Great Plains state, and then look for counties far away from major metro areas. It’ll probably be quite an eye-opener if you’re not familiar with rural America… 10% decline over 20 years isn’t exactly a high threshold to meet. It may be interesting to download population counts from the 1980, 90 and 2000 censuses and see just how many of the 4,000 some odd counties in the U.S. meet such a criterion.
My 2 cents (about what it’s worth): I’ve always thought that a progressive income tax has contained within it an implied subsidy for rural areas, given their lower cost of living generally speaking. So if you make the tax less progressive, which has been the trend overall in the past twenty years, it should come as no surprise that the rural areas would see some erosion in their population as the implied subsidy is reduced.
So when do you plan to tear down DC?
You might be astonished to discover just what jobs are government-subsidized. In any case, homesteading has a long and venerable history and tradition in US history. This proposal is part of that tradition.
Your extremist laissez faire actually opposes American tradition in this matter.
Astro I think you’re over-estimating the appeal of a $10,000 break on one’s student loans. If you serve in AmeriCorps or AmeriCorps*VISTA you get an education award of $4,750 to be used to either a. pay for further schooling, or b. pay off existing student loans. That’s all it can be used for, but it’s a fairly decent incentive. You are allowed to serve for two years, so the total could be just under $10,000 off your loans, just like this new homestead act. Of the 20 or so people I knew well while serving, two stayed for a second year. The rest of us decided that, in the grand sceme of things, that award didn’t make enough of a mark to be worth staying on rather than pursuing other careers. And this is just two years, who’s going to think it’s worth 5 years of their lives?
Also, these sorts of things come with catches. The AmeriCorps*VISTA award (which has slightly different requirements from AmeriCorps’) required that you serve out the time fully- 365 days exactly. If you left a day early you got nothing, there were no precentages like if you serve out six months you get half the award. In addition, unlike the regular AmeriCorps folks, those of us in VISTA were not allowed to work a second job. Some people worked under the table, since the living stipend was based on the poverty level for a single person (you don’t get more if you have kids, btw), and some got away with it. Many didn’t, and were dismissed, losing their awards.
With this homestead act, what would the catches be? I notice it says “live and work for five years” in the article, does that mean they’re not going to get the loan-break until they’ve spent the full five years? What if they become unemployed during that time-span- do they lose the break?
The government is always involved in changing the market. Ths is just another example. You’ll have to do better to prove your case. I am not hostile, here, but the government is similarly involved in all cities and areas to a greater or lesser degree.
And the federal government is interfering in the free market, to greater and lesser extents, in each case. I don’t think anyone here is saying there isn’t any federal interference in the standard theoretical “free market.”
My point would be that it is intellectually dishonest to say federal incentives to boost population growth in rural America are inherently wrong because it is interference in the “free market” (unless you’re some kind of libertarian that advocates no interference whatsoever) the same way that it is intellectually dishonest to say we should get involved because we’re involved in other cases.
Whether or not this plan is a good one should rest entirely on its own merits. Whatever costs are associated with such a plan ought to be accounted for by some sort of social benefit, whether it be some tangible economic benefit or just the warm fuzzy we get from saving a dying town. Is saving rural America from drying up and blowing away a worthy goal in and of itself? Personally, I don’t think so, but if we as a society value this goal then let’s go for it.
Incidentally, anyone interested in current economic programs for rural towns should check out the “Rural Economic Action Plan” program, typically referred to as REAP grants. This is just one program designed specifically for the benefit of such communities. This program isn’t geared specifically for communities that have been experiencing population declines, but in most cases towns with sizes below the REAP threshold (I think it’s 5,000 people) are shrinking anyway. Any such community experiencing significant population growth probably wouldn’t be qualified for long, once its size is over the threshold…
Yup, Just because it’s an American tradition does not mean it’s good. And just because it is not an American tradition does not mean it is bad. I am against this kind of subsidy like I am against farm subsidies and other interventions of the government in the economy. Iknow they are “traditional” but I think they are wrong.
Well, in that case, how hard are you lobbying to get all homestead farms torn down and burnt to the ground, crops and all?
Anybody out there have any idea how a county with 5000 or fewer people even functions? I was looking at the census site that desdinova linked to, and I was trying to wrap my mind around a place dozens of square miles large or more, with just a few thousand people scattered around. Who polices the place, fights fires, picks up the garbage, teaches the kids, paves the roads, doctors, banks, barbers? The list just goes on and on. Seems to me that between 5000 people you just wouldn’t have enough to do the essentials, even.
Most of the residents live in small towns. For the rest, police and firefighters are pretty far away, but with fewer people, emergency services are needed far less often. People take their garbage to the dump. The roads aren’t paved- this is the land for which SUVs were designed. The kids are homeschooled or taken to school in the SUV. School bus rides of an hour or more are not unheard of. People will drive a long time for doctor appointments, bank deposits, and haircuts, and schedule it all on the same day.
America is really car-dependent. Where I live, in a large city, that dependency is kind of disgusting and slightly surreal. In other places, it makes a lot of sense.