I've known this and discussed it for a long time, but a reminder now and then is appropriate. Without government subsidies, the rural population of the United States would be significantly smaller.
The truth is that ever since the New Deal rural America has received special treatment from policymakers. It’s not just farm subsidies, which ballooned under Donald Trump to the point where they accounted for around 40 percent of total farm income. Rural America also benefits from special programs that support housing, utilities and business in general.In terms of resources, major federal programs disproportionately benefit rural areas, in part because such areas have a disproportionate number of seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare. But even means-tested programs — programs that Republicans often disparage as “welfare” — tilt rural. Notably, at this point rural Americans are more likely than urban Americans to be on Medicaid and receive food stamps.And because rural America is poorer than urban America, it pays much less per person in federal taxes, so in practice major metropolitan areas hugely subsidize the countryside. These subsidies don’t just support incomes, they support economies: Government and the so-called health care and social assistance sector each employ more people in rural America than agriculture, and what do you think pays for those jobs?
From a New York Times Op-Ed by Paul Krugman.
7 comments:
Most rural areas are doomed.
The widget manufacturing plant is never coming back.
The mine has closed.
Farming is becoming more automated.
People need to move to where jobs are.
And, I have no clue how you help displaced 45-year-olds get jobs for the next 20-25 years of their lives.
Dave, what do you propose to do about the fact that cities are incredible fertility sinks? Shall we keep mining other countries for talent and labour? What happens when they run out, because their fertility is also low? What of the ethics of depleting the human capital of places that could provide competitors to our own global political-corporate dominance?
@ Anonymous,
Africa is producing babies.
I say we welcome more immigrants.
What if these Africans prove less capable, less intelligent, more inherently violent, as studies show? If their fertility doesn't drop, contrary to projections, shall we all forfeit our lineages to a flattening of diversity for the sake of Africans whom will neither thank nor remember us? Should the world be African?
You didn't address all of my questions. What we are doing is destructive and anti-competitive on a global scale, for regions like South Asia. We are extracting their best and de-facto preventing such people from reproducing, while assimilating them to a degree that ensures they will never repatriate nor assist their homeland. It is pissing away a stunning mosaic of the world's most brilliant and capable in an infernal engine that collects the proceeds increasingly only at the top.
"What if these Africans prove less capable, less intelligent, more inherently violent, as studies show?"
Citations needed.
Contra citation: https://www.thenicheng.com/nigerians-most-educated-us-residents-14000-in-higher-institutions-there/
@Anoymous
There is no such thing as African exceptionalism when it comes to the demographic transition associated with economic development. It has high fertility because it isn't economically developed, economic development is occurring bit by bit albeit later than other parts of the world, and every place that economic development happens, fertility falls.
"What if these Africans prove less capable, less intelligent, more inherently violent,"
There is nothing inherent about it.
Population level differences on matters like this are overwhelming based upon environmental conditions and economic development and change rapidly. The Flynn Effect is real. In better conditions people's lot improves. We've seen that over the course of history with people who are overwhelmingly descendant from ancestors who were less capable, less intelligent, and more violent.
And, who is to say that we have the right population now?
Perhaps the collective result of individual actions is pointing us in the right direction towards a smaller world population.
I am not sure what is controversial about rich people paying a bit in taxes to support poor elderly people. The tone of this post, unless I am misreading your intent, is rather critical.
The federal government has spent the last 50 years explicitly trying to downsize the rural population by squeezing out smaller farmers. Price supports are a big driver of rural population loss, along with other policies with the same long-term effect. We cannot say what the rural population would look like now were these programs not in place.
Post a Comment