Can you cite any sources that confirm what you assert? Anecdotally, I have lived on a farm and my experience contradicts everything you mentioned, except possibly education (but I don't have children, so I wouldn't really know).

I'd like to hear about how your farm was more social than a city, with higher incomes.

Sure, if you're looking for anecdotal data I can provide some. I don't know about 'more', but I'd argue it was definitely not 'less' social.

I can't speak to the income stuff because I also worked remote during this time, but I will say there were less divisions along economic lines out there than there are in the city, for sure. People share meat and produce with each other regardless of whether they are pulling in a bay-area tech salary or they are working HVAC for the county. We're more similar than you think around a bonfire or with fishing poles in our hands.

I live in a city now so these thoughts are comparing some of my experiences in both places:

- I spent more time with my neighbors helping each other, sitting around a fire, cooking and sharing food than I do in the city. - seasonal help was much more of a thing in the country - we'd help each other every spring with brush clearing and burning, fall harvests, culling and processing. - I'd go to bars just as much as I would here in town, and there was a coffeeshop from which I'd work (though much more rarely compared to now). - We'd drive in to town to go to sporting events or concerts together, like I drive across town now for the same thing with my friends. - we'd go hunting/fishing together, I guess sort of like I'd go paddling boarding here in town. - volunteering and charity work was very different - you'd mostly go directly help whoever needed help; there weren't as much donation drives or petitions signed.

In coming up with that little list it occurred to me that just like in a city there are people that stay to themselves, there's definitely folks in the rural areas that do that also. It might vary so much from person to person that it's not a good comparison to make between rural/urban environments.

> farm was more social than a city

The farm has less overall "social points", but if you subtract the antisocial behaviors your are subject to in many cities the rural areas can come out ahead.

Take all the interesting subway conversations you have had on one hand, then subtract all the times you have smelled human urine or stepped over a heroin needle.

I grew up in rural Ohio.

I can promise you that you'll find antisocial behaviors in rural America.

This attitude about rural life coming from city folk is almost infantilizing. Noble savages, the farmers are in your eyes.

> This attitude about rural life coming from city folk is almost infantilizing.

I grew up in rural PA. I'm not city folk, I chopped wood and raised livestock. I walked though the woods with my dog after school every day. I got third place in the county youth skeet shooting competition when I was 14. Half my friends were Pennsylvania Dutch. I live close enough to NY and Philly to have spent a lot of time there. I live in the suburbs now but I'm moving out as fast as I can now that my career is established and I can work remotely.

It's ok if you like living in a city, I'm not stopping you but it isn't for me.

It's ok if you like not living in a city.

It's just dishonest for you to pretend like cities are the source of problems, and not -people-. I'm assuming your village never had any issues with elders being bigoted or sexually exploitative? Cities are no less pious than the country to me.

What I find interesting is that you're in the suburbs: the worst of both worlds. Suburbs were truly designed by a demon, in my mind.

People are the problem that's why I don't want to be a city.

Let's say 1% of people are antisocial assholes, in a city that's tens of assholes within a 5 minute walk from your door. In a rural area that's less than 1 asshole per ten square miles.

In a rural area if your neighbor likes loud drum and bass music, you learn that if he invites you over. In NYC, you learn that your neighbor is a chain smoker as you are moving in.

Rural areas limit both total assholes in a area and the asshole blast radius.

As for the suburbs, I only moved here to work. Thanks to Covid I now have a choice where I live and I prefer the countryside.

Frankly you should be happy people want to live in the middle of nowhere, rents are high as it is.

Frankly, I want to continue living in the middle of nowhere without people moving here to "escape the city".

It's already started and I hate it.

Starlink and remote work is really opening up parts of the country that weren't possible to live in before. The middle of PA is gorgeous and dirt cheap. People moving to rural areas from the city seem to want to be relatively close to it so I say let them drive up your property values and you can live in a mansion on twice the acreage in a few years.

Dubar's number suggests that there's a limit to how many deep meaningful friendships/relationships one person can have so living in cities of millions isn't really something anyone needs. As for income it's all abstract. True, rural areas don't provide complex services like software that facilitates the integration of two other softwares to generate paper GDP points, but they make food. Rural areas can exist without cities but cities can't exist without rural areas.

Living in a bigger city doesn't mean more friends necessarily, it means more diverse friend groups which small towns seriously lack. They tend to have a monoculture.

A couple of things off the cuff, but economies of scale affect infrastructure costs, so centralized areas take far less money per person to operate. For example, a dozen busses provide much better return on investment in an urban area than suburban or rural because they can each complete a single route quickly and service more people per mile and thus you have service every 10-15 minutes. When you spread those same busses out over a larger, less dense, area you have much longer between stops and far fewer people to use them for the same cost. Water, sewer, electrical, communications all scale better with more dense living as well. Bigger pipes are far cheaper than much longer runs. Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31961508

Crime and violence rates similarly don't match up with what we might expect, though it's a complex topic. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new...

I don't have anything for socialization, but access to more diverse population gives you far more options to interact with people of shared interests. For example, if you're the only person in your small town who likes Sci-fi, you aren't going to get to discuss it with anyone. In a more dense/diverse area you'd likely have options of dozens of book groups and meetups. The same holds true for any number of interests.

> A couple of things off the cuff, but economies of scale affect infrastructure costs, so centralized areas take far less money per person to operate. For example, a dozen busses provide much better return on investment in an urban area than suburban or rural because they can each complete a single route quickly and service more people per mile and thus you have service every 10-15 minutes. When you spread those same busses out over a larger, less dense, area you have much longer between stops and far fewer people to use them for the same cost. Water, sewer, electrical, communications all scale better with more dense living as well. Bigger pipes are far cheaper than much longer runs. Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31961508

I can't and won't disagree with what you're saying. If we're talking about how much money it costs to bring services out to rural areas, you're 100% correct. However, I'm not sure what your point is, because rural folks also pay taxes for services, like urban residents. It makes total sense to me that a concentration of people paying taxes for the cost of services to serve the entire city/county/state would of course be paying more than necessary for those services if they excluded rural citizens from those services. The grandparent didn't mention anything like this though, except maying saying "cheaper" (but I took that to mean day-to-day life honestly):

> Cities are cheaper, safer, greener, more social, places to live with higher incomes, better educational and health outcomes. We need to stop subsidising rural under performance.

> Crime and violence rates similarly don't match up with what we might expect, though it's a complex topic. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new...

I agree this is super complicated! Anecdotally I felt much safer when I lived rurally. I have experienced unsafe situations more than a handful of times since being back in the city. That's not real data, just a single data point from my experience though.

> I don't have anything for socialization, but access to more diverse population gives you far more options to interact with people of shared interests. For example, if you're the only person in your small town who likes Sci-fi, you aren't going to get to discuss it with anyone. In a more dense/diverse area you'd likely have options of dozens of book groups and meetups. The same holds true for any number of interests.

I don't disagree - rural communities tend to monocultures and some of the social activities are hard to do out there. Other activities are much easier though: bonfires, hunting, fishing, harvesting, etc. The same way some folks might go to a book club to discuss a sci-fi novel they are reading, my neighbors and I went to a fence-building workshop on the weekends to learn about building better fences that involved erecting livestock fence on a pasture. Definitely wouldn't have the interest or ability to do that in a city.

* The per-capita drug use rates are significantly higher in rural areas.

* Cities absolutely are greener, as their total energy consumption per capita is orders lower than rural areas. People drive less in cities, way more public transit is used etc. etc.

I mean these are all obvious points now.

I like cities, but I never see the urbanists talk about the housing for a large family in the city, I guess Japan is different in this regard where each family still gets their own house. Only thing being built near me is 2-BR apartments with crummy balconies.

> I mean these are all obvious points now.

They are not obvious at all to me, someone who has lived extensively in both worlds.

Per capita murder rates and robbery rates are much higher in cities. All of the most dangerous places in the US are mid to large cities. Detroit, Baltimore, St Louis etc and it's been that way for decades.

its all true.

Just saying it again doesn't make it so.

It sounds like you are greatly over-generalizing here. Any sources to back these claims?

Cities are not cheaper safer or greener. And they're more social only if you care about quantity over quality.

I personally find cities to be disgusting overcrowded places that are harmful to my mental health and I try to stay as far away as I can from them.

If there was no rural America the cities would collapse. Where do you think your food comes from?r Where do you think all the manufacturing is?

Where do you think all the people who actually make things live?

Cities live on the backs of rural people and it's time to stop subsidizing them and send some of that money to the rural communities.

>If there was no rural America the cities would collapse. Where do you think your food comes from?r Where do you think all the manufacturing is?

Southeast Asia? Mexico?

Really not getting into anything that looks like a flame-war here, the obvious solution is a better balance between everyone not a who is better argument but rural areas often are more heavily subsidized per capita and do not have the same economic generators that cities do. None of that is to say urban is more important or rural is more important. Statements like where do you think all the people who actually make things live undervalues the absolutely essential interdependence between urban and rural areas.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-rural-america-needs-c...

> Where do you think your food comes from?

From the massive and increasingly automated mega farms that don’t need the support of rust belt and country towns full of the impoverished or people choosing a rural lifestyle for cultural reasons

> Cities live on the backs of rural people and it's time to stop subsidizing them and send some of that money to the rural communities.

Cities subsidize rural areas fiscally, look at the tax base in a city, and a rural area. Suburban US by the way is the most subsidized part of the country, BTW. StrongTowns has published an enormous amount of work in this arena.

And rural areas subsidize cities calorically.

You can't eat money.

And all the money is useless if you can't buy anything. Cities are great at churning through money in services but they don't actually produce most of the things that they use.

So yeah if you look just at dollars, cities produce more. But they would fail utterly without the rural areas, I don't think cities give enough credit to that.

Strong towns is very myopic in what they focus on. They are not considering the second order of effects of things like reducing the scale of the interstate system.

> personally find cities to be disgusting overcrowded places that are harmful to my mental health and I try to stay as far away as I can from them.

That's why the suicide rate is 4 times higher in rural areas then.

I live near downtown in the largest city in the US and my eggs, seafish, and rum come from 5 miles down the road.

Where does the wheat come from to make the bread? Where do the cows come from to make the hamburger?

For that matter, where does the grain come from to feed the chickens? Where does the molasses come from to make the rum?

Pretty sure the answer to all of these is "from a lot further than five miles down the road"...

like half of one percent of people work in agriculture.

And you would like these people to work in complete isolation?

Or is it okay if there are people in rural areas living near them?

And you're completely ignoring that just because someone works in agriculture they still need services like car mechanics barbers etc etc The actual number of people who work in agriculture if you include all those is considerably higher.

> you are weak and antisocial so you are hiding. the rural people are the ones who are the parasites, in strict financial sense. they need more assistance then they contribute to the economy.

Luckily a "strict financial sense" doesn't really matter outside of theorizing on Internet forums. I am sincerely concerned about you if you honestly think what you said. I suspect you have never spent much time in a rural area and not ever talked with folks that live in rural areas.

They fulfill the most basic need of the population : they produce food eaten in the city. Noone cares about your programming skills when there is no food.

How about you make a pledge not to use a single thing made by someone in a rural area, and we'll see how long it takes for you to cave out of hunger.

Don't forget not to use any fuel, no electricity or public transportation either.

And if you live in NYC you also can't drink the water.

That's probably how jehowah witnesses persuade newcomers to join the cause: "Our tight-knit communities are safer, greener, more social places to live. We need to stop subsidizing the sin thay corrupts men from within!"