I think the key observation is this: everything you say is true, and yet many rural areas still have terrible economies.
It's hard to square that circle -- that rural areas are heavily subsidized but yet still economically depressed and under-served. Hence, comments like the one from VLM above.
Of course, it all boils down to economic fundamentals: cities and metro areas create a network effect that's difficult or impossible to compete with, no matter how well subsidized rural areas are.
The fact that rural areas suffer in spite of their greater representation and massive economic subsidies is a difficult pill for a person from a rural area to swallow. A "they are screwing us" mentality is a much more compelling narrative.
Then could it be that the subsidies are the only thing making rural life livable for many people? In other words, without the subsidy, the economy would be so depressed that people would move to cities.
They voted in an administration who wants to take away all of the subsidies for their poor population.
But they also voted in an administration who wants to massively subsidize their way of life at the expense of the rest of the tax base. Trump's basic economic plan is to use the carrot of access to America's rich suburban and urban markets as a mechanism for increasing domestic manufacturing (largely benefiting rural areas). So suburban and urban residents will be subsidizing artificial marketplaces that inflate the prices they themselves pay for goods.
His major governmental program will be a transportation infrastructure overhaul that will very likely disproportionately be paid for by suburban/rural areas and benefit rural areas.
And more importantly, those rural voters consistently vote for state governments that rob the tax bases of suburban and urban areas to pay for infrastructure that rural areas can't pay for on their own. Particularly for education and transportation infrastructure.
Basically, rural communities in the US are leeches who use their disproportionate access to political power in order to subsidize their unsustainable way of life on the dime of suburban and urban tax payers. And then have the audacity to claim the opposite.
Food comes from land worked worked using tractors designed and built by engineers in cities, in many cases harvesting crops geo-engineered by biologists and chemists in cities. And to the extent that one or more of these conditions isn't true, those are often premium products made possible by demand stemming from choosey consumers mostly living in... cities.
Also, as JoeAltmaier observed, very few people employed in rural areas are actually employed in agriculture. Furthermore, many of the subsidies that are provided to rural areas have nothing to do with -- and aren't necessary for -- agriculture.
Regarding water, rural areas contribute equally to water quality problems and in many cases make highly unsustainable use of water resources -- see California for example. Also, urban areas are often near plentiful fresh water sources anyways (see: Chicago).
The fantasy of farming as a self-sufficient profession disconnected from larger economic networks and holding a privileged place among society's disparate roles is one of the most insufferable aspects of rural culture imo.
I'd be happy to give up agricultural lands in the US in exchange for much less political obstruction and substantial tax cuts. Those new countries would still have to sell their agricultural products on the market, and the nearest urbanized areas would still be some of their largest customers.
Seems like a win-win, right? But, there are significant reasons why the rural areas would never accept that deal. They're addicted to the imbalance of power and urban subsidies.
Agriculture is a strategic asset. What if you were at war and you had no place to buy food? What if a natural disaster in another country will decrease the quantity of produced food - no country will sell you food if they risk hunger. Agriculture has to be sustained even if the cost of crops is higher than on international market. The production capacity has to be larger than actual internal needs. etc.
Are the subsidies over-rated? We have energy coops (which we pay for entirely); we have a road system (the most expensive parts used by everybody); there are some agricultural supports (insurance programs?) but only a tiny fraction of rural residents are in farming. What else?
First, I don't think so. Second, an over-rated subsidy is still a subsidy. So even if they are over-rated, that's still no proof of VLM's statement -- it's more just looking the gift horse in the mouth.
> We have energy coops (which we pay for entirely)
This isn't true everywhere.
> we have a road system (the most expensive parts used by everybody)
Perhaps for the interstate system you could make this case. I'm not sure. Certainly there are cases where the interstate system inconvenience cities for the benefit of an extremely tiny but politically powerful rural district. The same happens with state highways.
But at the state level, rural roads are heavily subsidized. State highways are typically extremely important to rural areas, and those are mostly funded by urban and suburban tax bases.
> but only a tiny fraction of rural residents are in farming
But farming is still very important to local economies in rural areas, even if it's no longer a major employer. Also, "some" is a bit of an understatement -- half a trillion in federal funds over half a decade. And that's just the main farm bill -- excluding other federal and state assistance programs.
> What else?
* Schools for sure. Most states heavily subsidize rural schools in their funding formulas. States and the federal gov't also subsidize rural schools through programs that are not even accounted for by these funding formulas -- e.g. tuition waivers and sometimes even salaries for teachers that teach in rural schools.
* Federal and state entitlement programs -- this one isn't even close to debatable.
* Political representation. Again, not even close to debatable. I consider this independently of all of the other indirect economic benefits that stem from the representation for a lot of reasons. To give one, the conservative social agenda disproportionately targets and complicates the lives of the non-white non-christians concentrated within cities.
Half a trillion over half a decade is 100 billion per year.
I make no claim to the accuracy of the original statistic, but if that is the case and the federal budget is 3.7 trillion [0] that is 2.7 percent of the budget.
I'm not being disingenuous -- the 2014 farm bill has a 5 year life time -- there'll be another big debate when it comes up for renewal in 2018.
The way that I described it is the same way that everyone on both sides of the isle describes it, because it's honest and accurate -- the bill has a five year life time and changes every five years. So if you want to talk about the cost of the farm bill, you talk about the total cost over five years.
> That works out to less than 100 million a year. To three significant digits that is 0% of the budget.
I think you missed some zeros.
(As an aside, Google has a cool feature where it will do math using words so that you don't screw up w/ the number of zeros: https://www.google.com/search?q=half+a+trillion+divided+by+f... -- I find this super helpful b/c I always drop or add zeros when there are so many)
We can argue back and forth about whether it amounts to a subsidy or something else. But if you just look at aggregate cash flows the largest flows from Washington out to rural areas are social security and government paid for medical care (medicare, medicaid, va, ppaca subsidies). The largest flows from the rural areas to Washington are the individual income tax and payroll taxes.
If those are significantly out of line with each other, then the net offset is going to swamp relatively piddly flows like the Connect America Fund or the Rural Utilities Service.
1) I don't think it just so happens that there are more old people in rural areas. It has to do with the respective characteristics of rural and non-rural areas rather than some historical accident.
2) I think even if you excluded those over 65 you would still find net flows as I've described them because rural areas have too many poor people and not enough rich people.
The larger point is that if you look at the United States as a country where we are all in this together, then it makes no difference if the people getting social security disproportionately live in Wyoming and the people making max social security contributions are disproportionately in NY. Individuals might be net contributors or recipients but if the relevant group is Americans than it all sums to zero. Most of the time that's the attitude most Americans adopt. But then when it comes time to try to justify the continued existence of the Senate and the Electoral College all of a sudden it's 1789 again and the States are independent sovereigns that merely turned over a handful of responsibilities to the Federal government. All of a sudden we aren't all Americans after all but instead Wyomingites that want to know why they should be ruled by New Yorkers and Californians.
> I think the key observation is this: everything you say is true, and yet many rural areas still have terrible economies.
Well yes, because the actual physical capital (machines, skilled labor, etc) is concentrated in cities. Increasingly so, in fact, as the economy has become dominated by monopolies and oligopolies.
> Well yes, because the actual physical capital (machines, skilled labor, etc) is concentrated in cities
Yes -- particularly with respect to skilled labor.
And that's largely a good thing for the working class. The alternative is local monopolies on the labor market. Highly skilled workers flock to areas where employers must compete with one another for a very good reason...
> Increasingly so, in fact, as the economy has become dominated by monopolies and oligopolies...
The urban population in the United States sky-rocketed over exactly the same period of time that Lynn and Longman romanticize.
Although I agree with a lot of their concrete policy proposals, I don't think that those policies would do anything to geographically decentralize economic activity.
>Although I agree with a lot of their concrete policy proposals, I don't think that those policies would do anything to geographically decentralize economic activity.
There's a difference between urban and megalopolis urban. Lots of jobs used to be in smaller, regional cities that had several employers available.
It's hard to square that circle -- that rural areas are heavily subsidized but yet still economically depressed and under-served. Hence, comments like the one from VLM above.
Of course, it all boils down to economic fundamentals: cities and metro areas create a network effect that's difficult or impossible to compete with, no matter how well subsidized rural areas are.
The fact that rural areas suffer in spite of their greater representation and massive economic subsidies is a difficult pill for a person from a rural area to swallow. A "they are screwing us" mentality is a much more compelling narrative.