Item — HN Reader

How do your views on rural independence fit with the fact that most rural areas in the United States require massive amounts of monetary support from the more population dense (and progressive) states? [1]

I would argue that this idea of rural areas being independent is a remnant of a bygone era, an era where frontiers yet unsettled still existed. Now, with our desire for modern infrastructure, lifespans, and education, rural areas are kept alive through the very redistribution they claim to oppose.

[1]: http://archive.today/2017.09.16-013424/https://www.theatlant...

1 comments

That data set is heavily influenced by military spending (which is a large fraction of federal spending and has historically correlated with right leaning states).

I don't think that data supports the argument 'require massive amounts of monetary support from the more population dense' especially given the majority of population of those states strongly desire lower federal taxes and lower spending, even if it means less transfer of wealth to their states. 'require' is a high bar of evidence. I think 'adapt to changes' would be a better argument if we decided to allow states and private citizens to have more control of how their wealth is deployed (by not taxing and spending as much at the federal level). Those states would not go bankrupt or worse if federal spending decreased, but yes they would have to adapt. Maybe poor people in those states would have to move to areas where they had higher productivity and/or better welfare, which is not exactly a bad thing compared to paying them to stay in a state with low productivity?