bigskank
join:2002-06-07
Norman, OK
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Depends on where the jobs come from
said by TKJunkMail  :Because if the jobs are just moving from the already wired cities, all that does is leave people living in a city that can no longer afford to maintain the infrastructure already there. So, all this proposed rural upgrading is valuable to the US as a whole only if it results in a net gain for the US. Not completely true. If companies move to small towns, there's economic incentive for them to do so. Having cheaper resources (lower taxes, cheap land, etc...) available to them allows them to do two things: either expand as a company (meaning creation of more jobs) or pay their investors more (meaning more money available to be spent or re-invested by consumers). Both of these result in net gains for the U.S. economy.
Further, workers in rural areas gain benefits to. Housing in rural areas is, almost without exception, substantially cheaper than in urban centers. Taxes are generally cheaper. Commute times are less (less gas being used, less cost for wear/tear on the car, more time to engage in consumer spending/recreation activities). This leads to consumers having more time/money to invest in activities that don't dump their cash into over-inflated housing mortgages or foreign oil companies. Again, both are a net benefit for the U.S. economy.
Also, as rural areas expand to meet infrastructure needs of a rising population, this creates jobs as well. While this may be offset some by a loss of jobs in the city, it at the very least equals a wash. Odds are, a lot of infrastructure in cities isn't paid for by cities. It's paid for by states or the feds (highways, utilities, etc...). Things like schools will expand/contract to meet population needs (in theory), so the cost there should level out over time as well. |
