The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But let's conceive of it a bit differently. If the affect of liberal order was entirely on cost of living of urban dwellers and did not negatively affect the incomes of rural dwellers, we would have the same migration issues. Rural dwellers may be migrating to the cities because they want to and not because they have to. In fact, in the US experience, the data supports this. An acre of farmland has produced the same real income for last hundred years for which data has been collected on it. This means that the only reason that farmers have had to migrate to cities is to enjoy some of the benefits that urban progress has offered. In order to get electricity and health care and the Internet, you have to increase your income in order to pay for it, so you either grow the size/productivity of your farm or find extra work in urban economy to trade for urban goods and services.
You can only conceive of this as an "attack" on the rural sector if you assume, a priori, that few people in rural areas want to enjoy any of the benefits that liberal, urban society offers.
Anecdotal aside: I recently met with some US farm industry lobbyists, all of them now aged children of farmers and who opted for a city job when they were young instead of returning to their farms (and who were dismayed about the prospects for continued agriculture subsidies given the outcomes of the last congressional election). Over beer, one them explained why he had never really been much of a supporter of rural policy initiatives to retain rural populations and had been more than happy, as was his father, to leave farm life altogether years ago. "If the rural hometown of my childhood had been twice as large, it would have been twice as shitty" he said. Lesson: We can't assume that rural to urban migration is a bad thing for most people who do it, even if it leaves them in institutional dependency situations they would not have if they remained farmers.
The Amish are an example of people who have little need to increase income because they can be mostly self sufficient in small-holding communities by forgoing most of the benefits of urban life that other farmers don't choose to forgo. But there are reasons why most people don't opt to become Amish, even if some do. Most people just might not view that kind of life as very much fun. But in order to avoid the forces that push and pull people out of rural communities and into cities and slums, people actually have to eschew most of the "fun" things that the Americanized liberal order has offered them, just like the Amish try to do.
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 13 32 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 10 29 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 7 24 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 5 24 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 24 19 comments
by gmoke - Jun 3 2 comments
by Oui - Jun 3 13 comments
by IdiotSavant - May 29
by Oui - Jun 16
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1332 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1029 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 724 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 524 comments
by Oui - Jun 313 comments
by gmoke - Jun 32 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 295 comments
by IdiotSavant - May 29
by Frank Schnittger - May 2724 comments
by Oui - May 271 comment
by Frank Schnittger - May 2512 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 2419 comments
by Oui - May 2339 comments
by Oui - May 2312 comments
by melo - May 239 comments
by ATinNM - May 2210 comments
by gmoke - May 17
by Frank Schnittger - May 1768 comments
by Oui - May 1542 comments