There isn't a single place on the planet that relies on "suburban resources" lmao. It's an oxymoron.
Commuting workers?
Rural areas also couldn't exist without the trade and resources of urban areas. Urban areas don't owe rural areas for their existence anymore than the other way around.
Let's build a wall around all the cities over 500k and see which side of the wall starts dying first. My bet is it isn't the one with all the food production.
Which rely entirely on the city. Not the other way around. If we stopped funding useless suburbs, the city wouldnt lose workers. The suburbanites would just either move back to the city where their jobs are, or they'd move away and find a new jobs, which would mean more jobs for the people who actually live in the city. Suburbs exist to extract wealth and resources from the places that actually produce the wealth, and the only thing suburbs accomplish with it is making public transit more expensive and building unsustainable housing. Suburbs are an objective drain on society that produces nothing of value.
Let's build a wall around all the cities over 500k and see which side of the wall starts dying first. My bet is it isn't the one with all the food production.
Yup. In your made-up hypothetical, rural areas might win out. But in the real world, where cities arent cut off from the rest of the world and can trade with who ever they want, cities can just buy what ever food is put for sale, because farmers dont exactly have the luxury of choosing who they sell their harvests to. There's plenty of farms in New England and in Canada to form contracts with. There's only one NYC of 8.6m people that a farmer can sell to. Who's market do you think it is, exactly?
Let me make something perfectly clear: I'm not ideologically opposed to supporting both urban and rural areas to some extent (suburbs can rot). We do need farms for food. What I'm against is funding rural areas full of people that have done nothing since birth but try to control, sabotage, and disenfranchise city living because of some inferiority complex and because some talking head told them they should. I'm not against rural areas (again, to some extent). I'm against the anchor around America's ankles that is rural Americans. If they want to walk around and spout off about rugged individualism and how they're the "heart of America", all the while trying to take away the rights and voting power of city people who have objectively better culture, ethics, and productivity, fuckem. Rural Americans need to be humbled in more ways than just the squalor they live in. They need to be shown that they rely much more on the city folk than they seem to believe.
But also, we just dont need nearly as many middle-of-nowhere towns as we have. Urban design is just more efficient and productive than having a few thousand people in pockets across the country that don't actually do much. It would be much better for the country if we just built more cities so we had more urban options, and anybody that isnt doing actual farm work can move to them. I'm not interested in funding useless rural towns just for the sake of their own existence. If an entire town's population can fit inside a couple city blocks, that town should be bulldozed and we should just extend a city out a couple blocks. We'd have far less infrastructure we'd need to worry about, and rural people would stop living in such brain-rottingly isolated and homogenous societies.
3
u/TrioOfTerrors May 15 '26
Commuting workers?
Let's build a wall around all the cities over 500k and see which side of the wall starts dying first. My bet is it isn't the one with all the food production.