[babypuncher]

They are able to make that choice because we pretty heavily subsidize it for them. Rural communities receive a disproportionately large amount of federal aid per capita in order to build and maintain the infrastructure that makes that lifestyle possible.

If the individual cost of buying a house "in the sticks" was reflective of that, people might start to think twice.

[johnweldon]

> pretty heavily subsidize

Is a pretty general term that's hard to respond to.

Yes there are rural subsidies, but I'm unconvinced that the per-capita subsidization of rural and suburban dwellers is so much greater than their urban counterparts.

You may have a very good argument, but I don't know the numbers, and I haven't seen anyone provide the numbers for this yet either.

[bluGill]

Rural areas have such a tiny population that the subsidy going to them is mostly used by urban folks.

If your food goes over a subsidized road that counts against you.

[twblalock]

It's important not to conflate "suburbs" and "rural."

For example, most of the Santa Clara Valley is suburban, consisting of subdivisions of detached homes with front yards, driveways, garages etc. But the area is definitely not rural: millions of people live here and 4 of the 5 FAANG companies are headquartered here.

You could say similar things about LA, or the areas outside Chicago and NYC, etc. They are definitely suburban, and definitely not rural.

[johnweldon]

> If the individual cost of buying a house "in the sticks" was reflective of that, people might start to think twice.

I don't buy that subsidization is what makes buying a house "in the sticks" so much cheaper.

[bluGill]

It is partially supply and demand, and partially the sticks have much less services. Gravel roads are cheap. Libraries cost money, so rural areas do without