Do you think that in the coming years of this economic fallout

[Horse with no Name]

that it will be best to live in a rural area or a metropolitan area?
Will you be served best by being able to raise your own food and grow your own crops...or live in the city where you can get jobs to buy those items?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. what jobs?

:shrug:

[izquierdista]

2. I think he meant a metropolitan area in India or China

That's where the jobs are.

[mrcheerful]

3. Or he has high hopes that when the global market comes crashing down around the CEO's tax free

holdings that every country will take their money and property away and the CEO's will come running back for protection and bring the factories and jobs back with them.

[Muttocracy]

4. People are not all suddenly going to become farmers

I'd love to have my own garden, but I couldn't afford to buy enough land to farm to feed myself, esp. considering the machinery, tools, implements, storage and processing needed, or barns, fencing, etc. for livestock.

Cities would normally be more expensive housing for comparable housing, but there are more housing units in cities, and more chance for rent costs to collapse. Assuming there's still property tax to be paid, the land in NYS would be way too expensive.

I have complained bitterly to my parents for them being smart and going off to college and moving off my grandparents' farms. I'd rather have the land mortgage-free and the infrastructure.

[izquierdista]

6. Wrong-headed thinking

You've got it wrong, people who DON'T have money are the subsistence farmers, growing enough on their small plots of land to feed themselves. Enough land to feed your family in many parts of the world means just a couple of hectares (~5 acres), many times much less. And forget the machinery, processing facilities, barns, etc., these people do it with shovels, rakes and hoes (hand powered) and maybe an ox if they are lucky. Look at the capital invested in the average Mexican, Vietnamese, or Ukrainian farm and tell me you can't scrape up 2 or 3 thousand dollars. No, I take that back, look at your own ancestors. They packed a few tools into a covered wagon and went west and built what they had when they found a place that looked good. You can still buy farmland in the American midwest for around 1000 dollars an acre, maybe 2000 if you find a nice piece. The problem is that there aren't many small parcels, having all been consolidated into agribusinesses.

Before you say you can't "afford" it, look at a typical Third World farm and you will see that you would be wealthy if you took your bank account there.

[Muttocracy]

9. I'm assuming the poster was asking about people staying in the U.S.

And I'm talking about what I know from trying to buy real estate in my area (upstate NY). I could not feed myself on what $2500 of land would buy - if I could, I'd be doing it already. Property tax on a small house on a small lot here costs that much each year. Of course land is cheaper elsewhere in the world. If a bunch of Americans start a land rush there, guess what will happen to the land price?

Not all land is arable. Most of the best farmland is already in use for farming, or has been consolidated into megafarms. I suppose I could buy a couple acres of marginal land with no plumbing, electric, or housing and live in a tent and buy some gardening tools and chain an ox to my Honda and hope I don't freeze to death in the winter. Oh wait, where do I have the money to buy that land or the ox?

My ancestors farmed in Appalachia. They were very poor and had to work outside jobs to supplement their income.

There are reasons for economies of scale and division of labor. The notion that everyone is going to become a farmer is not realistic; there has never been a time when everyone was a farmer (see other poster's post below).

[izquierdista]

10. You're right -- wrong area

But if you look at the area bounded on the west by I-25, on the east by I-55, I-20 on the south and I-80 on the north, you would find a lot of possibilities. Coincidentally, this is land that many people left upstate NY to farm going on two centuries ago -- longer growing season, not as many trees to clear, less snow.

I would disagree that there has never been a time when everyone was a farmer. Even today, in rural areas in lesser developed countries, everyone plants some sort of crop to help out. If you go to Russia today and ask about those "private plots" which people used in the Communist days, you will find that not much has changed. Most (like 90% of) families have some land to grow potatoes and cabbage, two staple crops, along with other vegetables. They may also have a few chickens or ducks too. They will tell you that without their vegetable gardens, they would starve. Gardening, for them, is not a pastime or recreational pursuit, it is for survival. That is how you survive when the national average income per worker is $200/month.

[Muttocracy]

11. I understand your general point, except for the $$ comparison

But as a single woman without a cash reserve, it's hard to see this happening. Universities and government are trying to help beginning farmers in the northeast, and it's not a simple matter to have people become successful. Many give up in a short time. Of course, I'm talking about people doing it as their job (being a farmer, not just a gardener) so they can buy things other than what they can produce on-site.

And those folks living on $200/month? They're not paying $850/month for rent and utilities on a small 1 bedroom apartment like I am. You can't compare living standards around the world just by looking at dollar amounts, anymore than you can in this country. It's the same as hearing about average gas prices or the average cost of a home. Within NY, if I was in NYC I'd be paid more but living expenses would be way worse. If I was further from the college town where I work, living expenses and income would both be lower, but I'd be spending more on gas unless I bought a horse, which isn't a cheap option either.

[Demeter]

5. Look At Your Skill Set

What can you do that will keep yourself and others alive? Then, which location would let you best use those skills?

Think barter. Think survival. Think 1800's. And get your capital together and put it somewhere that inflation, con men and the government can't find it.

People with brown thumbs have no business farming. Prostitutes will likely starve to death in the rural areas. Doctors and plumbers need other people or a means of transportation.

Small cities close to arable farmland with good water resources are the safest, most flexible bet for you and your children, offering more opportunities than either metropolitan areas or the empty regions.

Cities were always the engines of a nation--provided they didn't exceed the carrying capacity of the land around them. We are just dropping back a couple hundred years.

And go solar--get off the grid and generate power for income and survival.

Paper shufflers will have no future.

[Elspeth]

8. "Small cities close to arable farm land with good water resources..." Any suggestions?

West coast?

[Demeter]

12. Sorry. My knowledge of the West Coast Is Limited

I spent 2 years in Fremont, CA--half an hour to anything and no water to speak of. Perhaps Oregon and Washington offer more than California...

I'm in Ann Arbor--water, farmland, and infrastructure. I am hoping to weather the storms here.

[MadHound]

7. It has always been a truism that it is easier to go through a major economic downturn in the country

Rather than in the city. Not only can you raise your own food, but in most cases rural folks tend to develop closer social networks that help out everybody get through the tough times.

Besides, given today's mobility factor, you don't necessarily have to live in an urban area to get a job. There are many jobs available in small to medium size towns, ones that are within easy commute distance by either car or bike.