Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Suburbs in general are losers from a government operations perspective.

They work because they are mostly newish. Core functions like keeping roads functional rely on state and federal aid.

Many older suburbs are more in decline now. Especially in 2nd/3rd tier metro areas. It’s just less obvious than the inner city or rural areas. They need growth to thrive. Once they fill out, population ages out, schools decline, and a vicious cycle starts.

Money policy has kept that going by organizing the economy around real estate. I don’t think it’s sustainable to continually recapitalize single family homes.



Suburban infrastructure is usually much more sparse, of lower quality and a lot of it is shifted to the local business/homeowner.

As an example - city water vs Water wells & Septic tank/fields. Gravel roads without sidewalks, etc.

So it's not 100% evident that cities subsidize rural counties. Cities do provide the larger tax base for states, which probably subsidize more rural counties through incentives tied to certain rural activities, but making a blanket statement is probably not accurate.


Towns and counties produce revenue from property tax and sales tax.

The infrastructure relies on state support, which is usually from Federal funds and personal income tax. That aid is a transfer payment from cities to localities. Bigger states, bigger transfer. Also, the federal funds are sourced from bigger states to the smaller states.

Thats one of the amazing things about the US. The wealth of the coasts ensured that the smaller states weren’t left behind.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: