Shouldn’t we be instead paying them the fair value of their labor rather than this and let them choose how to spend that money ?
We tried subsidizing rural broadband for last 3 decades with 100s of billions of dollars with little to show for it , Starlink on the other hand is able to solve it with purely commercial enterprise not withstanding the small rural subsidy they got.
Maybe it is better for the market to decide ? If the market does not value the important things rural economy produces and is absolutely important then they either start valuing them correctly and pay for it or we can stop producing them ?
Government subsidy always creates inefficiencies and is slow to adapt to change . It is acceptable trade off in some areas like defense, police, healthcare, insurance, or foundational research where for profit enterprise is not viable but package delivery is hardly one of them.
> Shouldn’t we be instead paying them the fair value of their labor rather than this and let them choose how to spend that money ?
What is the fair value? We want them doing whatever they're doing, but we don't want to face the actual cost. So we subsidize the services they need/want, so that they will be willing/able to live there and do those things.
> We tried subsidizing rural broadband for last 3 decades with 100s of billions of dollars with little to show for it
It connected my village and the rural corridors on either side of Santa Fe.
> Starlink on the other hand is able to solve it with purely commercial enterprise not withstanding the small rural subsidy they got.
Everyone I know out here who uses Starlink says it is getting visibly worse as more people use it.
> If the market does not value the important things rural economy produces and is absolutely important then they either start valuing them correctly and pay for it or we can stop producing them
I thought COVID made it very clear that the market doesn't price based on the level of actual need, but rather on the desires of those with the most control over resources.
> It is acceptable trade off in some areas like defense, police, healthcare, insurance, or foundational research where for profit enterprise is not viable but package delivery is hardly one of them.
Clearly, you don't live in a rural area with a substantial drive to local retail. Living without any effective policing is a tradeoff many of us are willing to make, but a return to the pre-Sears days for shopping will empty the hinterlands out in an instant.
There are arguments you could make in favor of this outcome, but then be honest and say that's the outcome you're aiming for.
It is better for the market to decide. Otherwise you will have some small percentage of people who have excellent reasons why their particular area should receive a disproportionate amount of money.
We tried subsidizing rural broadband for last 3 decades with 100s of billions of dollars with little to show for it , Starlink on the other hand is able to solve it with purely commercial enterprise not withstanding the small rural subsidy they got.
Maybe it is better for the market to decide ? If the market does not value the important things rural economy produces and is absolutely important then they either start valuing them correctly and pay for it or we can stop producing them ?
Government subsidy always creates inefficiencies and is slow to adapt to change . It is acceptable trade off in some areas like defense, police, healthcare, insurance, or foundational research where for profit enterprise is not viable but package delivery is hardly one of them.