Liberals make expensive pets - try a dog instead

---

One of my Left leaning friends recently passed on a clipping entitled "I tried owning a Liberal but they got too expensive". I think his intention was to show how superior those on the Left were, but it got me thinking. A centerpiece of the clipping was an economic comparison showing how much higher urban Democrat incomes were than rural Republican incomes. The clipping showed an urban Democrat income of $45,900 per person, with rural Republicans earning $30,100, a 50% difference in favor of the Dems.

Where do you live?

A simple comparison of incomes is far from the whole story, however, and paints a misleading picture. Housing is one of the largest components of household expenditures. In an urban environment, a two bedroom apartment will run about $2,300 per month, or $27,600 per year. At roughly 60% of income, that is a high percentage, but not unreasonable for lower urban incomes. On the other hand, a comparable two bedroom apartment in a rural Republican area will run about $900 per month, or $10,800 annually. For the rural dweller, that is only about 35% of their income. Already, the rural dweller is showing an advantage. But that still isn't the whole picture.

Home on the range

In urban areas, rental percentages are high. Those who actually own their dwellings are a fairly small percentage. Those urban Democrats are largely renters who do not build equity or have any mortgage deductions from taxes. Their rent is pure expense. Rural Republicans have much higher rates of home ownership, so much of the money they spend on their housing goes to build equity, while at the same time, mortgage interest is generally tax deductable. Their housing expenses are only a fraction of their total monthly payments. Consider, too, that the same home in an urban environment will cost two to three times or more what it would in a rural environment, and the comparison becomes even more favorable to the rural dweller. What that means is that the rural dweller can afford a much nicer and larger home than an urban dweller could, even given the income disparities.

---

Food for body and soul

While there is not as great a difference in price for food between urban and rural, there is often a significant difference in quality. In urban environments, finding fresh vegetables and meats can be a challenge. Often foodstuffs have spent significant time in transit and in warehouses. Consumers are divorced from producers so lower quality goods are common. High quality organic or fresh produce is often only available at a premium, making food costs a significant factor in a household budget. The rural environment is different in several ways. Local production means that transportation time and costs are lower. Producers and consumers often know one another, making low quality producers much less common. When I was much younger, we even had farmers who would come to town to deliver eggs that had been under a chicken but a few hours before. The end result is the rural dwellers frequently have higher quality foodstuffs available at lower prices than their urban cousins.

It's a great life

In addition to food and housing, rural dwellers have many factors available that contribute to quality of life, including a sense of community, freedom to live according to one's desires, lower crime rates, a cleaner environment, and more opportunity to make a difference than urban dwellers enjoy. Rural life provides many opportunities for participation in cultural activities that are unavailable to urban residents

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

A matter of personal values and tradeoffs as to which are of greater worth

I have often seen rural people come together to help neighbors who are sick or injured, providing food, shelter, and financial assistance to those in need. Farming is an activity not without risk, and I would see other farmers show up to help plant or harvest for one of their fellow farmers who was injured or otherwise unable to tend their farm. Deaths are a community loss, and even distant neighbors will show up with food and comfort for those grieving. True, urban dwellers often have large libraries, cultural activities like symphonies and theatre, community transportation networks, a number of prospective employers, and other resources available. It becomes a matter of personal values and tradeoffs as to which are of greater worth. Consider, though, that all the resources of a city are available to most rural dwellers should they be willing to make what is often a short trip. To take advantage of these resources does not require that they accept the enforced conformity of the urban environment, the impersonality and isolation of the city, and the threats to life and limb often found in parts of large cities.

---

Adding it all up

Cities do have their benefits that some may even consider advantages. Likewise, the rural environment can offer its own rewards, many of which cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Were it possible to put a price on quality of life, given the above considerations and others, we can readily see that a dollar buys a much greater quality of life in a rural setting, perhaps as great at two to four times the nominal income. Looking at the original numbers, and adjusting for quality of life differences, we could estimate that an urban Democrat would require an income of $150,000 or more to have the same quality of life and lifestyle as a rural Republican enjoys for $30,000, with less taxes to boot. Given these comparisons, an obvious conclusion is that rural Republicans are much more financially literate than their urban Democrat counterparts. I could also speculate that the comparison means that rural Republicans are much smarter than urban Democrats, but I won't go there. Liberals of the Left truly are expensive to keep around. As pets they leave much to be desired. They leave messes wherever they are, are difficult or impossible to housebreak, are irrationally unpredictable, readily become vicious, and can be emotionally draining. Dogs are better.