>I'm a worker, retard.
So? You've internalised the ruling ideology, including the "explanations" of why things must remain the way they are.
>generally people want to live in cities where there's actually services and roads.
Why not have services and roads in the periphery, and not just in the urban centres? That's my whole point. Our countries are organised this way because of capitalism
. Early capitalist factory production necessitated centralisation. Factory production in general requires a level of centralisation (it is the meeting point of various resources and labour), however, we are no longer tied to steam engines and other large machinery. Because of our improved infrastructure, we no longer have to centralise things as we are able to transport energy and goods over large distances. Why would you want to?, you ask. So that people wouldn't have to.
>This is why living there costs more.
Housing in the cities costs more because of supply and demand, not because the amenities are better. Otherwise tropical islands would be cheap, for they have no services and roads.
>the cost of putting a rail line to every small town isn't actually worth it
Pic related, orange is high-speed, red is regular. Why isn't it worth it? Because you said so?
>especially with the ecological impact of tearing up the countryside for no net gain.
As opposed to cars and roads which float above the countryside, touching absolutely nothing. No net gain? You mean no net gain other than the fucking rail line, right?
>That only makes sense if you're carrying enough cargo.
Message too long. Click
to view full text.