Rural life sucks, part 1: Defining our terms

This is part one of a series. Here are the other installments thus far:

Rural life sucks, part 2: Health

The reality of rural life

Rural life sucks, part 3: Environment

Rural life sucks, part 4: Governance

Rural life sucks, part 5: Local journalism

Mental health in modern agriculture, a documentary review

Mental health in modern agriculture, a documentary review: Part 2

Rural life sucks part 5: Employment

Rural life sucks part 6: Driving

Breaking: US rural life is diverse

Where you raise your kids really matters

5 things to look for when choosing where to raise your kids

My friend

Larry Mason

left a comment on what to do with rural voters questioning whether quality of life really is "better" or "higher" in urban areas. QoL “is a subjective value” and “depends on the person,” Mason wrote. “There is a place for the hinterland, it just may be that not every one can afford it.”

QoL may be subjective. But I believe certain objective measures correspond pretty closely to quality of life, at least for the average person.

This series will go into how quality of life, as measured by various criteria, compares in the cities versus the country in the US.

But first, I want to point to something tricky about this conversation.