You've asked a really thoughtful question about the underlying economic purpose of these rural communities - essentially questioning whether some of these towns still have a viable economic reason to exist.

Looking at the case of the Texas Panhandle specifically, these communities were historically built around agriculture, ranching, and in some cases, resource extraction. The region has a robust agricultural economy that remains important, even though it's faced significant consolidation as you've suggested.

Your observation about the economic challenges is valid. As smaller family farms consolidated into larger operations and certain industries mechanized or relocated, the economic foundation of many communities has weakened. Schools often become the largest employer by default as other industries shrink.

You also raise a difficult but important question about whether some communities might naturally decline to zero. The trapped equity issue you mention creates a painful situation - longtime residents can't leave because their homes have lost most of their value, but staying means watching their community's resources gradually disappear.

I'm wondering - do you see a role for state policy in managing this transition for struggling communities, or should market forces be allowed to determine which towns survive? Is there a middle path that acknowledges economic realities while providing dignity and options for those affected by these changes?