8 ms·

> It's lack of opportunity. What is your answer to that? Tesla isn't opening up a factory in New Hampshire anytime soon. In generations past, Americans picked

> It's lack of opportunity. What is your answer to that? Tesla isn't opening up a factory in New Hampshire anytime soon. In generations past, Americans picked up and moved to where the opportunity was, rather than staying put. Why is it unreasonable to expect the same now? The economy has permanently changed - those jobs are never coming back. On the other hand, moving is far, far easier in 2017 than it was for those on the Oregon Trail or the Mayflower.

mc32 10y ago
Presumably the cost of living in cities with growing economies disincentivizes poor people from moving.
- tomrod 10y ago
  To cities, perhaps, but not to areas of opportunities (even fleeting). Consider South Dakota.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    What exactly is drawing people to South Dakota?
    - tomrod 10y ago
      Oy. It was too late at night for me when I wrote this. I meant North Dakota, referencing fracking jobs.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - tomrod 10y ago
        But by happy circumstance, it seems Sioux Falls is booming. So I wasn't completely wrong.
        protomyth 10y ago
        I figured that was the case, but Sioux Falls also does a lot of advertising in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis / St. Paul MN) to convince businesses to move. Sioux Falls is actually a pretty nice town. SD is a bit strange because the capital of the state is such a small town. SD also has no state income taxes for individuals or businesses.
    - knz 10y ago
      Sioux Falls is booming after a decade of investment by the financial and medical industries. Sanford Health is particularly noticeable - there are multiple hospitals and research centers there or under construction. I believe the banking is mostly credit card companies and cheque printing. It's got a surprising number of amenities for a small city and if you can stand the location and politics it's got relatively high wages and low cost of living.
jbhatab 10y ago
Yes so you want to have every move to the city where the opportunities are. Which may be fine, but imagine for a second someone telling you that 'you should just move from where you are because where you were born isn't good enough'. Not very considerate. Also, they would be thrown into an environment that is wildly different than there own with far less money than everyone else and lack of skillets and knowledge to thrive. They would be an extreme disadvatantage. Now I don't disagree that that may be a solution, but seriously take a step back. Ask yourself if you think you just said is empathatic towards people in rural America? Ask yourself if you had said that about other issues in America. 'Why can't black people just start learning how to code to catch up?' 'Why can't gays just get over not being able to be officially married?' Basically what you're saying is 'why cant people that aren't me adapt to how I operate?'
- TuringNYC 10y ago
  > imagine for a second someone telling you that 'you should just move from where you are because where you were born isn't good enough' Now imagine telling a corporation that 'you must build your factory only in City X' -- why should they? They will build where they find space at good rents and an industrial ecosystem and workers. What if the factory owner lives in California. So he has to move his life across the country and build in New Hampshire because a rural worker in New Hampshire didn't want to move themselves? How does this make sense?
  - dukeluke 10y ago
    Capitalism is blind to political movements, wealth inequality, and full employment. All that matters is the bottom line. This is leading to globalism, automation, and use of illegal immigration which is gutting the lower and middle classes. Would it be best for the corporation? No, of course not. But there needs to be a balance between the lower and upper classes, and right now that balance is not there. A rising economy should benefit everyone. This lack of balance is why populist politicians were so popular this election.
    - TuringNYC 10y ago
blusterXY 10y ago
In a vibrant economy, jobs move to where there are workers. That is the reason so many factories were built out of the major cities in the first place. Trump is right to identify insufficient aggregate demand as the cause of unemployment in the midwest and underemployment pretty much everywhere. The culprit is much more China than Mexico. If the administration can significantly reduce the trade deficit it will have very positive effects on US employment and income.
- prodmerc 10y ago
  Workers move where there are jobs. I haven't seen anything else, anywhere. Factories were built where it was cheap or where the founders decided, but to be fair, as close to people as possible.
- azemetre 10y ago
  The culprit is neither China or Mexico, it's automation [1]. To say anything else is to deny reality. You can accomplish far more today with the advances in robotics and logistics than you could 30 or even 20 years ago. This is an example of a brewery working at full capacity with a total of 6 people per shift. If this brewery was operated 35 years ago it would be 600 people per shift. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tLim5pkfOw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tLim5pkfOw So how exactly are you going to stop these owners of capital that are so rightfully praised in the United States? You have entire cities that will offer free electricity, massive tax incentives, and looser regulations for what? A couple hundred jobs? What about the tens of thousands of people that are out of work? Are we really going to subsidize hundreds of thousands of tax dollars for jobs that barely pay $15/hour? I don't know what the solution is but I do know it will require massive amounts of tax dollars and it won't be the poor paying it. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs...
  - dukeluke 10y ago
    The problem now is automation, but that's because all of the jobs that couldn't be automated have already been shipped overseas. I argue that automation, globalization, and arguably illegal immigration are the three largest factors gutting the lower and middle classes in America. Also, you don't have to give better jobs to everyone, just a big chunk. There are ~10 million illegal immigrants in the US, which has a population of ~300 million. Right or wrong, shipping them out or giving some sort of work visa(to require at least minimum wage pay) would raise demand for lower class jobs to the point where lower and middle class wages may finally start rising again. Edited to recognize the open debate on illegal immigration. I don't understand how illegal immigration could lead to a better job outlook for the lower class. If anyone has some info on that, I'd appreciate it.
BrailleHunting 10y ago
Ask any dairy farmer in the US: it's mostly Latinos whom do the dirty work that in-country people scoff at. If you want something done in the US, it's usually immigrants whom do the hard work. If people are willing to schlep they have the opportunity to feel purpose and a sense of accomplishment, but if they're going to sit idle and/or get wasted, that's the surest path to rusty irrelevancy. Folks need to bootstrap themselves and find/invent useful contribution to society that can turn a profit, rather than expecting someone to show up and hand it to them.
- pmorici 10y ago
  At what wage? Pretty sure if shoveling cow shit paid an executives salary you would have no problem finding people willing to do it w/o turning to under the table labor.
  - tomrod 10y ago
    Mike Rowe is often an interesting one to follow for this kind of information, regardless of one's political leanings. http://mikerowe.com/2016/02/stopignoringskillsgap/ http://mikerowe.com/2016/02/stopignoringskillsgap/
    - pmorici 10y ago
      Yeah, I like Rowe's stuff on the skills gap but I don't think what he is talking about in that article, skilled trades, and what the op is discussing, unskilled farm hand and factory labor, is the same labor market.
VLM 10y ago
The last people to the pyramid game are the suckers, so there's little motivation to commit financial suicide so a boomer can cash in and retire in wealth by selling to you. Also the overall standard of living is lower in cities than in rural areas for non-1% job categories. You'll make maybe 10% more money while paying 20% more and living in higher crime and worse conditions as a welder, for example. Its not even clear for "computer people" that the overall standard of living is better in a city. We all know there's only one politically correct thing to say about urbanism, but there's a difference between being required to say under social duress vs actually is.
- dashundchen 10y ago
  >¤We all know there's only one politically correct thing to say about urbanism, but there's a difference between being required to say under social duress vs actually is. I'm not sure what this means, can you expand on this?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
malandrew 10y ago
The difference is decades of economic policy that encouraged people to dump their life savings into owning their own home. When you've invested heavily in something, you tend to suffer from sunk costs fallacy. Add to that the fact, that those that own the homes and the land are typically the leaders in their community and you have those invested in a place encouraging others to stay there as it dies. Those that own the home can move out, but if enough do so, then the only prospect for the laggards is abandoning the home and losing it all. I agree that people should move, but circumstances are different today. I'd love to see more sociology and economic research in how towns die and recover. Tons of money studies urban poverty and decay, and I suspect rural poverty and decay doesn't get nearly the same attention because it's out of sight and out of mind for those funding the research.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Why is it unreasonable to expect the same now? The economy has permanently changed - those jobs are never coming back. On the other hand, moving is far, far easier in 2017 than it was for those on the Oregon Trail or the Mayflower. Transportation is easier - but lets face it, it takes money to move now just like it took money to move back then. This is the entire reason we can't expect folks to just be able to move. There aren't jobs coming back, so they have no income. If they are lucky, they make minimum wage. And to make more money, they have to save up first month's rent, deposit, utility deposits, plus the actual moving expenses. All this for a city likely to be more expensive than their rural location. It isn't much wonder why folks aren't moving more often. Sure, one could find work in the nearest town, but that takes commute money. If one has a friend they can live with, that helps, but many don't.

mc32 10y ago

Presumably the cost of living in cities with growing economies disincentivizes poor people from moving.

tomrod 10y ago
To cities, perhaps, but not to areas of opportunities (even fleeting). Consider South Dakota.
- protomyth 10y ago
  What exactly is drawing people to South Dakota?
  - tomrod 10y ago
    Oy. It was too late at night for me when I wrote this. I meant North Dakota, referencing fracking jobs.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - tomrod 10y ago
      But by happy circumstance, it seems Sioux Falls is booming. So I wasn't completely wrong.
      - protomyth 10y ago
        I figured that was the case, but Sioux Falls also does a lot of advertising in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis / St. Paul MN) to convince businesses to move. Sioux Falls is actually a pretty nice town. SD is a bit strange because the capital of the state is such a small town. SD also has no state income taxes for individuals or businesses.
  - knz 10y ago
    Sioux Falls is booming after a decade of investment by the financial and medical industries. Sanford Health is particularly noticeable - there are multiple hospitals and research centers there or under construction. I believe the banking is mostly credit card companies and cheque printing. It's got a surprising number of amenities for a small city and if you can stand the location and politics it's got relatively high wages and low cost of living.

jbhatab 10y ago

Yes so you want to have every move to the city where the opportunities are. Which may be fine, but imagine for a second someone telling you that 'you should just move from where you are because where you were born isn't good enough'. Not very considerate. Also, they would be thrown into an environment that is wildly different than there own with far less money than everyone else and lack of skillets and knowledge to thrive. They would be an extreme disadvatantage. Now I don't disagree that that may be a solution, but seriously take a step back. Ask yourself if you think you just said is empathatic towards people in rural America? Ask yourself if you had said that about other issues in America. 'Why can't black people just start learning how to code to catch up?' 'Why can't gays just get over not being able to be officially married?' Basically what you're saying is 'why cant people that aren't me adapt to how I operate?'

TuringNYC 10y ago
> imagine for a second someone telling you that 'you should just move from where you are because where you were born isn't good enough' Now imagine telling a corporation that 'you must build your factory only in City X' -- why should they? They will build where they find space at good rents and an industrial ecosystem and workers. What if the factory owner lives in California. So he has to move his life across the country and build in New Hampshire because a rural worker in New Hampshire didn't want to move themselves? How does this make sense?
- dukeluke 10y ago
  Capitalism is blind to political movements, wealth inequality, and full employment. All that matters is the bottom line. This is leading to globalism, automation, and use of illegal immigration which is gutting the lower and middle classes. Would it be best for the corporation? No, of course not. But there needs to be a balance between the lower and upper classes, and right now that balance is not there. A rising economy should benefit everyone. This lack of balance is why populist politicians were so popular this election.
  - TuringNYC 10y ago

blusterXY 10y ago

In a vibrant economy, jobs move to where there are workers. That is the reason so many factories were built out of the major cities in the first place. Trump is right to identify insufficient aggregate demand as the cause of unemployment in the midwest and underemployment pretty much everywhere. The culprit is much more China than Mexico. If the administration can significantly reduce the trade deficit it will have very positive effects on US employment and income.

prodmerc 10y ago
Workers move where there are jobs. I haven't seen anything else, anywhere. Factories were built where it was cheap or where the founders decided, but to be fair, as close to people as possible.
azemetre 10y ago
The culprit is neither China or Mexico, it's automation [1]. To say anything else is to deny reality. You can accomplish far more today with the advances in robotics and logistics than you could 30 or even 20 years ago. This is an example of a brewery working at full capacity with a total of 6 people per shift. If this brewery was operated 35 years ago it would be 600 people per shift. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tLim5pkfOw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tLim5pkfOw So how exactly are you going to stop these owners of capital that are so rightfully praised in the United States? You have entire cities that will offer free electricity, massive tax incentives, and looser regulations for what? A couple hundred jobs? What about the tens of thousands of people that are out of work? Are we really going to subsidize hundreds of thousands of tax dollars for jobs that barely pay $15/hour? I don't know what the solution is but I do know it will require massive amounts of tax dollars and it won't be the poor paying it. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs...
- dukeluke 10y ago
  The problem now is automation, but that's because all of the jobs that couldn't be automated have already been shipped overseas. I argue that automation, globalization, and arguably illegal immigration are the three largest factors gutting the lower and middle classes in America. Also, you don't have to give better jobs to everyone, just a big chunk. There are ~10 million illegal immigrants in the US, which has a population of ~300 million. Right or wrong, shipping them out or giving some sort of work visa(to require at least minimum wage pay) would raise demand for lower class jobs to the point where lower and middle class wages may finally start rising again. Edited to recognize the open debate on illegal immigration. I don't understand how illegal immigration could lead to a better job outlook for the lower class. If anyone has some info on that, I'd appreciate it.

BrailleHunting 10y ago

Ask any dairy farmer in the US: it's mostly Latinos whom do the dirty work that in-country people scoff at. If you want something done in the US, it's usually immigrants whom do the hard work. If people are willing to schlep they have the opportunity to feel purpose and a sense of accomplishment, but if they're going to sit idle and/or get wasted, that's the surest path to rusty irrelevancy. Folks need to bootstrap themselves and find/invent useful contribution to society that can turn a profit, rather than expecting someone to show up and hand it to them.

pmorici 10y ago
At what wage? Pretty sure if shoveling cow shit paid an executives salary you would have no problem finding people willing to do it w/o turning to under the table labor.
- tomrod 10y ago
  Mike Rowe is often an interesting one to follow for this kind of information, regardless of one's political leanings. http://mikerowe.com/2016/02/stopignoringskillsgap/ http://mikerowe.com/2016/02/stopignoringskillsgap/
  - pmorici 10y ago
    Yeah, I like Rowe's stuff on the skills gap but I don't think what he is talking about in that article, skilled trades, and what the op is discussing, unskilled farm hand and factory labor, is the same labor market.

VLM 10y ago

The last people to the pyramid game are the suckers, so there's little motivation to commit financial suicide so a boomer can cash in and retire in wealth by selling to you. Also the overall standard of living is lower in cities than in rural areas for non-1% job categories. You'll make maybe 10% more money while paying 20% more and living in higher crime and worse conditions as a welder, for example. Its not even clear for "computer people" that the overall standard of living is better in a city. We all know there's only one politically correct thing to say about urbanism, but there's a difference between being required to say under social duress vs actually is.

dashundchen 10y ago
>¤We all know there's only one politically correct thing to say about urbanism, but there's a difference between being required to say under social duress vs actually is. I'm not sure what this means, can you expand on this?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

malandrew 10y ago

The difference is decades of economic policy that encouraged people to dump their life savings into owning their own home. When you've invested heavily in something, you tend to suffer from sunk costs fallacy. Add to that the fact, that those that own the homes and the land are typically the leaders in their community and you have those invested in a place encouraging others to stay there as it dies. Those that own the home can move out, but if enough do so, then the only prospect for the laggards is abandoning the home and losing it all. I agree that people should move, but circumstances are different today. I'd love to see more sociology and economic research in how towns die and recover. Tons of money studies urban poverty and decay, and I suspect rural poverty and decay doesn't get nearly the same attention because it's out of sight and out of mind for those funding the research.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

Why is it unreasonable to expect the same now? The economy has permanently changed - those jobs are never coming back. On the other hand, moving is far, far easier in 2017 than it was for those on the Oregon Trail or the Mayflower. Transportation is easier - but lets face it, it takes money to move now just like it took money to move back then. This is the entire reason we can't expect folks to just be able to move. There aren't jobs coming back, so they have no income. If they are lucky, they make minimum wage. And to make more money, they have to save up first month's rent, deposit, utility deposits, plus the actual moving expenses. All this for a city likely to be more expensive than their rural location. It isn't much wonder why folks aren't moving more often. Sure, one could find work in the nearest town, but that takes commute money. If one has a friend they can live with, that helps, but many don't.