7 ms·

I'm originally from an area not in coal country, but right by it and heavily influenced by it. I couldn't agree with you more. Both my home state and the federa

I'm originally from an area not in coal country, but right by it and heavily influenced by it. I couldn't agree with you more. Both my home state and the federal government are already essentially subsidizing these people to live in these communities simply because it's where they were born. There is no infrastructure for jobs because there are no industries other than coal and growing marijuana / making moonshine (although these are done on either an amateur level or highly consolidated). I am normally a big fan of welfare and similar social services, but especially when they empower recipients to get back on their feet. There are plenty of communities in appalachia with sky-high unemployment and a huge percentage of their residents essentially draw SSI for most of their lives. They need to move, because they and their children will just draw welfare in perpetuity at the expense of everyone else. Of course, there aren't a whole lot of ethical ways to get them to move. Forcing them to move is obviously a terrible idea. Making welfare/SSI contingent on moving could work, but will be absolutely terrible for those with all their wealth tied up in their house. It's a hard problem to solve, especially since a lot of these people are okay with / used to just making enough to get by.

maxerickson 9y ago
If there are really no jobs and the prospects for new industries are poor, offer relief by purchasing the houses. Then tear them down.
ticviking 9y ago
How is this different from the narratives of "welfare dependence" and "inter-generational poverty" advanced by republicans to advocate for deep cuts to urban welfare? If there are more people in a city than it provides opportunity for it seems to me to be a similar cruelty to incentivize them to stay in one place because they have "roots" there or something equally vague.
- opportune 9y ago
  The main difference is that there are at least jobs in cities. They may not all be >$50k solid middle class jobs, but they are there. There are actually almost no jobs in these areas. I would even agree with urban relocation if one city had a disproportionate number of people trapped in inter-generational poverty and another had extra jobs. I don't think "deep cuts" to urban welfare are ever the solution. I do think that the welfare system should prioritize setting its recipients up for success.
  - rfrank 9y ago
    > The main difference is that there are at least jobs in cities. There just aren't any houses, so their quality of life takes a greater hit than staying put in the form of huge commutes and dramatically increased cost of living. See service workers or teachers in San Francisco. 1. https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/20/15834514/rent-transportation-commute-affordable-housing https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/20/15834514/rent-transportatio... 2. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607957/the-unaffordable-urban-paradise/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607957/the-unaffordable-u... 3. http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-lee-spend-44-million-sf-teacher-housing/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-lee-spend-44-million-sf-teac...
    - thwarted 9y ago
      While true, this is largely beside the point, and is addressable because it's mostly caused by politics. We don't need to have yet another discussion about Bay Area building constraints. Additionally, there are other cities that have more opportunity than closed mining towns do. At the bare minimum the people need to relocate to someplace marginally better with ANY economic opportunity, because where they're at now has NO opportunity, not necessarily some place that is the top of economic opportunity.
      - rfrank 9y ago
        No, it's not beside the point, and it's actually a huge portion of the point. Those same constraints exist in the majority of major cities in America. For people on the low end of the earning spectrum, the lack of tangible benefits for moving outside of a vague promise of better job prospects makes staying put a viable option. If you worked at McDonalds, would you move across the country and away from your entire social support system for a chance to commute two hours on public transit to work at Arbys? I wouldn't.
        kefka_p 9y ago
        As somebody who has been on both relatively low and high ends of the earning spectrum, I'd say that the vague promise of a better job is far better than some of the alternatives. Very little is stopping these people who live minutes away from the "Paris of Appalachia" from pursuing education and improving their chances elsewhere in a manner they couldn't reproduce even in the presence of their "entire social support" systems, which I might add seem to be coming up short in the first place.
- hiram112 9y ago
  Good point. I know folks on the right screamed about the 'welfare queens' living on the tax payers' dime in the inner cities for generation after generation. In reality, this was a coded attack against blacks, and the majority of the claims were hyperbole. But now the left has begun making the same mean-spirited attacks on uneducated whites from Appalachia, the Midwest, and the south. Both types of stereotypes are annoying to hear repeated again and again.
  - opportune 9y ago
    I'm not making a mean spirited attack. In fact, I think in the long run moving would even be beneficial for these people
    - Gargoyle 9y ago
      I think in the long run it won't matter. For the most part, the jobs they could get in the cities are starting to vanish as well. In 10-20 years, the cities will have it even worse at the lower economic end. People might as well stay where they want to live. This economic transition will eventually effect everyone. Everyone. These people are just at the front end of it.
      - terravion 9y ago
        Why do you think this? Can you provide some evidence? There was a lot of hand wringing during the recession about the end of work--"we're all losing our jobs to the robots," etc.--but it seems like there are as many jobs as ever and more good jobs. This is especially true from a global perspective. While many blue collar workers in the US are suffering from competition from foreign substitution, there are literally billions more people joining the middle class globally. It doesn't sound like the end of human work when you zoom out. Also, if you compare the rate of job displacement right now with technology compared to say the early 20th century where a majority of the jobs that existed 50 years prior were "destroyed", then it doesn't seem like we're at much of an inflection point. More likely, because we have development policies that make it hard/expensive to move, we're not putting people in the new jobs like we used to--this has down the line effects of slowing growth because the workers who are also consumers aren't spending what they could have.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Disability is more insidious than welfare. States like disability because it is 100% federally funded and determinations are made by administrative law judges based on local standards. Temporary assistance (aka welfare), Medicaid, and other programs have a administrative and program cost sharing with the state and/or county. Urban poverty has a lot of disability cases too. Welfare phases out in a few years and chronically poor folks end up labeled disabled. I call it insidious because once you're on disability, there is an incentive to not try to re-enter the workforce. Most welfare recipients are off the rolls pretty quickly.
philipkglass 9y ago
Making welfare/SSI contingent on moving could work, but will be absolutely terrible for those with all their wealth tied up in their house. It's a hard problem to solve, especially since a lot of these people are okay with / used to just making enough to get by. Most of these people probably need to move if they've still working age. Maybe one way to reduce friction would be to have government buy out homes in economically distressed areas at the old valuation. Sure, that's "not fair" to people who faced similar dilemmas in the past and didn't get that sort of help. But I'd prefer that the government be inconsistently helpful over consistently unhelpful.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Of course, there aren't a whole lot of ethical ways to get them to move Offering people a chunk of money works quite well. If they're likely to be on welfare anyway why not offer them a few years' worth up front, to reflect the costs of their dislocation? American society is very accounting-driven and wants everything itemized and explained, which seems awfully wasteful to me. It would be more efficient (for the state) and more dignified (for the recipient) to just offer to buy them out for (say) $25,000.
wmeredith 9y ago
Is there remote work these people could do using the internet?
- opportune 9y ago
  Maybe mechanical turk, but that would probably only pay like $1-$5/hr at most if done at a regular rate (e.g. a 40 hour work week). Other than that, no. The vast majority of the US, including unemployed people in Appalachia, do not have the luxury of having such an in-demand skill that employers are willing to let them work remotely.
gozur88 9y ago
Usually what happens is people with extensive social networks and (now virtually worthless) property stay in the area, and their children leave for greener pastures. I have relatives in Western PA in a town that was built around oil and lumber. The oil and lumber are gone, and with them went all the jobs. The people who live there now must be around 70 on average. At some point that town is just going to die and become unincorporated county land.

maxerickson 9y ago

If there are really no jobs and the prospects for new industries are poor, offer relief by purchasing the houses. Then tear them down.

ticviking 9y ago

How is this different from the narratives of "welfare dependence" and "inter-generational poverty" advanced by republicans to advocate for deep cuts to urban welfare? If there are more people in a city than it provides opportunity for it seems to me to be a similar cruelty to incentivize them to stay in one place because they have "roots" there or something equally vague.

opportune 9y ago
The main difference is that there are at least jobs in cities. They may not all be >$50k solid middle class jobs, but they are there. There are actually almost no jobs in these areas. I would even agree with urban relocation if one city had a disproportionate number of people trapped in inter-generational poverty and another had extra jobs. I don't think "deep cuts" to urban welfare are ever the solution. I do think that the welfare system should prioritize setting its recipients up for success.
- rfrank 9y ago
  > The main difference is that there are at least jobs in cities. There just aren't any houses, so their quality of life takes a greater hit than staying put in the form of huge commutes and dramatically increased cost of living. See service workers or teachers in San Francisco. 1. https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/20/15834514/rent-transportation-commute-affordable-housing https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/20/15834514/rent-transportatio... 2. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607957/the-unaffordable-urban-paradise/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607957/the-unaffordable-u... 3. http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-lee-spend-44-million-sf-teacher-housing/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-lee-spend-44-million-sf-teac...
  - thwarted 9y ago
    While true, this is largely beside the point, and is addressable because it's mostly caused by politics. We don't need to have yet another discussion about Bay Area building constraints. Additionally, there are other cities that have more opportunity than closed mining towns do. At the bare minimum the people need to relocate to someplace marginally better with ANY economic opportunity, because where they're at now has NO opportunity, not necessarily some place that is the top of economic opportunity.
    - rfrank 9y ago
      No, it's not beside the point, and it's actually a huge portion of the point. Those same constraints exist in the majority of major cities in America. For people on the low end of the earning spectrum, the lack of tangible benefits for moving outside of a vague promise of better job prospects makes staying put a viable option. If you worked at McDonalds, would you move across the country and away from your entire social support system for a chance to commute two hours on public transit to work at Arbys? I wouldn't.
      - kefka_p 9y ago
        As somebody who has been on both relatively low and high ends of the earning spectrum, I'd say that the vague promise of a better job is far better than some of the alternatives. Very little is stopping these people who live minutes away from the "Paris of Appalachia" from pursuing education and improving their chances elsewhere in a manner they couldn't reproduce even in the presence of their "entire social support" systems, which I might add seem to be coming up short in the first place.
hiram112 9y ago
Good point. I know folks on the right screamed about the 'welfare queens' living on the tax payers' dime in the inner cities for generation after generation. In reality, this was a coded attack against blacks, and the majority of the claims were hyperbole. But now the left has begun making the same mean-spirited attacks on uneducated whites from Appalachia, the Midwest, and the south. Both types of stereotypes are annoying to hear repeated again and again.
- opportune 9y ago
  I'm not making a mean spirited attack. In fact, I think in the long run moving would even be beneficial for these people
  - Gargoyle 9y ago
    I think in the long run it won't matter. For the most part, the jobs they could get in the cities are starting to vanish as well. In 10-20 years, the cities will have it even worse at the lower economic end. People might as well stay where they want to live. This economic transition will eventually effect everyone. Everyone. These people are just at the front end of it.
    - terravion 9y ago
      Why do you think this? Can you provide some evidence? There was a lot of hand wringing during the recession about the end of work--"we're all losing our jobs to the robots," etc.--but it seems like there are as many jobs as ever and more good jobs. This is especially true from a global perspective. While many blue collar workers in the US are suffering from competition from foreign substitution, there are literally billions more people joining the middle class globally. It doesn't sound like the end of human work when you zoom out. Also, if you compare the rate of job displacement right now with technology compared to say the early 20th century where a majority of the jobs that existed 50 years prior were "destroyed", then it doesn't seem like we're at much of an inflection point. More likely, because we have development policies that make it hard/expensive to move, we're not putting people in the new jobs like we used to--this has down the line effects of slowing growth because the workers who are also consumers aren't spending what they could have.
Spooky23 9y ago
Disability is more insidious than welfare. States like disability because it is 100% federally funded and determinations are made by administrative law judges based on local standards. Temporary assistance (aka welfare), Medicaid, and other programs have a administrative and program cost sharing with the state and/or county. Urban poverty has a lot of disability cases too. Welfare phases out in a few years and chronically poor folks end up labeled disabled. I call it insidious because once you're on disability, there is an incentive to not try to re-enter the workforce. Most welfare recipients are off the rolls pretty quickly.

philipkglass 9y ago

Making welfare/SSI contingent on moving could work, but will be absolutely terrible for those with all their wealth tied up in their house. It's a hard problem to solve, especially since a lot of these people are okay with / used to just making enough to get by. Most of these people probably need to move if they've still working age. Maybe one way to reduce friction would be to have government buy out homes in economically distressed areas at the old valuation. Sure, that's "not fair" to people who faced similar dilemmas in the past and didn't get that sort of help. But I'd prefer that the government be inconsistently helpful over consistently unhelpful.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Of course, there aren't a whole lot of ethical ways to get them to move Offering people a chunk of money works quite well. If they're likely to be on welfare anyway why not offer them a few years' worth up front, to reflect the costs of their dislocation? American society is very accounting-driven and wants everything itemized and explained, which seems awfully wasteful to me. It would be more efficient (for the state) and more dignified (for the recipient) to just offer to buy them out for (say) $25,000.

wmeredith 9y ago

Is there remote work these people could do using the internet?

opportune 9y ago
Maybe mechanical turk, but that would probably only pay like $1-$5/hr at most if done at a regular rate (e.g. a 40 hour work week). Other than that, no. The vast majority of the US, including unemployed people in Appalachia, do not have the luxury of having such an in-demand skill that employers are willing to let them work remotely.

gozur88 9y ago

Usually what happens is people with extensive social networks and (now virtually worthless) property stay in the area, and their children leave for greener pastures. I have relatives in Western PA in a town that was built around oil and lumber. The oil and lumber are gone, and with them went all the jobs. The people who live there now must be around 70 on average. At some point that town is just going to die and become unincorporated county land.