4 ms·

I don't really see how this can be remedied, besides there being a revival of traditional industries (unlikely) or current workers retraining in massive numbers

by pm90 9y ago

I don't really see how this can be remedied, besides there being a revival of traditional industries (unlikely) or current workers retraining in massive numbers (again, unlikely). It almost seems like this is a post-industrial great migration, where people from distressed areas would need to move to the few areas that are thriving. It doesn't help that the republican dominated political parties in many of the distressed states are more concerned with cutting taxes on the rich (Kansas) or trying to pass ridiculous and unnecessary laws (bathroom bills in NC, Texas etc). This has got to stop. Accepting Medicaid expansion, as I see it, is probably one way to immediately kickstart many of these distressed states. The federal money that comes in might just help create jobs in the healthcare sector (or fund existing ones better) that might somewhat mitigate the affects of economic duress. Not to mention better healthcare for the people.

jasonmaydie 9y ago
I think their metric is suspect. It only uses where new companies are being created as a major metric to categorize "distressed" economies. Pooling of resources around major urban areas is very typical of how economies grow. You can't expect companies to just rise up in the middle of nowhere
- killjoywashere 9y ago
  Maybe you should get out more. I'm pretty sure a cross-country trucker would agree the towns off the main interstates are crumbling. I just visited my mom's hometown, Lamar, Colorado. They clearly surf the same internet you do, they are trying to mimic the same patterns of behavior, but the town is falling apart.
  - jasonmaydie 9y ago
    hrm. I'm not denying small towns are dying. I'm saying it's not unusual that they will die out as the economy moves towards increased efficiency.
deusofnull 9y ago
I think this reality has to be frankly talked about. If liberal tax policies are so destructive to business and innovation, why are the most successful counties often times (as shown in this map) run by more liberal / progressive / dare I say socialistic governments? People often criticize this line of inquiry and call it divisive or inappropriate or callous, but I cannot see how it is unrelated nonetheless. Tax breaks, gender discriminative bathroom laws, climate protection deregulation, and "appeals to traditional values" do not seem to be improving the lives of these people very much.
- zipfle 9y ago
  I think the policies you cite as bad ideas do in fact enjoy broad support in the areas that enact them. "Hearts and minds" campaigns led by outsiders are notoriously difficult and prone to failure. Can you suggest a way to start the conversation about these policies in a way that you think is likely to succeed?
  - pm90 9y ago
    This is an extremely good question and very difficult to answer, to say the least. There has been quite the disinformation program going on in many conservative states; actually not simply disinformation, but demonization, so that its difficult to even get many people to listen to liberals. But I think Al Gore probably has the best solution to this, which he talks about in his new documentary: if you focus on real economic benefits of certain "liberal" ideas, then you seem to have a chance. e.g. if wind energy is shown to be cheaper than natural gas, people will adopt it. Democrats (and fact-believing republicans) really need to include more economics in their messages. Like how expanding Medicare actually helps small businesses and rural communities. Like how higher taxes on the rich help fund education and infrastructure projects that lead to greater prosperity. I understand it is a somewhat skeevey way to do it, because if you're a democrat, you probably also believe in other non-economic democratic values (e.g. diversity, womens' reproductive rights etc.) and to win the support of people who don't believe in these things might seem uncouth.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
thephyber 9y ago
With regards to rural health care, this investigative series about "rural communities wilting after their hospital closes"[1] just published recently. A quick Google search reveals a number of different outlets publishing similar pieces since at least ~2012. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rural-hospitals-closure-georgia_us_59c02bf4e4b087fdf5075e38 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rural-hospitals-closure-...
Clubber 9y ago
Making offshoring of manufacturing more expensive would be a big start. Require that companies only offshore with countries with the same environmental and worker protections the US has or better. Companies offshore manufacturing because the labor is cheap and the environmental regulations are slim. Automation has taken a large chunk of the manufacturing jobs of the 1970s, but bringing even automated manufacturing back would boost auxiliary businesses in the towns.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pm90 9y ago
  I actually agree with you on this. But unless there is some kind of consensus among different countries, including those that have free trade agreements with the US (e.g. NAFTA) to change the terms, it seems rather unlikely to happen anytime soon. Besides, I wonder how much more expensive that alone would make manufacturing in other countries. AFAIK a significant reason for labor being cheap is COL being cheaper in other countries.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    > But unless there is some kind of consensus among different countries, including those that have free trade agreements with the US (e.g. NAFTA) to change the terms, it seems rather unlikely to happen anytime soon. Yes, Trump is trying to renegotiate NAFTA. Not sure the details or what he's trying to do with it. It does show it can be done though. I'm fairly suspicious of all our trade agreements. I'm sure they have a lot of US industrial influence in them and not a lot of worker influence. >Besides, I wonder how much more expensive that alone would make manufacturing in other countries. AFAIK a significant reason for labor being cheap is COL being cheaper in other countries. That's a good question. I would assume the cost of putting environmental regulations in place would be substantial, but not sure about the labor rights. What I do know is you can buy a hunk of land for real cheap in the middle of nowhere in the US as long as you don't mind: 1. No water 2. No electric 3. No sewer 4. No road 5. No nearby hospitals 6. No nearby grocery stores In other words, I think our infrastructure has a lot to do with our COL.
PopsiclePete 9y ago
America needs to stop with the "land of opportunity" bullshit narrative. It's not the 1920's anymore, not everyone gets to be Elon Musk. We can either be like Germany and tackle these problems together - which will involve massive capital and wealth redistribution. The course we're on - "winner takes all" - is not sustainable - there will be riots on the streets before long. I find it ironic how the GOP voters who seem to be disproportionately living in economically distressed areas are the ones most likely to vote for politicians pushing the dog-eat-dog economic model.
- CM30 9y ago
  > I find it ironic how the GOP voters who seem to be disproportionately living in economically distressed areas are the ones most likely to vote for politicians pushing the dog-eat-dog economic model. I don't. In many cases, people aren't voting for a party because they agree with all its policies, but because they agree with it on one or two policies they don't want to compromise on. So perhaps one of the GOP's social policies (as much as they're disliked by the left) might just generally be more popular and held as more important than their economics ones. With the US two party system, you can either vote somewhat more left wing social policies and economics policies, or somewhat more right wing social policies and economics policies, assuming you want to make a difference. If this changed, then I suspect you'd see a very different picture in regards to what politicians are voted for.
  - specialist 9y ago
    "...but because they agree with it on one or two policies they don't want to compromise on." The book Democracy for Realists calls this "folk theory of democracy". "With the US two party system, you can either vote somewhat more left wing ... right wing..." You're ignoring the polarizing effect (hyperpartisanship) of gerrymandering.
- sageabilly 9y ago
  That's simple psychology- take the poor and downtrodden, give them a scapegoat for their problems (liberals), someone to feel morally superior to (everyone but poor, downtrodden GOP voters), and sprinkle the whole thing with Prosperity Gospel Christianity and poof instant voter base.
mistermann 9y ago
> It almost seems like this is a post-industrial great migration, where people from distressed areas would need to move to the few areas that are thriving. Except, at least in Canada, people increasingly can't afford to live in the cities where the jobs are. The alternative might be a movement of people moving back into the bush - if you are going to live in poverty, you might as well have freedom and spare time rather than working three part time jobs just to pay rent, grocery, and utility bills.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  I can see believing that if you're only familiar with Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. You might find it surprising to hear that there are many other vibrant urban areas in Canada that have jobs without the absurd housing costs.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    Are you asserting that the housing affordability index is unchanged in most of Canada in the last 20 years?
    - zzalpha 9y ago
      I'm saying your claim that "people increasingly can't afford to live in the cities" is an easily refutable, broad stroke statement that fails to acknowledge regional nuances. The same would be true of any single, monolithic measure that attempts to quantify such a claim. Moreover, if you take the time to drill into the actual numbers, you'll find housing affordability is about average relative to historical figures (in terms of percentage income spent on housing) in most urban areas, with the exception of a few major centers (Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto) that are pulling up the national average: http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-housing/house-jun2016.pdf http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-h...
      - mistermann 9y ago
        > is an easily refutable, broad stroke statement that fails to acknowledge regional nuances While it does vary by region, according to this we are at a 20 year high nation wide. I guess it all depends on which propoganda you read. http://business.financialpost.com/real-estate/rbc-says-housing-affordability-measure-worst-since-1990-toronto-hits-poorest-level-ever http://business.financialpost.com/real-estate/rbc-says-housi... "Home affordability in Canada worst in almost 30 years, Toronto’s worst ever, says RBC"

by pm90 9y ago

jasonmaydie 9y ago

I think their metric is suspect. It only uses where new companies are being created as a major metric to categorize "distressed" economies. Pooling of resources around major urban areas is very typical of how economies grow. You can't expect companies to just rise up in the middle of nowhere

killjoywashere 9y ago
Maybe you should get out more. I'm pretty sure a cross-country trucker would agree the towns off the main interstates are crumbling. I just visited my mom's hometown, Lamar, Colorado. They clearly surf the same internet you do, they are trying to mimic the same patterns of behavior, but the town is falling apart.
- jasonmaydie 9y ago
  hrm. I'm not denying small towns are dying. I'm saying it's not unusual that they will die out as the economy moves towards increased efficiency.

deusofnull 9y ago

I think this reality has to be frankly talked about. If liberal tax policies are so destructive to business and innovation, why are the most successful counties often times (as shown in this map) run by more liberal / progressive / dare I say socialistic governments? People often criticize this line of inquiry and call it divisive or inappropriate or callous, but I cannot see how it is unrelated nonetheless. Tax breaks, gender discriminative bathroom laws, climate protection deregulation, and "appeals to traditional values" do not seem to be improving the lives of these people very much.

zipfle 9y ago
I think the policies you cite as bad ideas do in fact enjoy broad support in the areas that enact them. "Hearts and minds" campaigns led by outsiders are notoriously difficult and prone to failure. Can you suggest a way to start the conversation about these policies in a way that you think is likely to succeed?
- pm90 9y ago
  This is an extremely good question and very difficult to answer, to say the least. There has been quite the disinformation program going on in many conservative states; actually not simply disinformation, but demonization, so that its difficult to even get many people to listen to liberals. But I think Al Gore probably has the best solution to this, which he talks about in his new documentary: if you focus on real economic benefits of certain "liberal" ideas, then you seem to have a chance. e.g. if wind energy is shown to be cheaper than natural gas, people will adopt it. Democrats (and fact-believing republicans) really need to include more economics in their messages. Like how expanding Medicare actually helps small businesses and rural communities. Like how higher taxes on the rich help fund education and infrastructure projects that lead to greater prosperity. I understand it is a somewhat skeevey way to do it, because if you're a democrat, you probably also believe in other non-economic democratic values (e.g. diversity, womens' reproductive rights etc.) and to win the support of people who don't believe in these things might seem uncouth.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

thephyber 9y ago

With regards to rural health care, this investigative series about "rural communities wilting after their hospital closes"[1] just published recently. A quick Google search reveals a number of different outlets publishing similar pieces since at least ~2012. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rural-hospitals-closure-georgia_us_59c02bf4e4b087fdf5075e38 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rural-hospitals-closure-...

Clubber 9y ago

Making offshoring of manufacturing more expensive would be a big start. Require that companies only offshore with countries with the same environmental and worker protections the US has or better. Companies offshore manufacturing because the labor is cheap and the environmental regulations are slim. Automation has taken a large chunk of the manufacturing jobs of the 1970s, but bringing even automated manufacturing back would boost auxiliary businesses in the towns.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pm90 9y ago
I actually agree with you on this. But unless there is some kind of consensus among different countries, including those that have free trade agreements with the US (e.g. NAFTA) to change the terms, it seems rather unlikely to happen anytime soon. Besides, I wonder how much more expensive that alone would make manufacturing in other countries. AFAIK a significant reason for labor being cheap is COL being cheaper in other countries.
- Clubber 9y ago
  > But unless there is some kind of consensus among different countries, including those that have free trade agreements with the US (e.g. NAFTA) to change the terms, it seems rather unlikely to happen anytime soon. Yes, Trump is trying to renegotiate NAFTA. Not sure the details or what he's trying to do with it. It does show it can be done though. I'm fairly suspicious of all our trade agreements. I'm sure they have a lot of US industrial influence in them and not a lot of worker influence. >Besides, I wonder how much more expensive that alone would make manufacturing in other countries. AFAIK a significant reason for labor being cheap is COL being cheaper in other countries. That's a good question. I would assume the cost of putting environmental regulations in place would be substantial, but not sure about the labor rights. What I do know is you can buy a hunk of land for real cheap in the middle of nowhere in the US as long as you don't mind: 1. No water 2. No electric 3. No sewer 4. No road 5. No nearby hospitals 6. No nearby grocery stores In other words, I think our infrastructure has a lot to do with our COL.

PopsiclePete 9y ago

America needs to stop with the "land of opportunity" bullshit narrative. It's not the 1920's anymore, not everyone gets to be Elon Musk. We can either be like Germany and tackle these problems together - which will involve massive capital and wealth redistribution. The course we're on - "winner takes all" - is not sustainable - there will be riots on the streets before long. I find it ironic how the GOP voters who seem to be disproportionately living in economically distressed areas are the ones most likely to vote for politicians pushing the dog-eat-dog economic model.

CM30 9y ago
> I find it ironic how the GOP voters who seem to be disproportionately living in economically distressed areas are the ones most likely to vote for politicians pushing the dog-eat-dog economic model. I don't. In many cases, people aren't voting for a party because they agree with all its policies, but because they agree with it on one or two policies they don't want to compromise on. So perhaps one of the GOP's social policies (as much as they're disliked by the left) might just generally be more popular and held as more important than their economics ones. With the US two party system, you can either vote somewhat more left wing social policies and economics policies, or somewhat more right wing social policies and economics policies, assuming you want to make a difference. If this changed, then I suspect you'd see a very different picture in regards to what politicians are voted for.
- specialist 9y ago
  "...but because they agree with it on one or two policies they don't want to compromise on." The book Democracy for Realists calls this "folk theory of democracy". "With the US two party system, you can either vote somewhat more left wing ... right wing..." You're ignoring the polarizing effect (hyperpartisanship) of gerrymandering.
sageabilly 9y ago
That's simple psychology- take the poor and downtrodden, give them a scapegoat for their problems (liberals), someone to feel morally superior to (everyone but poor, downtrodden GOP voters), and sprinkle the whole thing with Prosperity Gospel Christianity and poof instant voter base.

mistermann 9y ago

> It almost seems like this is a post-industrial great migration, where people from distressed areas would need to move to the few areas that are thriving. Except, at least in Canada, people increasingly can't afford to live in the cities where the jobs are. The alternative might be a movement of people moving back into the bush - if you are going to live in poverty, you might as well have freedom and spare time rather than working three part time jobs just to pay rent, grocery, and utility bills.

zzalpha 9y ago
I can see believing that if you're only familiar with Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. You might find it surprising to hear that there are many other vibrant urban areas in Canada that have jobs without the absurd housing costs.
- mistermann 9y ago
  Are you asserting that the housing affordability index is unchanged in most of Canada in the last 20 years?
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    I'm saying your claim that "people increasingly can't afford to live in the cities" is an easily refutable, broad stroke statement that fails to acknowledge regional nuances. The same would be true of any single, monolithic measure that attempts to quantify such a claim. Moreover, if you take the time to drill into the actual numbers, you'll find housing affordability is about average relative to historical figures (in terms of percentage income spent on housing) in most urban areas, with the exception of a few major centers (Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto) that are pulling up the national average: http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-housing/house-jun2016.pdf http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-h...
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > is an easily refutable, broad stroke statement that fails to acknowledge regional nuances While it does vary by region, according to this we are at a 20 year high nation wide. I guess it all depends on which propoganda you read. http://business.financialpost.com/real-estate/rbc-says-housing-affordability-measure-worst-since-1990-toronto-hits-poorest-level-ever http://business.financialpost.com/real-estate/rbc-says-housi... "Home affordability in Canada worst in almost 30 years, Toronto’s worst ever, says RBC"