6 ms·

The small midwestern town from which I hail is rotting. The residents could never afford the luxuries flowing here in the valley. They are angry. They are huge

The small midwestern town from which I hail is rotting. The residents could never afford the luxuries flowing here in the valley. They are angry. They are huge Trump supporters. They don't want handouts. They want jobs. They want to contribute. They don't want to leave their homes. They are stuck.

lostboys67 9y ago
So they do want handouts /subsidies then
- deadmetheny 9y ago
  This is remarkably tone-deaf. I also originally hailed from a small Midwestern town. The lack of available work is not a pretty sight, and suggesting that people should just uproot themselves and move somewhere else is not a solution for a number of reasons (family/friends, lack of money to move in the first place, etc). It's no small wonder that people voted for Trump - even though his promises were pretty obviously full of hot air, the opposition was (and still does) not even attempt to mask their total contempt for 'flyover country'. You will reap what you sow.
  - crush-n-spread 9y ago
    Tone-deaf or not, you have to go where the work is. You might have to pick up a laptop and learn to code. Maybe that means uprooting your family and finding new friends. You have to make it work. To not find work is to not survive.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      >You might have to pick up a laptop and learn to code. I'm sure you can't honestly believe this will work for the vast majority of people in the US. Either you don't value your trade, or you are simply unwilling to seriously discuss the issue.
      - soundwave106 9y ago
        Historically, that happened before. There was large amounts of net migration in the late 19th century - early 20th century from rural areas (where work increasingly wasn't due to agriculture automation) to urban areas. [1] As farms automated, it was often "flyover territories" that took the lead in creating the then-new high school movement. [2] Heck, for technologies that were increasingly becoming indispensable to life, there was even strong government efforts to make sure access was available for that. (EG in 1936: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act) So, "pick up a laptop and learn to code" is an acceptable answer to me. Of course, actually, there are a lot of other careers besides coding. The issue is that increasingly, former career paths like resource extraction and manufacturing are either getting automated away, or are getting shoved out by globalization. This leaves the service industry (including the knowledge economy). Your "standard" service job doesn't pay very good these days, and the current "career path" in America to obtain a good knowledge economy job is through a college degree (I know, not the best "signal" in many ways, but for now it is the signal) and rural participation rate is very low [3]. One frustration with the current political scene, which is so dominated by culture war anger, is that these concepts don't even really get aired. How to improve rural higher education, how to aid career transitions from manufacturing, how to improved wage standards for service workers (which are increasingly replacing manufacturing jobs), or even something like rural Internet initiatives? Seems far more interesting to discuss than what often passes for "political news" these days. [1] https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-history/period-6/apush-gilded-age/a/america-moves-to-the-city https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-history/period-... [2] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2624456/Goldin_EducationIncome.pdf https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2624456/Goldin_E... [3] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-rural-higher-education-crisis/541188/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-ru...
        Clubber 9y ago
        >Historically, that happened before. Yes, but the population was a lot smaller. Also they had jobs to go to. Even in coastal states, good entry level jobs are hard to come by, even with a college education. Here's a population by state. http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/ Think about getting everyone outside of a coastal state to move to a coastal state. What would that do to existing jobs in the coastal states? What would that do to land values in the coastal states? What would that do to land values in the non-coastal states? Think those people would be able to sell their old houses? I mean "train and move," isn't really a solution. It makes a good sound bite, but once you think about the details, it kinda falls down when you are talking what? 50 million people?
    - deadmetheny 9y ago
      We don't need more people churning out more webshit. Some of us actually give a shit about wanting to better our local communities instead of running off to SV or NYC to build Tinder for Dogs.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        You don't have to run there. If you wanted to better your local community, you'd be working to better opportunities there, instead of decrying the idea that the economy is changing.
        deadmetheny 9y ago
        I am. You'll notice I am not the one advocating people just moving to chase ephemeral opportunities.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    It's not tone deaf. It's tone deaf to not recognize that what these people want is a handout of it's own sort. They want to do the same stuff that they've been doing for the last 50 years. And it sucks for them, but that's just not feasible anymore. Jobs retraining programs have been available, but that's not what they want. They want the economy of the 50s, where they were able to do the same factory job for 30 years.
    - deadmetheny 9y ago
      I don't disagree that the old timers want the old economy, but if they've been working that system their entire lives that's not exactly surprising. The younger folks, on the other hand, most of them just want something that provides a livable wage. I don't know how to fix that problem, but it's a problem, and every time I hear "lol move to the coasts there's jobs" it just tells me that whoever is saying that has some combination of lack of understanding that not all people are okay with abandoning their family (e.g. older relatives that may rely on them or they otherwise want to spend time with), that they can't afford that move in the first place, or otherwise have any true interest in even considering the problem at more than a superficial level.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        I hear that, and for the record, I don't support everyone moving to the coasts either.
  - balls187 9y ago
    That attitude is completely irrational. What is the difference between the government creating jobs for which there is no market, and the government handing you a check to make ends meet?
    - lostboys67 9y ago
      Its also similar to "farmer palmer" attitude in Viz "get of moi land" and you don't get that stereotype (farmers living of the CAP subsidies) without some truth.
  - yahna 9y ago
    Flyover country has nothing but contempt for coastal liberal elites. To the point where they make up bullshit about how much contempt we have for them and whine about being "flyover country". At least we have the money.
leggomylibro 9y ago
>They don't want handouts. They want jobs. They want to contribute. They don't want to leave their homes. Well, they can't have everything. A big part of why America has historically had social and economic mobility is because it also had literal mobility; people willing to go where the work is. What I hear when I read this is, "they want someone to come along and hand them a stable well-paying job." And who doesn't? But we live in the real world.
Clubber 9y ago
I think this is the main reason the Democrats got swept, and will probably continue to get swept. They aren't offering what most people want, honest pay for honest work. They are offering welfare, which most people are to proud to take, let alone want. This isn't just a problem in the Midwest, this is a problem for almost anywhere that isn't a large city on the coast (with some exceptions). This problem affects probably 90% of our land mass and the problem has been consistently growing for the past 45 years or so. Neither political party knows how to solve this, or if they do, don't have the political will to solve it.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  That's not true at all. Clinton had plans with job retraining for coal miners. They were offering jobs. They got swept because Trump came in and said, "We'll keep coal mining," despite having no actual plan for what to do.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Yes, but coal miners are such a small subset of middle America. I'm talking about all the blood letting between VA and CA. And (I'm not being snarky) but what would you retrain them to do? Unless those cities grow an economy, they will just be retrained, still unemployed people. Unless you have a massive migration to large cities, it's not going to do much good. I mean think about that for a few steps. You have millions of people in small towns all over America in ghost towns. Training will help, but until these towns start growing businesses, then what? I mean read about the Walmatization of America. Read about all the factories moving to Mexico after NAFTA. It's all dead. The Democrats used to serve the middle class, but they stopped after Carter got demolished by Reagan. Bill Clinton pushed that retrain idea, but the blood kept flowing. Why would it be any different now? Like it or not the default vote for most of middle America is GOP. The Dems have to actually come up with something that works to get these smaller cities and towns vibrant again if they want the votes. I don't think the establishment Dems understand America outside the coastal areas. The latest plan from Schumer is the same. Would probably do a lot of good for the working poor in cities, but won't do much for middle America. Same ole same ole. Like I said, it's a problem neither party knows how to solve, or doesn't have the political will to solve it.
s73ver_ 9y ago
The big problem is that they do want handouts; just of a different kind. Jobs retraining programs have been around for quite a while; they were central to Clinton's plan for what to do with people who used to work in coal mines. But they don't want to stop mining coal, no matter how shitty it is for everyone involved (the miners themselves, the environment, those who live near coal plants, etc). They want to keep the coal mining jobs. They want... a handout.
tomjen3 9y ago
Valuable comment - because both sides of the spectrum miss something in there. It cost the democrats the election not to understand that these people wanted jobs, not welfare, and the reason they won't get jobs is that they won't go where the jobs are.
yahna 9y ago
Well they should pull themselves up by the bootstraps like good little republicans. On my team of 8 people 1 grew up anywhere near the Seattle area. Half the team moved to the US from other countries. Maybe these people should move. It sucks, but life isn't fair and sometimes you have to sacrifice what you want for what you actually need.
acchow 9y ago
> They want jobs. They want to contribute. They don't want to leave their homes. They are stuck. Government should subsidize relocation to a full time job.

lostboys67 9y ago

So they do want handouts /subsidies then

deadmetheny 9y ago
This is remarkably tone-deaf. I also originally hailed from a small Midwestern town. The lack of available work is not a pretty sight, and suggesting that people should just uproot themselves and move somewhere else is not a solution for a number of reasons (family/friends, lack of money to move in the first place, etc). It's no small wonder that people voted for Trump - even though his promises were pretty obviously full of hot air, the opposition was (and still does) not even attempt to mask their total contempt for 'flyover country'. You will reap what you sow.
- crush-n-spread 9y ago
  Tone-deaf or not, you have to go where the work is. You might have to pick up a laptop and learn to code. Maybe that means uprooting your family and finding new friends. You have to make it work. To not find work is to not survive.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    >You might have to pick up a laptop and learn to code. I'm sure you can't honestly believe this will work for the vast majority of people in the US. Either you don't value your trade, or you are simply unwilling to seriously discuss the issue.
    - soundwave106 9y ago
      Historically, that happened before. There was large amounts of net migration in the late 19th century - early 20th century from rural areas (where work increasingly wasn't due to agriculture automation) to urban areas. [1] As farms automated, it was often "flyover territories" that took the lead in creating the then-new high school movement. [2] Heck, for technologies that were increasingly becoming indispensable to life, there was even strong government efforts to make sure access was available for that. (EG in 1936: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act) So, "pick up a laptop and learn to code" is an acceptable answer to me. Of course, actually, there are a lot of other careers besides coding. The issue is that increasingly, former career paths like resource extraction and manufacturing are either getting automated away, or are getting shoved out by globalization. This leaves the service industry (including the knowledge economy). Your "standard" service job doesn't pay very good these days, and the current "career path" in America to obtain a good knowledge economy job is through a college degree (I know, not the best "signal" in many ways, but for now it is the signal) and rural participation rate is very low [3]. One frustration with the current political scene, which is so dominated by culture war anger, is that these concepts don't even really get aired. How to improve rural higher education, how to aid career transitions from manufacturing, how to improved wage standards for service workers (which are increasingly replacing manufacturing jobs), or even something like rural Internet initiatives? Seems far more interesting to discuss than what often passes for "political news" these days. [1] https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-history/period-6/apush-gilded-age/a/america-moves-to-the-city https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-history/period-... [2] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2624456/Goldin_EducationIncome.pdf https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2624456/Goldin_E... [3] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-rural-higher-education-crisis/541188/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-ru...
      - Clubber 9y ago
        >Historically, that happened before. Yes, but the population was a lot smaller. Also they had jobs to go to. Even in coastal states, good entry level jobs are hard to come by, even with a college education. Here's a population by state. http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/ Think about getting everyone outside of a coastal state to move to a coastal state. What would that do to existing jobs in the coastal states? What would that do to land values in the coastal states? What would that do to land values in the non-coastal states? Think those people would be able to sell their old houses? I mean "train and move," isn't really a solution. It makes a good sound bite, but once you think about the details, it kinda falls down when you are talking what? 50 million people?
  - deadmetheny 9y ago
    We don't need more people churning out more webshit. Some of us actually give a shit about wanting to better our local communities instead of running off to SV or NYC to build Tinder for Dogs.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      You don't have to run there. If you wanted to better your local community, you'd be working to better opportunities there, instead of decrying the idea that the economy is changing.
      - deadmetheny 9y ago
        I am. You'll notice I am not the one advocating people just moving to chase ephemeral opportunities.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  It's not tone deaf. It's tone deaf to not recognize that what these people want is a handout of it's own sort. They want to do the same stuff that they've been doing for the last 50 years. And it sucks for them, but that's just not feasible anymore. Jobs retraining programs have been available, but that's not what they want. They want the economy of the 50s, where they were able to do the same factory job for 30 years.
  - deadmetheny 9y ago
    I don't disagree that the old timers want the old economy, but if they've been working that system their entire lives that's not exactly surprising. The younger folks, on the other hand, most of them just want something that provides a livable wage. I don't know how to fix that problem, but it's a problem, and every time I hear "lol move to the coasts there's jobs" it just tells me that whoever is saying that has some combination of lack of understanding that not all people are okay with abandoning their family (e.g. older relatives that may rely on them or they otherwise want to spend time with), that they can't afford that move in the first place, or otherwise have any true interest in even considering the problem at more than a superficial level.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      I hear that, and for the record, I don't support everyone moving to the coasts either.
- balls187 9y ago
  That attitude is completely irrational. What is the difference between the government creating jobs for which there is no market, and the government handing you a check to make ends meet?
  - lostboys67 9y ago
    Its also similar to "farmer palmer" attitude in Viz "get of moi land" and you don't get that stereotype (farmers living of the CAP subsidies) without some truth.
- yahna 9y ago
  Flyover country has nothing but contempt for coastal liberal elites. To the point where they make up bullshit about how much contempt we have for them and whine about being "flyover country". At least we have the money.

leggomylibro 9y ago

>They don't want handouts. They want jobs. They want to contribute. They don't want to leave their homes. Well, they can't have everything. A big part of why America has historically had social and economic mobility is because it also had literal mobility; people willing to go where the work is. What I hear when I read this is, "they want someone to come along and hand them a stable well-paying job." And who doesn't? But we live in the real world.

Clubber 9y ago

I think this is the main reason the Democrats got swept, and will probably continue to get swept. They aren't offering what most people want, honest pay for honest work. They are offering welfare, which most people are to proud to take, let alone want. This isn't just a problem in the Midwest, this is a problem for almost anywhere that isn't a large city on the coast (with some exceptions). This problem affects probably 90% of our land mass and the problem has been consistently growing for the past 45 years or so. Neither political party knows how to solve this, or if they do, don't have the political will to solve it.

s73ver_ 9y ago
That's not true at all. Clinton had plans with job retraining for coal miners. They were offering jobs. They got swept because Trump came in and said, "We'll keep coal mining," despite having no actual plan for what to do.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Yes, but coal miners are such a small subset of middle America. I'm talking about all the blood letting between VA and CA. And (I'm not being snarky) but what would you retrain them to do? Unless those cities grow an economy, they will just be retrained, still unemployed people. Unless you have a massive migration to large cities, it's not going to do much good. I mean think about that for a few steps. You have millions of people in small towns all over America in ghost towns. Training will help, but until these towns start growing businesses, then what? I mean read about the Walmatization of America. Read about all the factories moving to Mexico after NAFTA. It's all dead. The Democrats used to serve the middle class, but they stopped after Carter got demolished by Reagan. Bill Clinton pushed that retrain idea, but the blood kept flowing. Why would it be any different now? Like it or not the default vote for most of middle America is GOP. The Dems have to actually come up with something that works to get these smaller cities and towns vibrant again if they want the votes. I don't think the establishment Dems understand America outside the coastal areas. The latest plan from Schumer is the same. Would probably do a lot of good for the working poor in cities, but won't do much for middle America. Same ole same ole. Like I said, it's a problem neither party knows how to solve, or doesn't have the political will to solve it.

s73ver_ 9y ago

The big problem is that they do want handouts; just of a different kind. Jobs retraining programs have been around for quite a while; they were central to Clinton's plan for what to do with people who used to work in coal mines. But they don't want to stop mining coal, no matter how shitty it is for everyone involved (the miners themselves, the environment, those who live near coal plants, etc). They want to keep the coal mining jobs. They want... a handout.

tomjen3 9y ago

Valuable comment - because both sides of the spectrum miss something in there. It cost the democrats the election not to understand that these people wanted jobs, not welfare, and the reason they won't get jobs is that they won't go where the jobs are.

yahna 9y ago

Well they should pull themselves up by the bootstraps like good little republicans. On my team of 8 people 1 grew up anywhere near the Seattle area. Half the team moved to the US from other countries. Maybe these people should move. It sucks, but life isn't fair and sometimes you have to sacrifice what you want for what you actually need.

acchow 9y ago

> They want jobs. They want to contribute. They don't want to leave their homes. They are stuck. Government should subsidize relocation to a full time job.