36 ms·

There is no such thing as progress without failure and abandoning things. People are just too afraid of letting go. Not everything grows forever without end. It

There is no such thing as progress without failure and abandoning things. People are just too afraid of letting go. Not everything grows forever without end. It's ok if the world decided a place wasn't really useful anymore. 'What about the people there?' you might say. They're not literally rooted to the spot. If there is no way to be productive there (aka jobs) they can and should move. If we were all cavemen hunting the local game and it moved we wouldn't say "but the game was always here, it should stay here forever". It didn't stay there forever. It moved. If you want to catch some of that game, you move. That's emotionally difficult in a world where we all think we're post-economies. But we aren't and it's a simple concept; things that aren't working need to fail and be abandoned.

zerebubuth 9y ago
> If there is no way to be productive there (aka jobs) they can and should move. A possible problem might be that a failing area is likely to be undesirable and therefore have low property prices and concomitant taxes. Moving to a more desirable area might be unaffordable. Many people have a strong emotional connection to their home, and would find it difficult to sell it (perhaps at a considerably lower price than they think it is worth) and move somewhere smaller. Further, there may be people who are "post-economy" in the sense that they have retired. From their point of view, they've paid their dues and have no need to follow the jobs any more. They may have built up local social ties that they don't want to sever by moving. My point isn't that failing places need to be propped up indefinitely, but that there's a middle ground between "successful, valuable" things and "failing, worthless" things. And there are infrastructure projects (e.g: rural broadband) which can help retain jobs and communities in "failing" places relatively cheaply.
- cvsh 9y ago
  >My point isn't that failing places need to be propped up indefinitely, but that there's a middle ground between "successful, valuable" things and "failing, worthless" things. True, but right now we are erring so far on the side of preserving the status quo that it's almost a moral axiom that the character of neighborhoods should be preserved forever and people should never be forced to move for financial reasons. The debates over gentrification are rife with this philosophy. Ultimately it does much more harm than good for all except a lucky grandfathered-in few.
- Retric 9y ago
  Rural areas already get massive subsides in the US. Wasting even more money on them simply drags down society for zero net benefit because those resources are very much better spent where the impact vastly more people. As to taking a loss on their home. That's already happened, staying there vs renting somewhere else has significant direct costs. If a community can survive on it's own then awesome, but subsidies are simply a terrible idea.
- marchenko 9y ago
  Some of these areas have valuable physical assets, and are inter-reticulated with the central city in such a way that their decay is at minimum an aesthetic concern for the city. I think the author lead with East Cleveland for a reason. According to Wikipedia [1], East Cleveland contains the nation's first industrial park, historical millionaires' homes, and part of one of the main arteries into the city of Cleveland. Poking around on Google Maps shows that it also contains parts of two large and attractive parks (one attached to a historical cemetery where a US President is buried). It would be hard to write this area off entirely. [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Cleveland,_Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Cleveland,_Ohio)
monodeldiablo 9y ago
That's easy to say, but packing up and moving simply isn't a viable option for many, many people. They're not staying because leaving is "emotionally difficult". They're staying because leaving is financially impossible. If a homeowner's neighborhood is dying, then their home value is practically zero. And even if their house had some market value, the potential number of buyers is so small that the home could sit on the market for years, all the while incurring maintenance costs. And as the neighborhood dies, the pool of available work shrinks. Wages shrink and job opportunities dry up. Economic diversity plummets, leaving the region more exposed to sudden shocks. Towns become increasingly reliant on parasitic industries -- payday loans, gambling, furniture leasing, etc -- that further depress wealth and prey disproportionately on the structurally impoverished. Even a relatively well-off resident of a dying suburb -- someone with savings, a paid-off house, and no attachments to the area -- would be hard-pressed to finance a move to a healthier locale. And most residents of these areas -- for obvious reasons -- don't fit this profile. Most don't leave because they can't afford to leave. They don't have savings. They live paycheck to paycheck. They're underwater on their house. They're on a tiny fixed income and can't afford the cost of living elsewhere. They're a public employee two years away from a pension and, if they move now, they forfeit a liveable retirement. They're the sole caregiver for disabled family members. Their skills aren't valuable in another market. Et cetera. Too often, we assume that poor people make poor choices, without considering that they might actually be making the best of the shitty slate of options available to them. I think most reasonable people are in agreement that the suburbs -- especially industrial suburbs -- were and are an unsustainable model for development. They will need to be abandoned. But the process of that abandonment matters. If we go about it the wrong way, as we are in the Rust Belt, then we condemn the people stuck in those areas to a lifetime of poverty. And those people don't just go away when we turn out backs on them. Their problems will become our problems. So, for economic and humanitarian reasons, we need to find a responsible way to decommission post-industrial towns and relocate their residents.
- DarronWyke 9y ago
  This is exactly what I was thinking. I think most of the commenters here aren't homeowners. I just bought a home. Even with excellent credit I still had to put down roughly 10k on the house (which was only 3%!) -- that includes the down payment, option and earnest money, fees for stuff like appraisal, inspection, and more. 10k is a lot of money for a lot of people. Granted they can get some of that back if they sell an old house, but as you said if the house value is low to zero they can only get the land value for it, if there is any. Now they're starting over from square one, paying off a new house. And that 10k isn't even covering other expenses, like repairs I need to do, furniture (pretty much buying everything new now), moving supplies/expenses, first utilities, and more. Homeowning is not cheap, especially not upfront (though it does get a little easier beyond the initial investment).
oldmandutch 9y ago
The same argument could be raised about health insurance and welfare... sometimes we do things for the common good, where do we draw the line as a society?
Sangermaine 9y ago
This comment neatly encapsulates why libertarians are so widely mocked and despised.
- DickingAround 9y ago
  What about it is despicable and worthy of mockery?

zerebubuth 9y ago

> If there is no way to be productive there (aka jobs) they can and should move. A possible problem might be that a failing area is likely to be undesirable and therefore have low property prices and concomitant taxes. Moving to a more desirable area might be unaffordable. Many people have a strong emotional connection to their home, and would find it difficult to sell it (perhaps at a considerably lower price than they think it is worth) and move somewhere smaller. Further, there may be people who are "post-economy" in the sense that they have retired. From their point of view, they've paid their dues and have no need to follow the jobs any more. They may have built up local social ties that they don't want to sever by moving. My point isn't that failing places need to be propped up indefinitely, but that there's a middle ground between "successful, valuable" things and "failing, worthless" things. And there are infrastructure projects (e.g: rural broadband) which can help retain jobs and communities in "failing" places relatively cheaply.

cvsh 9y ago
>My point isn't that failing places need to be propped up indefinitely, but that there's a middle ground between "successful, valuable" things and "failing, worthless" things. True, but right now we are erring so far on the side of preserving the status quo that it's almost a moral axiom that the character of neighborhoods should be preserved forever and people should never be forced to move for financial reasons. The debates over gentrification are rife with this philosophy. Ultimately it does much more harm than good for all except a lucky grandfathered-in few.
Retric 9y ago
Rural areas already get massive subsides in the US. Wasting even more money on them simply drags down society for zero net benefit because those resources are very much better spent where the impact vastly more people. As to taking a loss on their home. That's already happened, staying there vs renting somewhere else has significant direct costs. If a community can survive on it's own then awesome, but subsidies are simply a terrible idea.
marchenko 9y ago
Some of these areas have valuable physical assets, and are inter-reticulated with the central city in such a way that their decay is at minimum an aesthetic concern for the city. I think the author lead with East Cleveland for a reason. According to Wikipedia [1], East Cleveland contains the nation's first industrial park, historical millionaires' homes, and part of one of the main arteries into the city of Cleveland. Poking around on Google Maps shows that it also contains parts of two large and attractive parks (one attached to a historical cemetery where a US President is buried). It would be hard to write this area off entirely. [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Cleveland,_Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Cleveland,_Ohio)

monodeldiablo 9y ago

That's easy to say, but packing up and moving simply isn't a viable option for many, many people. They're not staying because leaving is "emotionally difficult". They're staying because leaving is financially impossible. If a homeowner's neighborhood is dying, then their home value is practically zero. And even if their house had some market value, the potential number of buyers is so small that the home could sit on the market for years, all the while incurring maintenance costs. And as the neighborhood dies, the pool of available work shrinks. Wages shrink and job opportunities dry up. Economic diversity plummets, leaving the region more exposed to sudden shocks. Towns become increasingly reliant on parasitic industries -- payday loans, gambling, furniture leasing, etc -- that further depress wealth and prey disproportionately on the structurally impoverished. Even a relatively well-off resident of a dying suburb -- someone with savings, a paid-off house, and no attachments to the area -- would be hard-pressed to finance a move to a healthier locale. And most residents of these areas -- for obvious reasons -- don't fit this profile. Most don't leave because they can't afford to leave. They don't have savings. They live paycheck to paycheck. They're underwater on their house. They're on a tiny fixed income and can't afford the cost of living elsewhere. They're a public employee two years away from a pension and, if they move now, they forfeit a liveable retirement. They're the sole caregiver for disabled family members. Their skills aren't valuable in another market. Et cetera. Too often, we assume that poor people make poor choices, without considering that they might actually be making the best of the shitty slate of options available to them. I think most reasonable people are in agreement that the suburbs -- especially industrial suburbs -- were and are an unsustainable model for development. They will need to be abandoned. But the process of that abandonment matters. If we go about it the wrong way, as we are in the Rust Belt, then we condemn the people stuck in those areas to a lifetime of poverty. And those people don't just go away when we turn out backs on them. Their problems will become our problems. So, for economic and humanitarian reasons, we need to find a responsible way to decommission post-industrial towns and relocate their residents.

DarronWyke 9y ago
This is exactly what I was thinking. I think most of the commenters here aren't homeowners. I just bought a home. Even with excellent credit I still had to put down roughly 10k on the house (which was only 3%!) -- that includes the down payment, option and earnest money, fees for stuff like appraisal, inspection, and more. 10k is a lot of money for a lot of people. Granted they can get some of that back if they sell an old house, but as you said if the house value is low to zero they can only get the land value for it, if there is any. Now they're starting over from square one, paying off a new house. And that 10k isn't even covering other expenses, like repairs I need to do, furniture (pretty much buying everything new now), moving supplies/expenses, first utilities, and more. Homeowning is not cheap, especially not upfront (though it does get a little easier beyond the initial investment).

oldmandutch 9y ago

The same argument could be raised about health insurance and welfare... sometimes we do things for the common good, where do we draw the line as a society?

Sangermaine 9y ago

This comment neatly encapsulates why libertarians are so widely mocked and despised.

DickingAround 9y ago
What about it is despicable and worthy of mockery?