5 ms·

My first reaction to the idea of a mining town on the rise was romantic. The thought of a community of people that are used to hard manual work and create peopl

My first reaction to the idea of a mining town on the rise was romantic. The thought of a community of people that are used to hard manual work and create people like AvE made it sound so nice to make me want to move there. Then they talked about the toxic sea next to it, the ground instability, the poverty stemming from having a single industry propping up the local economy... not as romantic as it first sounded. Still, it helped me recognize my craving for a place where I can afford to have a workshop and some land...

CoolGuySteve 9y ago
I grew up in a uranium mining town in northern Ontario. After the cold war ended and larger deposits were discovered in Africa, the town pretty mostly shut down and my dad lost his job. I'd say it gave me a nuanced view of some things despite me being quite liberal overall. - I don't think about "the environment" the way most people seem to. There are many environments and ecosystems typically cover more area than a single mine or factory can pollute. Places like Cobalt, the tar sands in Alberta, or Siberian nuclear test sites are basically uninhabitable without shipping food and fuel in from afar, so it doesn't bother me that they're ecological disasters. Even if those places are ruined, it's easy for humans to leave them alone for a century or more without much inconvenience. - Mining practices in the 3rd world are exploitative and dangerous but there's not much you can do about it specifically. My dad designed machinery to prevent rock fall, that position is inconceivable in Africa. But the market for cheap minerals will never go away. Even if Tesla stops buying, other firms in other countries will. The only way to prevent it is to raise the standard of living in these African countries so that no one would consider taking a mining job there in their current form.
- bungie4 9y ago
  Sounds like your talking about Elliot Lake. (I'm in Sudbury). After the boom, Elliot Lake rebranded itself as a retirement community with some measure of success. It hilarious to see the cost of housing there. A 3 bed, 2 bath house built in the 70's goes for $75K. But good luck trying to sell it. That being said, I like the town. A lake in the middle of town with a natural beach, hiking, bike, cross country ski trails at your doorstop. Minutes away from great fishing, hunting, ATV'ing.. Its an outdoor persons paradise. I have a recurring dream of doing a startup, and attracting tech workers to the area. Imagine the money you could save while I enjoying a very high standard of living. Granted, those attracted to the idea would be 'seasoned', as the lack of access to major events would be a big negative for some. In the meantime, I'll stay in Sudbury, making 60% of what I should be making, but enjoying the outdoors at my doorstep.
  - tejohnso 9y ago
    " Its an outdoor persons paradise. " For 5 months out of the year. Unless you enjoy cold weather outdoor activity as well. (Grew up in Sudbury, tried to leave the cold for good, ended up back in Ontario but further south.)
    - bungie4 9y ago
      LOL. You'll be back. Sudbury is a blackhole. Nobody escapes :D But you have a very valid point. I like winter, the seasons, but winter itself, up here, is very long and can be quite harsh. The flipside is, we tend to stay inside with our appliances and get work done.
  - thatcherc 9y ago
    > I have a recurring dream of doing a startup, and attracting tech workers to the area. I've had the same idea but for Maine. There are all these old, closed-down lumber and paper mills right near the ocean, islands, lakes, and mountains. I would love to bring a startup there to so I could do interesting work and have such close proximity to an awesome outdoor environment.
    - jsight 9y ago
      I've worked with some people in Massachusetts who chose it for exactly those reasons. There are plenty of tech companies in the suburban areas around Boston, and the parks are (supposedly) fantastic.
  - Kelbit 9y ago
    Young people move out to the sticks in many industries, especially at the start of their careers (for example, teachers, doctors, nurses, and police often have to start out in small communities to build experience). I don't think age is going to be the limiting factor in attracting workers. I know lots of young people in technical fields with a similar view: they hate the expense of the city, but there is no way for them to move out to rural communities and still do the same type of work. The limiting factors, I think, are more (1) lack of VC interest in funding something where the company is going to be based in the middle of nowhere, and (2) the lack of job security for tech workers who choose to live somewhere like that. On the first point, VCs are very attached to the orbit of their cities. Silicon Valley is of course the big innovation centre, but basically any city above around 250k people now has at least a small tech industry with affiliated venture capital firms. Unfortunately, I can't see VCs interested in something where if they want to go see their investment they have to go get on a plane, then rent a car, and drive a couple of hours. So, any successful rural tech startup is going to need to be at least partially bootstrapped. The second point is the inherent risk in moving somewhere like that for a job, especially a job as volatile as a tech startup. You move out there, buy a house, maybe start a family - and then the company folds or downsizes. You basically have no choice at that point but to uproot and move, leaving all your friends and your home behind. Of course, you could also maybe spin this as a positive point: the "company man" is considered dead these days, especially so in high tech. Nobody sticks around anymore, there's very little loyalty on both the part of the employer and employee. However, in an environment where you're literally the only tech employer in town, you would probably get employees who actually stuck with the company and stayed committed.
- Matt3o12_ 9y ago
  > The only way to prevent it is to raise the standard of living in these African countries so that no one would consider taking a mining job there in their current form. I just don’t agree with that. There are many ways to improve this situation. Apple has done a lot to improve their supply chains and the conditions workers work there. As far as I know, Apple has gotten completely rid of child labor for their products because of its high standards. If more companies would take that stance, there would a lot less child labor in total. Although I believe Apple made a pretty big difference because of its size. Furthermore, the government should regulat how imported goods and raw materials should be mined. They should have clear guidelines what is allowed and what is not for raw materials. There should not be a loophole for the supply chain. Every company chooses their supply chain and is thus responsible. If every company suddenly demands that their supply chain will not employ children and use safer techniques in their mines, the supply chain will make sure demands are met. Employing such regulations is not unheard of either. The US government already is pretty strict about bribery in foreign countries, so they should be able to place similar regulations. Enforcing such a regulation can be hard but it is possible. If companies cheat, they will get chaught eventuall and if they are fined appropriately, it should not be worth the risk. Even getting right and left wing people to vote for that should be easy. The right wing can use that regulation to keep the mines in the country and protect jobs, and the left wing can say it is better for the environment and humanity this way. The real problem are lobbies, though. There are a lot of companies which would suffer from that a lot and they are willing to spend a lot of money on lobbing. Maybe Apple, combined with Tesla and other environmental responsible companies can make a difference. Just hoping that the standard in another countries suddenly improves a lot is not enough. We have no control over that country and many thing can prevent that. Furthermore, this just shifts the mining to another country and it will continue there. By applying regulations which set standards how materials can be mined, including requiring a living wage for that country, Afria has a good way to raise their overall standard.
  - bryanlarsen 9y ago
    Sure but the best way to get government to enact regulations is to have citizens who want the government to enact such regulations. And the best way to get citizens to care is to raise their standard of living. Studies have found that caring seems to start at about a GDP per capita of $10K or so.
- oneweekwonder 9y ago
  > The only way to prevent it is to raise the standard of living in these African countries so that no one would consider taking a mining job there in their current form. South african miners in 2012 tried to raise their standard of living from 500usd to 1500usd per month; 47 people died[0] and I don't think any real change took place; sad. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marikana_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marikana_killings
- Alex3917 9y ago
  > Places like Cobalt, the tar sands in Alberta, or Siberian nuclear test sites are basically uninhabitable without shipping food and fuel in from afar, so it doesn't bother me that they're ecological disasters. Those things have destroyed enormous watersheds though. A lot of the largest rivers and lakes in Canada are now highly polluted to the point where it's not safe to eat the fish. There are literally places in Canada that are so remote that no one has ever been there, but so polluted they are uninhabitable.
  - steve_adams_86 9y ago
    That's the key thing here - everything's connected. You can rarely contain pollution well enough that you can say 'yeah let's revisit that in 100 years, it'll be fine'. Often these places that are polluted are really only diluted as the waste moves from one central location to wherever watersheds take it, destroying life as it goes. This is the problem. The tar sands are an ecological disaster! They are not contained.
  - pasbesoin 9y ago
    Mining is currently threatening Lake Superior watersheds -- both on the Michigan and the Minnesotan shores. I don't have as much information about the Canadian shore and watersheds. It's also threatening the Boundary Waters of Minnesota/Canada -- a famed nature-intense recreation area. In many of these projects, companies want to mine lower grade sulfate ores. This creates a tremendous problem of acidification, which leaches all sorts of things and especially heavy metals from the tailings. Things that disperse into the environment and never go away. And that, history demonstrates, are practically impossible to contain. Mitigation plans are written on 50 and some magical 500 year plans. Neither of which suffice with respect to the continuing presence of the toxic byproduct. Not to mention, that most companies don't even survive the lesser timeframe, and that they have always chosen to spend money on lawyers to evade their obligations rather than on cleanup costs -- until coerced, and if there are even any non-disbursed company funds left to pay for same. I think our next generation energy resources development is essential. But along with it should come 100% recycling of the metals and as much other involved materials, as possible. Governments should also insist on pro-actively funded mitigation trusts that exist separate from both company and government and cannot be "raided" by other for other expenditures. How that competes with extra-territorial, natural resource poisoning competition? Well, that's a corner that the U.S. and Canada, among many others, have well painted themselves into. P.S. I forgot to mention Wisconsin, sharing the south shore with Michigan. A proposed mine there threatened (threatens -- have they really given up?) the Bad River Reservation including the Reservation's wild rice beds. And if you think "what's a little wild rice?", well, aside from treaty obligations (are we really going to continue to break those?), consider it a harbinger of broader impact, as well as taking away self-sufficiency and cultural heritage from a chronically, coercively disadvantaged population. And consider that, long term, the environment holds much more opportunity -- including essential health -- than a mine that will ruin same while exporting most of its economic gains outside the community.
agumonkey 9y ago
Pros and cons. Also I'd take any non too toxic place if I have the freedom to turn it into a beautiful forest / garden.
52-6F-62 9y ago
>Still, it helped me recognize my craving for a place where I can afford to have a workshop and some land... You just spoke my heart, man.
mabbo 9y ago
> the poverty stemming from having a single industry propping up the local economy This is such a dangerous game and Ontario small towns have played it and lost for decades. Consider Smith's Falls, Ontario. Hersey built a nice big chocolate factory there, employing half the town. The town grew, lots of local businesses began existing by offering goods and services to the employees of that factory. They even offered factory tours with a rejected chocolate bar store at the end, and kids like me would beg their parents to go on the tour. And then Hersey closed the factory. Everyone lost their jobs, many of the businesses closed, even Walmart struggled.
- randlet 9y ago
  Interestingly the Hershey's factory has been reused as a large scale marijuana grow op although I suspect it employs far fewer people than the chocolate factory.
- giarc 9y ago
  I remember stopping there on school trips to Ottawa. Must have been a teachers nightmare to stop a school bus full of 14 year olds at a chocolate factory.
Eric_WVGG 9y ago
I grew up in mining towns in Arizona and Montana. My experience was that they’re pretty great places for young adults who want workshops or to be Brad Pitt in A River Runs Through It; not such a great place to be a nerdling surrounded by children of miners and farmhands who will kick your ass into the next county for a laugh. YMMV; maybe having the Internet would have helped the experience of isolation? but I would urge parents to give rural school systems the same scrutiny that they do schools in the big scary city.

CoolGuySteve 9y ago

I grew up in a uranium mining town in northern Ontario. After the cold war ended and larger deposits were discovered in Africa, the town pretty mostly shut down and my dad lost his job. I'd say it gave me a nuanced view of some things despite me being quite liberal overall. - I don't think about "the environment" the way most people seem to. There are many environments and ecosystems typically cover more area than a single mine or factory can pollute. Places like Cobalt, the tar sands in Alberta, or Siberian nuclear test sites are basically uninhabitable without shipping food and fuel in from afar, so it doesn't bother me that they're ecological disasters. Even if those places are ruined, it's easy for humans to leave them alone for a century or more without much inconvenience. - Mining practices in the 3rd world are exploitative and dangerous but there's not much you can do about it specifically. My dad designed machinery to prevent rock fall, that position is inconceivable in Africa. But the market for cheap minerals will never go away. Even if Tesla stops buying, other firms in other countries will. The only way to prevent it is to raise the standard of living in these African countries so that no one would consider taking a mining job there in their current form.

bungie4 9y ago
Sounds like your talking about Elliot Lake. (I'm in Sudbury). After the boom, Elliot Lake rebranded itself as a retirement community with some measure of success. It hilarious to see the cost of housing there. A 3 bed, 2 bath house built in the 70's goes for $75K. But good luck trying to sell it. That being said, I like the town. A lake in the middle of town with a natural beach, hiking, bike, cross country ski trails at your doorstop. Minutes away from great fishing, hunting, ATV'ing.. Its an outdoor persons paradise. I have a recurring dream of doing a startup, and attracting tech workers to the area. Imagine the money you could save while I enjoying a very high standard of living. Granted, those attracted to the idea would be 'seasoned', as the lack of access to major events would be a big negative for some. In the meantime, I'll stay in Sudbury, making 60% of what I should be making, but enjoying the outdoors at my doorstep.
- tejohnso 9y ago
  " Its an outdoor persons paradise. " For 5 months out of the year. Unless you enjoy cold weather outdoor activity as well. (Grew up in Sudbury, tried to leave the cold for good, ended up back in Ontario but further south.)
  - bungie4 9y ago
    LOL. You'll be back. Sudbury is a blackhole. Nobody escapes :D But you have a very valid point. I like winter, the seasons, but winter itself, up here, is very long and can be quite harsh. The flipside is, we tend to stay inside with our appliances and get work done.
- thatcherc 9y ago
  > I have a recurring dream of doing a startup, and attracting tech workers to the area. I've had the same idea but for Maine. There are all these old, closed-down lumber and paper mills right near the ocean, islands, lakes, and mountains. I would love to bring a startup there to so I could do interesting work and have such close proximity to an awesome outdoor environment.
  - jsight 9y ago
    I've worked with some people in Massachusetts who chose it for exactly those reasons. There are plenty of tech companies in the suburban areas around Boston, and the parks are (supposedly) fantastic.
- Kelbit 9y ago
  Young people move out to the sticks in many industries, especially at the start of their careers (for example, teachers, doctors, nurses, and police often have to start out in small communities to build experience). I don't think age is going to be the limiting factor in attracting workers. I know lots of young people in technical fields with a similar view: they hate the expense of the city, but there is no way for them to move out to rural communities and still do the same type of work. The limiting factors, I think, are more (1) lack of VC interest in funding something where the company is going to be based in the middle of nowhere, and (2) the lack of job security for tech workers who choose to live somewhere like that. On the first point, VCs are very attached to the orbit of their cities. Silicon Valley is of course the big innovation centre, but basically any city above around 250k people now has at least a small tech industry with affiliated venture capital firms. Unfortunately, I can't see VCs interested in something where if they want to go see their investment they have to go get on a plane, then rent a car, and drive a couple of hours. So, any successful rural tech startup is going to need to be at least partially bootstrapped. The second point is the inherent risk in moving somewhere like that for a job, especially a job as volatile as a tech startup. You move out there, buy a house, maybe start a family - and then the company folds or downsizes. You basically have no choice at that point but to uproot and move, leaving all your friends and your home behind. Of course, you could also maybe spin this as a positive point: the "company man" is considered dead these days, especially so in high tech. Nobody sticks around anymore, there's very little loyalty on both the part of the employer and employee. However, in an environment where you're literally the only tech employer in town, you would probably get employees who actually stuck with the company and stayed committed.
Matt3o12_ 9y ago
> The only way to prevent it is to raise the standard of living in these African countries so that no one would consider taking a mining job there in their current form. I just don’t agree with that. There are many ways to improve this situation. Apple has done a lot to improve their supply chains and the conditions workers work there. As far as I know, Apple has gotten completely rid of child labor for their products because of its high standards. If more companies would take that stance, there would a lot less child labor in total. Although I believe Apple made a pretty big difference because of its size. Furthermore, the government should regulat how imported goods and raw materials should be mined. They should have clear guidelines what is allowed and what is not for raw materials. There should not be a loophole for the supply chain. Every company chooses their supply chain and is thus responsible. If every company suddenly demands that their supply chain will not employ children and use safer techniques in their mines, the supply chain will make sure demands are met. Employing such regulations is not unheard of either. The US government already is pretty strict about bribery in foreign countries, so they should be able to place similar regulations. Enforcing such a regulation can be hard but it is possible. If companies cheat, they will get chaught eventuall and if they are fined appropriately, it should not be worth the risk. Even getting right and left wing people to vote for that should be easy. The right wing can use that regulation to keep the mines in the country and protect jobs, and the left wing can say it is better for the environment and humanity this way. The real problem are lobbies, though. There are a lot of companies which would suffer from that a lot and they are willing to spend a lot of money on lobbing. Maybe Apple, combined with Tesla and other environmental responsible companies can make a difference. Just hoping that the standard in another countries suddenly improves a lot is not enough. We have no control over that country and many thing can prevent that. Furthermore, this just shifts the mining to another country and it will continue there. By applying regulations which set standards how materials can be mined, including requiring a living wage for that country, Afria has a good way to raise their overall standard.
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  Sure but the best way to get government to enact regulations is to have citizens who want the government to enact such regulations. And the best way to get citizens to care is to raise their standard of living. Studies have found that caring seems to start at about a GDP per capita of $10K or so.
oneweekwonder 9y ago
> The only way to prevent it is to raise the standard of living in these African countries so that no one would consider taking a mining job there in their current form. South african miners in 2012 tried to raise their standard of living from 500usd to 1500usd per month; 47 people died[0] and I don't think any real change took place; sad. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marikana_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marikana_killings
Alex3917 9y ago
> Places like Cobalt, the tar sands in Alberta, or Siberian nuclear test sites are basically uninhabitable without shipping food and fuel in from afar, so it doesn't bother me that they're ecological disasters. Those things have destroyed enormous watersheds though. A lot of the largest rivers and lakes in Canada are now highly polluted to the point where it's not safe to eat the fish. There are literally places in Canada that are so remote that no one has ever been there, but so polluted they are uninhabitable.
- steve_adams_86 9y ago
  That's the key thing here - everything's connected. You can rarely contain pollution well enough that you can say 'yeah let's revisit that in 100 years, it'll be fine'. Often these places that are polluted are really only diluted as the waste moves from one central location to wherever watersheds take it, destroying life as it goes. This is the problem. The tar sands are an ecological disaster! They are not contained.
- pasbesoin 9y ago
  Mining is currently threatening Lake Superior watersheds -- both on the Michigan and the Minnesotan shores. I don't have as much information about the Canadian shore and watersheds. It's also threatening the Boundary Waters of Minnesota/Canada -- a famed nature-intense recreation area. In many of these projects, companies want to mine lower grade sulfate ores. This creates a tremendous problem of acidification, which leaches all sorts of things and especially heavy metals from the tailings. Things that disperse into the environment and never go away. And that, history demonstrates, are practically impossible to contain. Mitigation plans are written on 50 and some magical 500 year plans. Neither of which suffice with respect to the continuing presence of the toxic byproduct. Not to mention, that most companies don't even survive the lesser timeframe, and that they have always chosen to spend money on lawyers to evade their obligations rather than on cleanup costs -- until coerced, and if there are even any non-disbursed company funds left to pay for same. I think our next generation energy resources development is essential. But along with it should come 100% recycling of the metals and as much other involved materials, as possible. Governments should also insist on pro-actively funded mitigation trusts that exist separate from both company and government and cannot be "raided" by other for other expenditures. How that competes with extra-territorial, natural resource poisoning competition? Well, that's a corner that the U.S. and Canada, among many others, have well painted themselves into. P.S. I forgot to mention Wisconsin, sharing the south shore with Michigan. A proposed mine there threatened (threatens -- have they really given up?) the Bad River Reservation including the Reservation's wild rice beds. And if you think "what's a little wild rice?", well, aside from treaty obligations (are we really going to continue to break those?), consider it a harbinger of broader impact, as well as taking away self-sufficiency and cultural heritage from a chronically, coercively disadvantaged population. And consider that, long term, the environment holds much more opportunity -- including essential health -- than a mine that will ruin same while exporting most of its economic gains outside the community.

agumonkey 9y ago

Pros and cons. Also I'd take any non too toxic place if I have the freedom to turn it into a beautiful forest / garden.

52-6F-62 9y ago

>Still, it helped me recognize my craving for a place where I can afford to have a workshop and some land... You just spoke my heart, man.

mabbo 9y ago

> the poverty stemming from having a single industry propping up the local economy This is such a dangerous game and Ontario small towns have played it and lost for decades. Consider Smith's Falls, Ontario. Hersey built a nice big chocolate factory there, employing half the town. The town grew, lots of local businesses began existing by offering goods and services to the employees of that factory. They even offered factory tours with a rejected chocolate bar store at the end, and kids like me would beg their parents to go on the tour. And then Hersey closed the factory. Everyone lost their jobs, many of the businesses closed, even Walmart struggled.

randlet 9y ago
Interestingly the Hershey's factory has been reused as a large scale marijuana grow op although I suspect it employs far fewer people than the chocolate factory.
giarc 9y ago
I remember stopping there on school trips to Ottawa. Must have been a teachers nightmare to stop a school bus full of 14 year olds at a chocolate factory.

Eric_WVGG 9y ago

I grew up in mining towns in Arizona and Montana. My experience was that they’re pretty great places for young adults who want workshops or to be Brad Pitt in A River Runs Through It; not such a great place to be a nerdling surrounded by children of miners and farmhands who will kick your ass into the next county for a laugh. YMMV; maybe having the Internet would have helped the experience of isolation? but I would urge parents to give rural school systems the same scrutiny that they do schools in the big scary city.