4 ms·

Universal healthcare and UBI aren't going to magically make a town economically viable. It'll just result in other places subsidizing some people to live in th

by magduf 7y ago

Universal healthcare and UBI aren't going to magically make a town economically viable. It'll just result in other places subsidizing some people to live in that place and sit on their asses mostly. It might work out if lots of such people congregate in one place, which will turn it back into an economically viable location, with people starting businesses (since UBI does help entrepreneurialism after all), but if it's just some little village, it'll just be some people doing little to nothing for extra money and complaining that there's no grocery stores there, because even with 100 people with UBI, that's still not enough to sustain a business. Many of these towns just need to shut down and become ghost towns. Whatever industry that used to sustain them decades ago is gone now, so they have no more reason to exist. This isn't new: the Western US states are full of actual "ghost towns" from the late 1800s and early 1900s, most of which died out because the nearby mine got tapped out and shut down. The towns died, and the people actually (unlike these days) accepted reality, and packed up and moved out. All that's left now is usually building foundations, though some places have some collapsed buildings left. Conservative small-town people in the US these days are really a strange lot. They whine about "socialism", but then they complain about their little town dying out, but refuse to do anything to improve their situation such as moving to a city for work, and then seem to want a government handout. I'll also add that universal healthcare isn't going to magically bring hospitals to rural areas. Lots of rural people are so far away from medical facilities that they're basically screwed if they have any problems that require help quickly. Hospitals require a lot of money, and a lot of highly-trained staff; universal healthcare isn't going to make all these people suddenly want to relocate to some small town.

rashkov 7y ago
I mostly agree with you but this is a fairly uncharitable read of small town Americans. You say yourself that socialism won’t fix the plight of their towns dying out, so they’re not wrong to be against socialism in this case. Furthermore, moving to a major city is expensive, so it can be very difficult even if the desire is there. Having family or a struggling farm or business that depends on you is another way to get stuck in a small town. If they get to the city they may not have a support network. Even immigrants have a support network of other co-immigrants, usually. It seems that the big complaint isn’t against socialism but against offshoring and globalization. Money and factories leaving the country for cheap labor abroad. Not sure that socialism has the answer to this any more than capitalism. Encouraging businesses to open up in these towns could be good policy. Other towns should close, but there would need to be some help buying people out of their homes where most equity resides. There are programs for doing this in some flood-prone areas already, so maybe they can do the same for these rural towns.
- magduf 7y ago
  >You say yourself that socialism won’t fix the plight of their towns dying out, so they’re not wrong to be against socialism in this case. How are they not wrong, and not hypocritical? If we leave them to pure capitalism, they would all just die out. So why should they get any help at all, when that's socialism and directly contrary to their stated values? >Furthermore, moving to a major city is expensive It's not expensive to live in your car. Countless immigrants come to this country with basically nothing, and manage to grow roots and even start thriving, successful businesses. But you're telling me some small-town American can't do that, because it's "too expensive to move"? >Having family or a struggling farm or business If the business is struggling, it's time to sell it and move on. And what does family have to do with anything? As I said above, countless immigrants come here across oceans and manage to thrive, and they don't whine about their extended families they left behind. >Even immigrants have a support network of other co-immigrants, usually. Maybe, maybe not. Someone had to be the first. >Encouraging businesses to open up in these towns could be good policy Why would they do this? There's no skilled workforce left there, there's not enough of an economic base; it really makes no economic sense. There's a reason people have been building and living in cities for several millennia now. Small towns only make sense when there's some industry there supporting it, usually having to do with resource extraction (e.g. mining) or agriculture. Once those dry up, the town's reason for existence is gone. >Other towns should close, but there would need to be some help buying people out of their homes where most equity resides.] Why should these anti-socialist people get a socialist benefit program like this?

by magduf 7y ago

rashkov 7y ago

I mostly agree with you but this is a fairly uncharitable read of small town Americans. You say yourself that socialism won’t fix the plight of their towns dying out, so they’re not wrong to be against socialism in this case. Furthermore, moving to a major city is expensive, so it can be very difficult even if the desire is there. Having family or a struggling farm or business that depends on you is another way to get stuck in a small town. If they get to the city they may not have a support network. Even immigrants have a support network of other co-immigrants, usually. It seems that the big complaint isn’t against socialism but against offshoring and globalization. Money and factories leaving the country for cheap labor abroad. Not sure that socialism has the answer to this any more than capitalism. Encouraging businesses to open up in these towns could be good policy. Other towns should close, but there would need to be some help buying people out of their homes where most equity resides. There are programs for doing this in some flood-prone areas already, so maybe they can do the same for these rural towns.

magduf 7y ago
>You say yourself that socialism won’t fix the plight of their towns dying out, so they’re not wrong to be against socialism in this case. How are they not wrong, and not hypocritical? If we leave them to pure capitalism, they would all just die out. So why should they get any help at all, when that's socialism and directly contrary to their stated values? >Furthermore, moving to a major city is expensive It's not expensive to live in your car. Countless immigrants come to this country with basically nothing, and manage to grow roots and even start thriving, successful businesses. But you're telling me some small-town American can't do that, because it's "too expensive to move"? >Having family or a struggling farm or business If the business is struggling, it's time to sell it and move on. And what does family have to do with anything? As I said above, countless immigrants come here across oceans and manage to thrive, and they don't whine about their extended families they left behind. >Even immigrants have a support network of other co-immigrants, usually. Maybe, maybe not. Someone had to be the first. >Encouraging businesses to open up in these towns could be good policy Why would they do this? There's no skilled workforce left there, there's not enough of an economic base; it really makes no economic sense. There's a reason people have been building and living in cities for several millennia now. Small towns only make sense when there's some industry there supporting it, usually having to do with resource extraction (e.g. mining) or agriculture. Once those dry up, the town's reason for existence is gone. >Other towns should close, but there would need to be some help buying people out of their homes where most equity resides.] Why should these anti-socialist people get a socialist benefit program like this?