7 ms·
When I was a teenager my family decided to dedicate one of our preciously few vacation to visiting my father's hometown. It was a town that was built and existe
by bane 6y ago
When I was a teenager my family decided to dedicate one of our preciously few vacation to visiting my father's hometown. It was a town that was built and existed for two things: farming and oil. The oil dried up two generations ago and it threw the town into poverty and disrepair. My father escaped to "the city", the Army, college and a better life. His siblings and other relatives held on for as long as they could until eventually the entire clan of dozens had left or passed away. For decades they refused to contact or talk to my father, thinking him a "traitor to the family" with his fancy college degree and overseas adventures. From time to time two of his brothers would keep in touch, the common thread to their story was time spent in the military and overseas as well.
The town was a ruin. Beautiful turn of the 20th century facades were crumbling, what was once a bustling town square was overgrown and had an abandoned truck left in the middle of it. The roads were in disrepair. All commerce of any kind had moved to another town a few miles away and existed solely of a couple eateries, a drug store, a small bank, and some farm supply stores.
We drove aimlessly around as my father explained what this piece of abandoned oil pumping equipment was for or about some childhood adventure he had had pushing one of his polio paralyzed brothers around in his wheelchair or how they had engaged in minor industry to make the $.05 for an ice cream. Rather than a fond trip through nostalgia, the crumbling and abandoned state of the area was hard on him.
These areas that are both economically depressed and depopulating slide into poverty, drug dependency, and most recently pointless, embarrassing, and dangerous political radicalization. Industry is not coming back to these place, the oil is dried up, the mill has shut down, the mine is all dug out, and so on. People stay because of memories and family and sometimes "history and heritage". In the case of my father they chose to shame him for decades for abandoning them. It's kind of cult-like in a way.
It seems simple to solve, move! Migrate to where the jobs are. But beyond these emotional circumstances that nail people to these failing areas, there is a difficult monetary restraint. It's expensive to move elsewhere, especially with an established multigenerational family. It means abandoning functioning domiciles, maybe vehicles or even business relationships with no guarantee of success.
We pay people to stay where they are, even if there's no long-term prospect, but I would support a "Move America!" program that offered some kind of incentive for people to move to areas with better economic outlook. This means cities for the most part.
Both parties don't want this because this means a massive transformation in the politics of the urban/rural divide.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 0xB31B1B 6y ago100%, what is even crazier to me is that (at least before covid) the US rates of families moving had declining and was at the lowest point it had been for over 100 years. The modern style of home ownership (30 year mortgage, house in the suburbs, local control of land use) has really deeply screwed up many economic feedback mechanisms that in previous generations powered the economic engine of the US. The economic history of our nation is a history of people moving east to west to new opportunity (both 100s of years ago to farm the land, extract resource and displace native peoples, and today to move to high productivity jobs near low cost housing in sunbelt cities), as well as people moving south to north to flee the Jim Crow south and a rentier economy based on the dispossession of black farmers. It should be easier to move, we should reintroduce the modern equivalent of "boarding houses", and the lowest tier of housing in urban centers should be much less expensive.
- rgblambda 6y ago>>we should reintroduce the modern equivalent of "boarding houses" In Ireland, this is called co-living, and has faced such backlash that new co-living developments have been effectively banned.
- Ericson2314 6y agoThat's a real bummer, but keep in mind by American standards plain old "apartments" are radical enough.
- derriz 6y agoThat's a very weird equivalence. I really can't see how living in a boarding house is anything like co-living? A boarding house is generally someone's primary residence where the owner lets out one or two spare bedrooms to lodgers and often provides them with meals and the like. They were mainly used by the transient, single and/or poor. Boarding houses hardly exist any more in the west. The classic boarding house owner was a widow back in the day when employment opportunities for elderly women were fairly bleak. Co-living has grown in the last decade in many wealthy western cities and provides accommodation which is somewhere between staying in a motel and renting a studio apartment. It's generally more expensive than renting a studio - because of the flexibility - and typically targets visiting professional workers or wealthy students.