4 ms·

Bingo. The center of this country (outside of a few major urban/sub-urban areas) is hollow. Between the loss of agriculture as a family job, loss of industria

Bingo. The center of this country (outside of a few major urban/sub-urban areas) is hollow. Between the loss of agriculture as a family job, loss of industrial jobs, and opioid use after decades of methamphetamine use, it's bleak. And no one really cares. As a general rule, we're told, "just move to Chicago (St. Louis, Kansas City, wherever)". That's not a solution, or a possibility for a lot of folks.

kibwen 3y ago
> That's not a solution, or a possibility for a lot of folks. Then we need to work to make it a solution and a possibility, because I don't know what the alternative is. I'm from Appalachia, though my former oil-town retains a meager amount of relevance via the nearby industrial dairy farm. The owner of the only grocery store retired and nobody was interested in taking over, so the storefront laid empty until the government gave tax breaks to a hardware chain to set up shop and stock a little corner in the back with groceries so that it wouldn't become a food desert. But the situation isn't sustainable; there's not enough jobs. The population is declining. Most everybody drives to neighboring towns to work. I got out and moved to a big city, and wild horses couldn't drag me back. I love the idea of small towns; not everyone needs to live in a big city (and almost nobody should be living in a remote cabin in the woods either; what an isolating experience). But if they're not economically viable, I'm not going to pay people to live there just so that small towns can continue to exist as a concept. What I will pay people to do is move to a city where they can find opportunity, and fight for more housing so that it's more affordable to do so.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  > But if they're not economically viable, I'm not going to pay people to live there just so that small towns can continue to exist as a concept. these things are not written in stone, or the laws of physics. Layers of policy and taxation choices have led to this. Nothing says that the current system is stable, either.
- rayiner 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    Take this for what you will, but my parents (deceased) and I are immigrants to the US. I sympathize greatly--not exclusively--with the problems facing most of the non-coastal US but you're not doing any favors by not adding any nuance or thought.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      I’m also an immigrant. Average Americans outside the coasts (and even many of the people on the coasts, like black people[1]) are not benefiting from immigration. Immigration is generating benefits for the top 10-15% in the form of profits, jobs in knowledge work industries, and cheaper products. It’s not a comment about individual immigrants, it’s a comment about economics and political economy. [1] https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/immigration-comes-at-a-devastating-cost-to-black-americans/article_00850999-e7aa-5e2e-9132-2b85d61821aa.html https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/immigration-comes-at-a...
      - danny_codes 3y ago
        From the article, it seems the issue isn't immigration per-say but a lack of social services (education, housing guarantees, family benefits, healthcare, childcare, vocational training programs, transit accessibility) amongst the poorer strata of Americans. That is, we could minimize immigration to perhaps produce a constrained labor market (though that would induce negative population growth, which comes with a host of economic issues), or we could simply redirect capitol to turn unskilled workers into skilled workers. IMO improving economic (and de-facto social) mobility is a much more sensible policy than inducing negative population growth. An added side benefit would be an overall increase in worker productivity and commensurate economic growth.
        rayiner 3y ago
nobodyandproud 3y ago
"just move to Chicago (St. Louis, Kansas City, wherever)" When my wife and I drove to Kentucky--from NYC--for a road trip in the late 2000s, it was disappointing just how much more of the same we saw. Back then, it was strip malls. Walmarts. A lot of the day-to-day Americana and culture we were hoping to see was simply fantasy or diluted, as most of the money--and therefore the culture--comes from large companies and interests.
BoiledCabbage 3y ago
> And no one really cares. As a general rule, we're told, "just move to Chicago (St. Louis, Kansas City, wherever)". That's not a solution, or a possibility for a lot of folks. The problem is this is completely untrue. One party had been talking about coal-mining industry ending and promoting job retraining for over a decade if not longer. Federal funds were administered to pre-empt this exact problem that was foreseen. That same party had frequently about the need for social programs to support this transition so people can still be productive. The problem is, this party never wins in Appalachia - all of their policies are ignored. Nobody takes the job training. Everyone locally votes against it and opposes those social support systems. The problem isn't costal elites ignoring the issue, it's that no matter what one party does to help resolve the problem the other party says don't trust them do it on your own. Which isn't possible when entire industries aren't viable any more. It's pretty similar to people desperately needing health care in the same regions and yet refusing to get it because it's been slandered by the party they vote for. Fundamentally the issue is that one party has not supported policies to help this region for ages, but still gets voted for due to a few key touch button issues. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1D14FT/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1D14FT/
- vdaea 3y ago
  Who ended the coal mining industry?
  - fbdab103 3y ago
    Economics? Global usage of coal is declining everywhere.
- rayiner 3y ago
  > The problem is, this party never wins in Appalachia - all of their policies are ignored. Nobody takes the job training. Everyone locally votes against it and opposes those social support systems. What are you talking about? Appalachia was a core part of the FDR coalition. From 1932 until 2000, West Virginia voted Republican just three times: Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower (each just once, in landslide re-elections for those candidates). West Virginia and similar places were the base that provided the majorities for Democrats’ social welfare programs of the 20th century. Who is more qualified to conclude that whatever crumbs they get from social welfare don’t compensate for the downsides of economic change from globalism and social change from immigration?
danny_codes 3y ago
This seems like the standard shift seen in all industrialized countries. Rural areas and small towns don't have the density to maintain economic viability. There just aren't enough labor-intensive jobs to keep small towns afloat. I would imagine the American development pattern makes the economics even less favorable. Cars are very expensive and most (all?) small towns are designed exclusively for car-dependency. Infrastructure cost scales with sprawl too, so city costs to maintain infra are presumably high per-capita. I'm not sure what the solution is. We could subsidize rural areas more (we already do quite significantly, but clearly the handouts aren't sufficient). But I think in the end we have to accept that times change, and certain lifestyles just aren't sustainable.

kibwen 3y ago

> That's not a solution, or a possibility for a lot of folks. Then we need to work to make it a solution and a possibility, because I don't know what the alternative is. I'm from Appalachia, though my former oil-town retains a meager amount of relevance via the nearby industrial dairy farm. The owner of the only grocery store retired and nobody was interested in taking over, so the storefront laid empty until the government gave tax breaks to a hardware chain to set up shop and stock a little corner in the back with groceries so that it wouldn't become a food desert. But the situation isn't sustainable; there's not enough jobs. The population is declining. Most everybody drives to neighboring towns to work. I got out and moved to a big city, and wild horses couldn't drag me back. I love the idea of small towns; not everyone needs to live in a big city (and almost nobody should be living in a remote cabin in the woods either; what an isolating experience). But if they're not economically viable, I'm not going to pay people to live there just so that small towns can continue to exist as a concept. What I will pay people to do is move to a city where they can find opportunity, and fight for more housing so that it's more affordable to do so.

mistrial9 3y ago
> But if they're not economically viable, I'm not going to pay people to live there just so that small towns can continue to exist as a concept. these things are not written in stone, or the laws of physics. Layers of policy and taxation choices have led to this. Nothing says that the current system is stable, either.
rayiner 3y ago
[flagged]
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  Take this for what you will, but my parents (deceased) and I are immigrants to the US. I sympathize greatly--not exclusively--with the problems facing most of the non-coastal US but you're not doing any favors by not adding any nuance or thought.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    I’m also an immigrant. Average Americans outside the coasts (and even many of the people on the coasts, like black people[1]) are not benefiting from immigration. Immigration is generating benefits for the top 10-15% in the form of profits, jobs in knowledge work industries, and cheaper products. It’s not a comment about individual immigrants, it’s a comment about economics and political economy. [1] https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/immigration-comes-at-a-devastating-cost-to-black-americans/article_00850999-e7aa-5e2e-9132-2b85d61821aa.html https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/immigration-comes-at-a...
    - danny_codes 3y ago
      From the article, it seems the issue isn't immigration per-say but a lack of social services (education, housing guarantees, family benefits, healthcare, childcare, vocational training programs, transit accessibility) amongst the poorer strata of Americans. That is, we could minimize immigration to perhaps produce a constrained labor market (though that would induce negative population growth, which comes with a host of economic issues), or we could simply redirect capitol to turn unskilled workers into skilled workers. IMO improving economic (and de-facto social) mobility is a much more sensible policy than inducing negative population growth. An added side benefit would be an overall increase in worker productivity and commensurate economic growth.
      - rayiner 3y ago

nobodyandproud 3y ago

"just move to Chicago (St. Louis, Kansas City, wherever)" When my wife and I drove to Kentucky--from NYC--for a road trip in the late 2000s, it was disappointing just how much more of the same we saw. Back then, it was strip malls. Walmarts. A lot of the day-to-day Americana and culture we were hoping to see was simply fantasy or diluted, as most of the money--and therefore the culture--comes from large companies and interests.

BoiledCabbage 3y ago

> And no one really cares. As a general rule, we're told, "just move to Chicago (St. Louis, Kansas City, wherever)". That's not a solution, or a possibility for a lot of folks. The problem is this is completely untrue. One party had been talking about coal-mining industry ending and promoting job retraining for over a decade if not longer. Federal funds were administered to pre-empt this exact problem that was foreseen. That same party had frequently about the need for social programs to support this transition so people can still be productive. The problem is, this party never wins in Appalachia - all of their policies are ignored. Nobody takes the job training. Everyone locally votes against it and opposes those social support systems. The problem isn't costal elites ignoring the issue, it's that no matter what one party does to help resolve the problem the other party says don't trust them do it on your own. Which isn't possible when entire industries aren't viable any more. It's pretty similar to people desperately needing health care in the same regions and yet refusing to get it because it's been slandered by the party they vote for. Fundamentally the issue is that one party has not supported policies to help this region for ages, but still gets voted for due to a few key touch button issues. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1D14FT/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1D14FT/

vdaea 3y ago
Who ended the coal mining industry?
- fbdab103 3y ago
  Economics? Global usage of coal is declining everywhere.
rayiner 3y ago
> The problem is, this party never wins in Appalachia - all of their policies are ignored. Nobody takes the job training. Everyone locally votes against it and opposes those social support systems. What are you talking about? Appalachia was a core part of the FDR coalition. From 1932 until 2000, West Virginia voted Republican just three times: Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower (each just once, in landslide re-elections for those candidates). West Virginia and similar places were the base that provided the majorities for Democrats’ social welfare programs of the 20th century. Who is more qualified to conclude that whatever crumbs they get from social welfare don’t compensate for the downsides of economic change from globalism and social change from immigration?

danny_codes 3y ago

This seems like the standard shift seen in all industrialized countries. Rural areas and small towns don't have the density to maintain economic viability. There just aren't enough labor-intensive jobs to keep small towns afloat. I would imagine the American development pattern makes the economics even less favorable. Cars are very expensive and most (all?) small towns are designed exclusively for car-dependency. Infrastructure cost scales with sprawl too, so city costs to maintain infra are presumably high per-capita. I'm not sure what the solution is. We could subsidize rural areas more (we already do quite significantly, but clearly the handouts aren't sufficient). But I think in the end we have to accept that times change, and certain lifestyles just aren't sustainable.