4 ms·

> 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 alter

by 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
        You can’t have an economy with only knowledge workers. (Unskilled isn’t a correct term since many of these jobs, like construction, are skilled work.) Your choices are to have an economy with a large class of foreign workers with little political leverage, or an economy with a smaller class of native born workers with more leverage. Social services don’t fix the underlying economic problems. For example, you can invest in schools, but at the end of the day those kids would have been better off being raised in a two-person family where the parents have access to well-paying jobs that don’t require a college education, than being raised by a single parent receiving a welfare check. Social services can’t replace everything you get from a functioning community where people have meaningful work. The Great Society programs caused social welfare spending to dramatically increase starting around the same time as the 1965 INS dramatically increased immigration. But during that time, the upward mobility of black Americans in deindustrializing cities (look at Baltimore, Philly, etc.) decreased from what was happening a generation before.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  To a small extent you are correct, but a larger factor is automaton. It doesn't take that many people to grow food or extract resources anymore. The people that don't exist don't need grocery stores, bars, restaurants, or barbers either. We would still be in this situation even without immigration or overseas trade.
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    No way. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/terrain-of-struggle.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/terrain-of-struggle.htm https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/about-farmworker-justice/who-we-serve/ https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/about-farmworker-justice/w... I'm not knowledgeable on agriculture, but even a city-boy like myself has read-up on how much we rely on migrant labor during harvesting season.
    - Loughla 3y ago
      Immigrants do those gigs because citizens won't. Those are not community sustaining jobs.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        Of course they’d do the jobs if immigrants weren’t driving down the floor. Look at European countries where agriculture is done by native born people.
        tremon 3y ago
        I agree with your overall point, but not a great example: in NL we also import seasonal labour from Eastern European countries, for the exact same reason and with the exact same effect as you pointed out. Even when it's season all-year round (because we have greenhouses).
        rayiner 3y ago
        I didn’t say it’s true of all European countries. To my knowledge, France or Italy for example isn’t nearly as reliant on seasonal farm labor. The Netherlands has always been more in the neoliberal side of the line for Europe.

by kibwen 3y ago

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
      You can’t have an economy with only knowledge workers. (Unskilled isn’t a correct term since many of these jobs, like construction, are skilled work.) Your choices are to have an economy with a large class of foreign workers with little political leverage, or an economy with a smaller class of native born workers with more leverage. Social services don’t fix the underlying economic problems. For example, you can invest in schools, but at the end of the day those kids would have been better off being raised in a two-person family where the parents have access to well-paying jobs that don’t require a college education, than being raised by a single parent receiving a welfare check. Social services can’t replace everything you get from a functioning community where people have meaningful work. The Great Society programs caused social welfare spending to dramatically increase starting around the same time as the 1965 INS dramatically increased immigration. But during that time, the upward mobility of black Americans in deindustrializing cities (look at Baltimore, Philly, etc.) decreased from what was happening a generation before.
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
To a small extent you are correct, but a larger factor is automaton. It doesn't take that many people to grow food or extract resources anymore. The people that don't exist don't need grocery stores, bars, restaurants, or barbers either. We would still be in this situation even without immigration or overseas trade.
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  No way. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/terrain-of-struggle.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/terrain-of-struggle.htm https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/about-farmworker-justice/who-we-serve/ https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/about-farmworker-justice/w... I'm not knowledgeable on agriculture, but even a city-boy like myself has read-up on how much we rely on migrant labor during harvesting season.
  - Loughla 3y ago
    Immigrants do those gigs because citizens won't. Those are not community sustaining jobs.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      Of course they’d do the jobs if immigrants weren’t driving down the floor. Look at European countries where agriculture is done by native born people.
      - tremon 3y ago
        I agree with your overall point, but not a great example: in NL we also import seasonal labour from Eastern European countries, for the exact same reason and with the exact same effect as you pointed out. Even when it's season all-year round (because we have greenhouses).
        rayiner 3y ago
        I didn’t say it’s true of all European countries. To my knowledge, France or Italy for example isn’t nearly as reliant on seasonal farm labor. The Netherlands has always been more in the neoliberal side of the line for Europe.