|
woke wedding drone posted:I never said it would, smarty pants. Only government intervention can do that. What kind of government intervention? Infrastructure construction is inherently temporary - sooner or later an area will run out of infrastructure to rebuild and those jobs will vanish as fast as they came, and the new/updated infrastructure is unlikely to meaningfully benefit the local economy because everywhere else in the country already has that same infrastructure. It worked eight decades ago because it bought time for the economy to pull itself back together and injected a bit of cash to help out. The problem this time, though, is that the economy in these areas is permanently dead and not coming back in the foreseeable future - putting everyone to work on fixing bridges and laying fiber isn't going to do anything but possibly speed up the brain drain by giving young people the money to leave, which ruins the economy even harder by tilting the demographics even more toward old people who can't do the physical work that makes up the majority of jobs out there. woke wedding drone posted:It's really something, I never expected so many people to come out and admit that they think living in a city is objectively superior, even with economic issues not taken into consideration. I guess the gulf in understanding can't be spanned, urbanites will continue to heap contempt on people who don't live like they do, and the people held in contempt will continue to react to it. City living has a number of economic advantages that encourage economic development there, while rural living has a number of economic disadvantages that discourage economic development there. It's not much use sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending otherwise when the topic of discussion is "why rural economies are a dismal garbage fire and whether it's even possible to fix them".
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:00 |
|
|
blowfish posted:Yes, obviously, but I posted in response to the suggestion of making more college towns. That wasn't a suggestion, it was a response to you seemingly saying that putting a university in a small town is wasting the university. In reality, it's a well established practice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That wasn't a suggestion, it was a response to you seemingly saying that putting a university in a small town is wasting the university. College towns are a thing because they support a large catchment area from which people gently caress off to the university town (and students further gently caress off to $BigCity after graduating). They aren't a solution for the small towns already in the catchment area of a university, and given that like half of Americans already go to College growth potential is limited even now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:20
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:They aren't a solution for the small towns already in the catchment area of a university. Which I'm not disputing. I'm disputing you saying: blowfish posted:Ok but how do you put a university in Bumfuck, Iowa (population 50 people 2000 cattle) without having it be either ludicrously overkill for the town or ludicrously substandard as a university? Nowhere in this post do you say "this isn't a solution to every small town ever", you literally say "the town can't handle it and/or the university must be lovely".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Which I'm not disputing. I'm disputing you saying: If we have a town college in every town this is what will happen, yes. If we have a town college in 1% of towns or whatever then the college works, but it's not a solution for 99% of towns (i.e. it does very little to help solve the problems of small town America).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
And again we're talking about a supposed workforce that is old, ill and poorly educated. Exactly what work were y'all expecting them to do again?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Others have already commented on the overlap between rural poverty and poverty on native reservations, but I'd like to emphasize the connection. Natives living on reserves even today have a much lower average standard of living throughout North America (both Canada and the US). I think most people are familiar with the various factors that contribute and perpetuate this; relative isolation, lack of infrastructure, lack of commercial activity, racism (implicit or explicit), under-representation in government etc. Many of these apply to rural regions with high unemployment, although there are also many different factors and I don't want to overgeneralize. The point I'm making is that in many of these places the state and/or federal governments are required to provide services and maintain a reasonable quality of life due to a constitutional or treaty obligation (you can be certain the governments would do even less if there weren't legally required). Even if there was sufficient political will to address rural poverty (already a big if), the track record with native reserves is not very encouraging. I'd suggest there's a limit in the ability for the state to generate prosperity in an economic backwater, even if it has the best of intentions. Also it's worth pointing out that New York City requires something like $100 billion in additional infrastructure spending over the next couple of decades to prevent another Sandy-like disaster and mitigate the effect of rising sea levels. This funding is by no means assured. In the current political climate even NYC can't get infrastructure spending to prevent clear and costly disaster, I don't see how rural regions are going to get much more in the way of infrastructure spending then they already receive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
I like that it doesn't at all play to people's paranoid delusions that liberals quite literally would like guns confiscated and people forcefully relocated to urban encampments if given the slightest opportunity
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
call to action posted:I like that it doesn't at all play to people's paranoid delusions that liberals quite literally would like guns confiscated and people forcefully relocated to urban encampments if given the slightest opportunity only the uneducated racists. everyone else is fine
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:only the uneducated racists. everyone else is fine By definition aren't people living in rural areas uneducated racists?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Others have already commented on the overlap between rural poverty and poverty on native reservations, but I'd like to emphasize the connection. Natives living on reserves even today have a much lower average standard of living throughout North America (both Canada and the US). I think most people are familiar with the various factors that contribute and perpetuate this; relative isolation, lack of infrastructure, lack of commercial activity, racism (implicit or explicit), under-representation in government etc Just one more hurdle for an unbelievably disadvantaged group.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
call to action posted:By definition aren't people living in rural areas uneducated racists? No?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
call to action posted:By definition aren't people living in rural areas uneducated racists? please dont be bigoted in this thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
call to action posted:By definition aren't people living in rural areas uneducated racists? No? call to action posted:I like that it doesn't at all play to people's paranoid delusions that liberals quite literally would like guns confiscated and people forcefully relocated to urban encampments if given the slightest opportunity What? No. Why would I (speaking for myself as a liberal minded sort) want to take guns from other people? Hell, how is that germane to this discussion? Also, because one person argues relocation, doesn't mean all people argue relocation. I'm in favor of supporting the people out there, but by and large let the current economic forces take their course and just give money/support to those who can't or won't leave.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
call to action posted:I like that it doesn't at all play to people's paranoid delusions that liberals quite literally would like guns confiscated and people forcefully relocated to urban encampments if given the slightest opportunity Claverjoe posted:What? No. Why would I (speaking for myself as a liberal minded sort) want to take guns from other people? Hell, how is that germane to this discussion? It's interesting to read this discussion. Similar to the gun control debate, the long-established resentment on either side of the urban-rural divide makes having an honest conversation difficult. One person advocating for rural depopulation becomes emblematic of "liberals" as a whole, because the important thing isn't to discuss the problem but to discount the other side.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
There are plenty of folks arguing for rural depopulation, if you actually read the thread. Only one person has been honest enough to couch it in the spiteful terms that liberals all privately believe in, though. Rural Americans will approach this conversation with the same level of good faith that liberals approached them with re: gun control, so best of luck for you there
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
a combination of the free market and heart disease is handily depopulating the hinterlands so there's no reason to interfere with Nature in this case
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:a combination of the free market and heart disease is handily depopulating the hinterlands so there's no reason to interfere with Nature in this case I love poo poo like this because it makes it so easy for me to sway other folks who live in rural areas to my side. The bleeding hearts actually despise you like you always guessed!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
ah, so you're the guy who prints out something awful posts and hands them out at town meetings
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
call to action posted:I love poo poo like this because it makes it so easy for me to sway other folks who live in rural areas to my side. The bleeding hearts actually despise you like you always guessed!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
I actually think supporting local gun clubs could help work towards quite a few of the goals I laid out in my big post. Hunting involves exercise and fresh air, can provide supplementary protein to food-insecure families, and if people within the community were leading the charge I think hunting clubs could easily incorporate a quietly environmentalist stewardship-of-the-land element as well as providing an alternate way for people who like guns to hang out and pew-pew together that isn't some rabid militia full of white supremacist assholes. Scouting for Grownups could even create a few jobs in wildlife management, equipment maintenance, food prep/distribution, and administration that wouldn't be as temporary as someone rightly observed infrastructure jobs are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
the lazy troll does raise a good point - fear of outsiders, particularly of being judged as backwards or hickish, is a driving force in rural identity and solidarity and is one of the contributors as to why people would continue to live in an economically stagnant area despite having the means to escape
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
call to action posted:I love poo poo like this because it makes it so easy for me to sway other folks who live in rural areas to my side. The bleeding hearts actually despise you like you always guessed! ok thanks, you just changed my opinions actually rural shitholes on the decline shouldn't be supported until they either have a reason to exist again or everyone fucks off or dies of old age. instead, we should send in the air force to do some cold war clancychat level nuclear carpet bombing 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
More seriously, why do you think your random-rear end town should be propped up forever instead of allowing the residents to live out their lives peacefully and/or leave the place behind?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
blowfish posted:ok thanks, you just changed my opinions You think I'm trying to convert the basement dwelling keyboard warriors of the world? Nah, man. More like the people that actually live in rural areas - the people that wield more political power in the American system than city dwellers ever will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Gonna clear the air for a second and point out "I want someone to prop up my town" and "I'd like to find a way make this town work" aren't the same thing. Looking back to the excellent OP the question of whether or not the towns should exist isn't really the point - it's more about what can be done to make people's lives better. And honestly, it's not that complicated (although it'd never get done in a million years in the real world). Throw a minimal guaranteed standard of living on it and call it good. Most other topics you could bring up would sort themselves out: ' People who want to leave small towns (most young people who can) will leave, and more of them if you help more people do it. People who want to stay, can stay, and they'll be fine because of the guaranteed income. The towns will live or die based on people moving (voting with their feet?) without so much misery while the demographics sort themselves out. Seriously, just throw money at the problem. Throw money at it. Now, if you can't do that (we can't) and you instead want to ask what we can do to help these towns become self sustaining, I got nothing, and while I'd love to read any papers or whatever people can post where someone does have something, I think it's gonna boil down to "lots of small American towns are failed, people who can escape do, everyone else is screwed". Though I can't resist stirring up the hornets nest by suggesting there shouldn't be anything crazy about a nation which is essentially an entire continent handling all it's own heavy industry and manufacturing internally - without addressing globalism with regard to corporate profits and politics, there's nothing really stopping the U.S.A. from having a lot of factory jobs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Though I can't resist stirring up the hornets nest by suggesting there shouldn't be anything crazy about a nation which is essentially an entire continent handling all it's own heavy industry and manufacturing internally - without addressing globalism with regard to corporate profits and politics, there's nothing really stopping the U.S.A. from having a lot of factory jobs. so long as for profit firms value shareholders over employees then that's what is stopping the usa from having a lot of factory jobs
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
You tried OP. Don't feel bad, your post was amazing and had a lot to say, this forum just ain't what it used to be. Maybe in a non-election year people can talk about other people like they're real and have dignity. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Gonna clear the air for a second and point out "I want someone to prop up my town" and "I'd like to find a way make this town work" aren't the same thing. This is why I raised the parallel about native reservations; in some sense your solution of throwing money at it has already been tried. The results weren't spectacular. In many Canadian reservations natives on reserves have full healthcare and effectively mincome (in theory!) , but poverty, suicide and drug abuse is still rampant. The state can promise whatever it wants, but there are logistical challenges to providing services in remote areas with which cash strapped governments have trouble. The social effects of prolonged joblessness on a society are profound and honestly I'm not convinced are truly soluble without something like full socialism now. This isn't to say that healthcare, mincome and rural infrastructure programs shouldn't be implemented. I'm just pointing out that we have case studies where these kinds of things already exist on a smaller scale and the outcomes still aren't great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I actually think supporting local gun clubs could help work towards quite a few of the goals I laid out in my big post. Hunting involves exercise and fresh air, can provide supplementary protein to food-insecure families, and if people within the community were leading the charge I think hunting clubs could easily incorporate a quietly environmentalist stewardship-of-the-land element as well as providing an alternate way for people who like guns to hang out and pew-pew together that isn't some rabid militia full of white supremacist assholes. This is a big thing, actually, if you talk to a lot of rural folks. There's a lot of wistfulness associated with it, as hunting is a pretty expensive hobby (tags, guns/bows, camping gear, renting the grounds in some states, etc.), and many folks just can't afford do it anymore. A friend of mine's father, for example: they had a ton of kids, and weren't exactly well to do. During deer season, she remembers him regularly bringing in bucks and dressing them on their big kitchen table, so the family freezer would always be stocked with enough venison for her and her six siblings over the central PA winter. He wasn't a "gun nut" or anything. He was a guy who used the tool for what it was used for. Chatting with him, he would actually get pissed at anyone who referred to guns as "toys", and only owned two older hunting rifles and a shotgun. He didn't brag about how he didn't call 911 if someone broke in, or how he'd love to "go bag some towelheads" or anything. He actually quit the NRA when American Rifleman stopped being a trade magazine with tips and advice, and became nothing but political screeds, and now reads Outdoor Life instead. My friend doesn't hunt, because she's not interested, but she laughs about her pop being covered in blood and guts from skinning whenever talking about it. She does love to hike and camp, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Toph Bei Fong posted:This is a big thing, actually, if you talk to a lot of rural folks. There's a lot of wistfulness associated with it, as hunting is a pretty expensive hobby (tags, guns/bows, camping gear, renting the grounds in some states, etc.), and many folks just can't afford do it anymore. Yeah! Just spitballing, but maybe a local hunting club that owns all the equipment, and anyone who completes some gun/hunting safety training can borrow it for club hunting trips. Get people working together to butcher, prep, and distribute the food (both in fun community-building chili cookoff type stuff, and also just dividing up cuts for people to take home), get kids involved, maybe gradually expand into things like camping and outdoor sports. People in rural communities already know and enjoy this stuff. It's something a simple cash infusion could actually accomplish. Edit: Hell, add in a fishing club and magically you've got a political bloc that will get riled up as hell if local industries pollute and cause a fish die-off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Phone posting and not quite about community hunting but http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12351824/gun-control-sweden-solution I'd support this and I'm pro gun in a way that makes me not like all of the articles points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Thanks to this thread I remembered one of the sillier articles I've ever read:The Washington Post posted:At first glance, Kamiyama looks like any other rural town in Japan: shuttered stores on the main street, a gas station unencumbered by customers, hunched-over old ladies tending rice fields. The solution to rural depopulation is to import hipsters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Thanks to this thread I remembered one of the sillier articles I've ever read: its what all the old flyover cities have been doing; importing them or growing them
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
I am little suprised that this thread has not brought up how the Prison Industrial Complex is major employer in rural areas. My hometown of Tehachapi California is an hour east of Bakersfield and basically consists of correction officer's and not much else.
side_burned fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Though I can't resist stirring up the hornets nest by suggesting there shouldn't be anything crazy about a nation which is essentially an entire continent handling all it's own heavy industry and manufacturing internally - without addressing globalism with regard to corporate profits and politics, there's nothing really stopping the U.S.A. from having a lot of factory jobs. There's actually something very important stopping the USA from having a lot of factory jobs: automation. The decline of US manufacturing is largely a myth - US manufacturing output is as high as ever and still on the rise, it's just that heavy automation has drastically reduced the number of human workers needed in the industry. It's just that it's a lot easier to blame globalization than it is to confront the logical outcome of labor-saving technologies. side_burned posted:I am little suprised that this thread has not brought up how the Prison Industrial Complex is major employer in rural areas. My hometown of Tehachapi California is an hour east of Bakersfield and basically consists of correction officer's and not much else. Oh, right, let's not forget prison manufacturing either. Who needs real factory workers when you can cut a deal with the state to have convicts do it for ten cents an hour?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:This isn't to say that healthcare, mincome and rural infrastructure programs shouldn't be implemented. I'm just pointing out that we have case studies where these kinds of things already exist on a smaller scale and the outcomes still aren't great. Yeah, this kind of direct aid is only going to be effective in areas where opportunities already exist on some level. Just handing people money doesn't do any good if they're driving 50 miles to spend it, because that money is just being siphoned out of the local economy anyway. Edit- That said, I think this thread has a real problem with defining its terms. What do we mean by rural? A little town with 500 people in the middle of nowhere isn't the same thing as a decaying factory/mining town with 15k+ residents. There's a reasonably good chance the town the OP describes wouldn't even be classified as rural by the census, for example, depending on where it's located. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:The solution to rural depopulation is to import hipsters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/12/beattyville-kentucky-and-americas-poorest-towns I found this article on the poorest predominately white town in America enlightening. The series later covers the poorest Latino/Black/Native American towns which are equally soul crushing but in unique ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:00 |
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/12/beattyville-kentucky-and-americas-poorest-towns That's a great article, but one part especially stuck out with me the first time I read it: The Article posted:Ask where people get the money for drugs and just about everyone blames it on welfare in general and the trade in what is known locally as “pop” – soft drinks – in particular. This is an example of why just "throwing money at the problem" isn't enough. Chronic poverty creates a whole range of social problems like mental disease and drug abuse. Blindly spending money without addressing the problems can actually make things worse! It also gives political ammunition to opponents of welfare spending, who of course have no actual solutions themselves. Edit: This is actually wrong, even blindly spending money would be better than the system as implemented as it would involve less waste. The point is that welfare without programs to address social problems like drug addiction will be less effective. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Aug 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 01:40
|
|