|
Typo posted:Right, but I kinda want to talk about the different areas of the country on this, because the graph shows total data for all of the US, what you had starting in the late 50s was outsourcing from the traditional industrial heartlands of the northern midwest into the south where wages were cheaper. One of the most interesting I learned was that the first major auto-factory closure in detroit was 1958 (the packard factory), which wasn't exactly considered a bad time for manufacturing. '58 was the start of the Eisenhower Recession Someone mentioned how it would take us ten years to tool back up for manufacturing economy, and how it would have to be high-skilled. My view on factory and plant closures is that each one is node that lies in an interconnected logistical highway from material to finished product sold to end client. For inspiration, look to the Orion spacecraft manufactured in Colorado. There are precedents.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Not sure if it's been discussed here but Trump is the ultimate white trash president. He embodies all of the myths that trailer trash whites have, stuff like they are too stupid to know when they are in danger but never get hurt and destroy anything that doesn't fit with what they understand. Also you don't need to know anything to be successful, which is perfectly Trump. If you are poor white in the underclass how do you not vote for Trump? Hes their ideal president.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
No, that was Bush Jr. His campaign played up his churchgoing and duckhunting, simple tastes, and so on. There were multiple books by buttsuckers like David Frum that all but said that he was an ordinary decent man anointed by God to be President of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:No, that was Bush Jr. His campaign played up his churchgoing and duckhunting, simple tastes, and so on. There were multiple books by buttsuckers like David Frum that all but said that he was an ordinary decent man anointed by God to be President of the United States. But couldn't it be argued Dubya appealed more to rednecks than trailer trash? I always thought there was a difference between both groups. Like rednecks are hard working, patriotic, mean well, etc whereas white trash are perceived as incredibly lazy, indulge in criminal behaviors, crude, vulgar etc. Which describes Trump to a fault. Am I totally wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:No, that was Bush Jr. His campaign played up his churchgoing and duckhunting, simple tastes, and so on. There were multiple books by buttsuckers like David Frum that all but said that he was an ordinary decent man anointed by God to be President of the United States. And now David Frum is solidly on the side of sanity in criticizing Trump, and George Takei is working with Mormon Republican Evan McMullin to unite opposition to Trump. If you told someone from 2014 about this, they'd have you locked up in a nuthouse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
If David Frum were on the side of sanity, he'd disappear from public life, because once you aid and abet selling the American public on a military occupation that kills upwards of a million people, you lack all moral authority. But he's not going to do that, because he's a self-aggrandizing stooge.Confounding Factor posted:But couldn't it be argued Dubya appealed more to rednecks than trailer trash? I always thought there was a difference between both groups. Like rednecks are hard working, patriotic, mean well, etc whereas white trash are perceived as incredibly lazy, indulge in criminal behaviors, crude, vulgar etc. Which describes Trump to a fault. A lot of Rednecks take a level in White Trash, but only for the sneak attack bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
It's pretty cool how so many posters here want our cities to resemble Delhi, with a rich urban core surrounded by landless peasantry that cleans out sewer clogs for tips.ToxicSlurpee posted:It isn't. I am, however, originally from rural PA and trust me a gently caress of a lot of people there were proud of being stupid rednecks who could barely read. You're actually full of poo poo and blind to the racism that surrounds you. Clinton supporters are no less racist than the average GOP voter, and in some cases *more racist* than the average  I don't see why Boston racism is more preferable to rural PA racism but you do you champ call to action fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Re Delhi: I don't think anyone is saying that at all tho. Also man, those Trump supporters are off the charts. Surprising absolutely no one. Which isn't to say we don't need to clean up our own backyard. Serious (but probably really dumb) idea: What about nuclear plants? Close down coal, bring in nuclear, have the government pay to retain people. Where I suspect this breaks down is that I have literally no idea how many blue collar jobs a nuclear plant would provide post-construction. Great Metal Jesus fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:I don't think anyone is saying that at all tho. Not many -- I gather the great majority of unskilled labour the coal industry provides is in mining, not in power plant operation (where typically you'd want people to be well-trained and educated).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:I don't think anyone is saying that at all tho. The "move millions of humans worth of unskilled labor to major urban cores" thing has been tried and has resulted in situations like I previously mentioned. Until you or your ilk propose a different solution than moving America's yokels into the San Francisco housing market, I'm going to assume we're aiming for Delhi here. Great Metal Jesus posted:Also man, those Trump supporters are off the charts. Surprising absolutely no one. Which isn't to say we don't need to clean up our own backyard. Yeah, that's the thing to take away from this. That the President that courts white supremacists has done a better job of attracting white supremacists, not that the supposedly pluralistic party is only marginally less racist. The whole notion that you don't call boots "human being stompers" if you live in a blue area and voted for Clinton is straight-up false. call to action fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
I wonder how the graph would look for Obama supporters. Probably, not much less racist. Which is interesting amounts of doublethink, if you think about it. Obama could never have got elected without somehow, superhumanly, getting a whole bunch of racists to forget about his skin color.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:Re Delhi: I don't think anyone is saying that at all tho. Well you'd need low level security guys to walk the fence line at least. That wouldn't exactly be a limitless fountain of unskilled employment but it isn't like the only people who work on a running nuclear plant site are engineers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
There's a whole spectrum of land use ranging from "ridiculously sprawling infrastructure nightmares of poverty and unproductive land" to "megacity one". Taking a large region that only has a few thousand people spread randomly around with little to no centre, and clustering them in a proper village with an actual community and services and much less infrastructure needed per person could help a lot of these areas, specially if the labour needed to make these transitions was done by employing the locals. You have to cluster the population in smaller more efficient communities that can actually support them selves, then build up the tax base from there if possible, but if that isn't possible at least you can deliver basic services much more efficiently. There's a minimum critical mass for a population centre to be able to economically deliver the basic services modern society expects, and it's pretty reasonable to slowly and gently shift local and regional populations around to work towards that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
call to action posted:It's pretty cool how so many posters here want our cities to resemble Delhi, with a rich urban core surrounded by landless peasantry that cleans out sewer clogs for tips.  At least the Indian government pretends to pay lip service to things like a functioning and affordable public transportation system and universal healthcare. Call me when either of those two things are politically feasible in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:There's a whole spectrum of land use ranging from "ridiculously sprawling infrastructure nightmares of poverty and unproductive land" to "megacity one". Taking a large region that only has a few thousand people spread randomly around with little to no centre, and clustering them in a proper village with an actual community and services and much less infrastructure needed per person could help a lot of these areas, specially if the labour needed to make these transitions was done by employing the locals. You have to cluster the population in smaller more efficient communities that can actually support them selves, then build up the tax base from there if possible, but if that isn't possible at least you can deliver basic services much more efficiently. There's a minimum critical mass for a population centre to be able to economically deliver the basic services modern society expects, and it's pretty reasonable to slowly and gently shift local and regional populations around to work towards that. That sounds great to you and me, but then I'm a city kid. The problem is a lot of these scattered people are living on their family's land, or they're living where the light hits the trees just right when they like to paint, or they're living far enough from other humans that they can run around naked firing shotguns and no one's bothered or cares. They have emotional reasons for living where they do, and we can both sit here and be logical about how emotion doesn't matter as much as economics, but anyone with their own happiness on the line will tell you, emotions are the only thing. There's no bargain to even be made. Let's build nice centralized towns and help people move to them when they want to, which a lot of people will. No forcing anybody, actively or passively. The people who don't move we'll just have to support anyway, because everybody matters. A moral society doesn't punish being poor, or different, or unsociable, or even being an rear end in a top hat, by withholding the services needed for survival. Despite what these very people may believe, the government is not a for-profit affair. It exists solely to ensure that everyone in this country is safe and healthy and has the opportunity to thrive. If we buy into the idea that government is only for supporting a certain type of people who live a certain type of way, I don't know about you but I'm well aware which end of that stick I'd get.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:Re Delhi: I don't think anyone is saying that at all tho. Military bases would be more likely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Well you'd need low level security guys to walk the fence line at least. That wouldn't exactly be a limitless fountain of unskilled employment but it isn't like the only people who work on a running nuclear plant site are engineers. I think most jobs at nuclear plants are either high-skill jobs for people with degrees, or else skilled technician jobs dominated by people with specialized military or industrial backgrounds. The security department is often the largest, but from my limited understanding they operate along military lines and are mostly filled with well-paid and specially-recruited veterans just as much as the actual operation and maintenance side is. I don't know how many non-veterans work in those plants at all, really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
On principle I disagree to an extent (that people should never be forced to change their lives in order to receive the same level of service and quality of life as others) , at least with the extreme ends of things. No one's going to build a clinic and school and internet access and a highway (and a bus route in case they don't have a car!) for 2 people living in the middle of the wilderness. But the number of people living at that extreme end of things are so tiny, subsidizing their lifestyle isn't really a big cost in the grand scheme of things. There's so much more low hanging fruit in terms of inefficiencies to go after. Personally I believe that if you're living in a society with a lot of communal resources supported by the greater community, the greater community has some say over your lifestyle. There's no exact right answer to how much though. One one hand you could have the extreme of people climbing to the top of a remote mountain and demanding free housing, social services, and infrastructure since it's their right to have access to all that. On the other extreme would be the state having full control over where you live and work and every aspect of your life in the name of maximum social efficiency. I think everyone should have the right to the basics necessities, including housing, education, healthcare, even food and clothing and such. But society should be planning where that housing is built based on a larger long term plan and budgets rather than purely individual choice. Where to find a balance between the two would probably be highly based on the amount of plenty within the system. A society struggling to provide all the basics to everyone I think absolutely has the right to tell people they're going to have to move or change their lives in some way in order to fully participate in the system. A richer society could of course afford to support more and more "extravagant" lifestyles, since wiring up all those remote cabins with high speed internet and making sure there's water bombers and medical helicopters to serve the population doesn't come at the expense of someone else not getting their basics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
People living in the absolute middle of nowhere generally don't have expectations of society providing the same experience as if they lived in Seattle. It's the small town folk that get disgruntled by having to pay as much taxes as big city folks, but not really getting anything for it. They are the ones that expect to have a clinic and a factory in their little town, not some guy living in a cabin on a mountain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:On principle I disagree to an extent (that people should never be forced to change their lives in order to receive the same level of service and quality of life as others) , at least with the extreme ends of things. No one's going to build a clinic and school and internet access and a highway (and a bus route in case they don't have a car!) for 2 people living in the middle of the wilderness. But the number of people living at that extreme end of things are so tiny, subsidizing their lifestyle isn't really a big cost in the grand scheme of things. There's so much more low hanging fruit in terms of inefficiencies to go after. I agree with all of this. I think we also shouldn't panic about having to support the number of isolated people we have now forever. America had a very odd development pattern that was unsustainable and is fading away now. We aren't going to have a second wave of pioneers staking out plots of land and intentionally building their houses as far as possible from their neighbors again. Villages are the normal way of organizing rural life and villages are easier to support than a dozen scattered farmhouses. We can just build up the villages and retire the farmhouses gradually as their owners sell or pass away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:He's lying. The very idea of a programmer taking Who Moved My Cheese seriously... "Change isn't always bad please don't hate it" isn't that bad of a message. Plus the character of Hem basically just IS the current American conservative mindset. Yeah it's still fluffy inspirational bullshit that is sometimes used to shift the blame of people's problems entirely onto their mindset. It doesn't contain any profound, earth shattering wisdom. I thought it was a cute book and really, the most important thing to get from it is "for the love of all things holy if you act like Hem knock it the gently caress off." Some people really do need to learn to accept that the world is going to change whether you want it to or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Do they think it's going to be easier when they're ten years older and sicker and mining jobs still haven't come back because coal sucks? No, they think the whole "coal sucks" thing is an overblown fiction invented by holier-than-thou city-folk looking down on them and their lifestyles, and they think that the government could have preserved the coal industry if it really wanted to but is instead killing it in order to put money in the pockets of rich coastal liberals. White Rock posted:That kind of "making GBS threads on the working class" talk is why Hillary lost the rust belt. The problem with this line of thinking is that while it's great to point out that people don't like having their communities devastated, it's entirely useless unless someone comes up with a plan that a) results in long-term economic revitalization of these regions, b) without them having to change their lifestyle or break away from the skills they already know too hard, c) in a way that they like and approve of. Infrastructure spending is temporary - it can fill the gap for a few years while the economy gets back on its feet, but by itself it's not a long-term solution unless you start building bridges to nowhere. Tourism is great, but obviously not everywhere can be a tourist hub. High-tech employment is doable, but it's mostly going to import experienced workers from the coast rather than hiring newly-trained entry-level miners-turned-programmers, and it's difficult to lure those businesses out to these areas in sufficient volumes because the only advantage those areas offer is cheap land. GMI or welfare expansion would work, but the people in these regions generally consider it insulting, demeaning, and undesirable. As long as no one's come up with a real solution for them, it's not particularly useful to yell at people for saying "there is no solution".
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:"Change isn't always bad please don't hate it" isn't that bad of a message. Plus the character of Hem basically just IS the current American conservative mindset. Man that book is the biggest bunch of corporate MBA double talk I ever heard of, if I hear a whiff of it at a job, I quit that job and people say "why were you so mad about that book" right up until they're laid off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
That cheese story 90% of the time is used as an excuse for loving over already hosed people and gross injustice, it's so often trotted out as a response to everything from income disparity to racism so has some pretty bad political associations. Sometimes change happens and it doesn't always seem fair but you have to roll with it. Sometimes there's a gross injustice and you really should flip out and raise some hell. /\/\ Yeah my friend worked at some lovely tech-sector job and their boss loving LOVED that book at had a whole power point presentation where they had to sit through him page by page go through the book and explain how it's so relevant today and how workers would be so better off if they took the message to heart rather than constantly felt so entitled. You gotta be flexible and nimble in today's gig economy! Never feel entitled to stability! For instance, a bunch of you are fired because I want to buy an island and your months of unpaid overtime finished the project so I don't really need you as much anymore. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:Yeah, it's not like America's full of landless peasants who clean out grease traps at a fast food restaurant for a pittance. Actually, America mostly has functional public transit in any of its cities that approach the population density of major Indian cities. They also don't have universal healthcare, not sure where you got that from. The difference is that the landless peasants in America have a place they call home, that you want to take them from, so they can... do what? Baronjutter posted:That cheese story 90% of the time is used as an excuse for loving over already hosed people and gross injustice, it's so often trotted out as a response to everything from income disparity to racism so has some pretty bad political associations. Sometimes change happens and it doesn't always seem fair but you have to roll with it. Sometimes there's a gross injustice and you really should flip out and raise some hell. I don't agree with you on much but this is A True and Good Post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
call to action posted:The "move millions of humans worth of unskilled labor to major urban cores" thing has been tried and has resulted in situations like I previously mentioned. Until you or your ilk propose a different solution than moving America's yokels into the San Francisco housing market, I'm going to assume we're aiming for Delhi here. I haven't actually proposed moving anyone or even posted in this thread until now. For the record, I think you could encourage people to move to smaller and mid-size urban centers with incentives. There are plenty of cities and towns that are going to have better opportunities than the middle of nowhere. The people who can't move or don't want to move should still be supported though, whether it's through creating jobs, mincome, whatever. I honestly don't have a solution here, it's a pretty complicated problem. quote:Yeah, that's the thing to take away from this. That the President that courts white supremacists has done a better job of attracting white supremacists, not that the supposedly pluralistic party is only marginally less racist. The whole notion that you don't call boots "human being stompers" if you live in a blue area and voted for Clinton is straight-up false. Wait. White people... Are racist?  Yeah, that's a problem we have to work on across the board. There's still differences of degrees here in that one group we can at least get to vote for a candidate who isn't a seething racist. I really don't think we disagree here a whole lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:I haven't actually proposed moving anyone or even posted in this thread until now. For the record, I think you could encourage people to move to smaller and mid-size urban centers with incentives. There are plenty of cities and towns that are going to have better opportunities than the middle of nowhere. The people who can't move or don't want to move should still be supported though, whether it's through creating jobs, mincome, whatever. I honestly don't have a solution here, it's a pretty complicated problem. A lot of people already want to move to bigger towns but can't afford to, so they wouldn't need any more incentive than some cash. If "handouts" aren't ideologically palatable, you could achieve some of the same benefits by cracking down on rents and security fees. It can cost thousands of dollars to move into even a bad apartment in a low-income town. Other people are going to need more support, like child and elder care, or transportation. We have a lot of people who'd happily centralize themselves willingly if they could before we need to worry about forcing anybody out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:A lot of people already want to move to bigger towns but can't afford to, so they wouldn't need any more incentive than some cash. If "handouts" aren't ideologically palatable, you could achieve some of the same benefits by cracking down on rents and security fees. It can cost thousands of dollars to move into even a bad apartment in a low-income town. Other people are going to need more support, like child and elder care, or transportation. We have a lot of people who'd happily centralize themselves willingly if they could before we need to worry about forcing anybody out. Oh yeah, totally. I was fortunate enough to scrape my way out of a tiny town into a larger one and then eventually the city. Security deposits (especially in the city) are INSANE. Even with a good job and some savings first, last, deposit, and pet deposit was out of my league, averaging around 4-5000 for the absolute cheapest I could find. If I didn't have friends here I would have been hosed. And I was lucky as hell. I think offering cash for moving, subsidizing deposits, and cracking down on ludicrous deposits would all be huge to helping the people who want to get out actually get out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
call to action posted:Actually, America mostly has functional public transit in any of its cities that approach the population density of major Indian cities. They also don't have universal healthcare, not sure where you got that from. I'm not sure where you get that I want to take the homes of landless peasants in either country. India's rural poor are migrating from the same, dead-end places that America's rural poor live in. Far from jobs, far from the centers of power, far from all the domestic pork and the FDI dollars that foreign governments are raining down on places like Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata and Chennai. We can sit here and sneer at Delhi as if it's some backwards shithole America has nothing to learn from, but I'm not so certain that's either productive, or necessarily true. India's undergoing a massive wave of urbanization and if we're going to believe the world bank on this, so will the USA. Tent cities and people living out of RV's are already things that exist and happen in the USA, if Dharavi 2.0 in the bay area or north jersey is something we want to avoid (it drat well should be) let's look at how to make the inevitable urbanization manageable so that people who have to leave home and hearth in search of a job worth having can at least live in basic human decency and not poo poo in a river or squatting on a wal-mart parking lot in a chrysler minivan. Discussions about how to preserve or revive these places are useful and worth having, but they don't look like they're all that useful on timeframes that matter to the people that live there. By the the time the wealth trickles down to rural India/America, we may be talking about whole generations who have essentially missed out by not moving to where the jobs and money were. And before we can help all the places decaying today in the US get back to the golden years that the residents pine for, most of those that remember those days will be dead, and the generations that follow them will have languished in poverty, without access to jobs, opportunities and services. Unless those that live there are willing to sit and suffer and wait for better days in place, they're almost certainly going to move somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Man that book is the biggest bunch of corporate MBA double talk I ever heard of, if I hear a whiff of it at a job, I quit that job and people say "why were you so mad about that book" right up until they're laid off. Yeah I know. Trust me, I know. It's bothersome; there are some useful bits of information in the book but the reason high level business loves all this inspirational crap is because it's easier to just hire a speaker to tell everybody it's their own fault they're stuck or can't get a raise or use the excuse of "was a Hem" to fire people and replace them with cheaper labor. That, however, is American business being wrong and not the book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The problem with this line of thinking is that while it's great to point out that people don't like having their communities devastated, it's entirely useless unless someone comes up with a plan that a) results in long-term economic revitalization of these regions, b) without them having to change their lifestyle or break away from the skills they already know too hard, c) in a way that they like and approve of. Infrastructure spending is temporary - it can fill the gap for a few years while the economy gets back on its feet, but by itself it's not a long-term solution unless you start building bridges to nowhere. Tourism is great, but obviously not everywhere can be a tourist hub. High-tech employment is doable, but it's mostly going to import experienced workers from the coast rather than hiring newly-trained entry-level miners-turned-programmers, and it's difficult to lure those businesses out to these areas in sufficient volumes because the only advantage those areas offer is cheap land. GMI or welfare expansion would work, but the people in these regions generally consider it insulting, demeaning, and undesirable. As long as no one's come up with a real solution for them, it's not particularly useful to yell at people for saying "there is no solution". 80% of this thread are just expressing their suppressed hatred for the rural poor because they dared to vote for mr Cheese Doodle. They are running the bootstraps argument, an argument they should know is off NO help, to anyone, what so ever. If you wanna be constructive, i would say analyze the problem before you try to solve it. One should probably then rethink why the rural areas are dying in these great numbers, and why the options for them are so lovely. You know, why did those three rust belt states betray the democrats who have been serving them so well? Why did Brexit happen? Why is basically every European country experiencing a huge growth of populist parties? Here is a hint, these things are connected. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Typo posted:I think one of the reasons why people are caught up with trying to restart old factories or mines and not look to new clean energy or infrastructure projects is a cultural one: I heard the same thing from the left when talking about Thatcher and the closing of British coal mines. Namely that it's about preserving a community and a way of life. There's also that, moving around, a lot of rural landowners are going to drastically lose out on property. What they own now is in, by definition, undesirable areas (no jobs), and they're moving to areas that are desirable (jobs), which means that there's no way they'll be able to afford comparable properties. Not to mention all the emotional attachment to land that your family's been on for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:There's also that, moving around, a lot of rural landowners are going to drastically lose out on property. What they own now is in, by definition, undesirable areas (no jobs), and they're moving to areas that are desirable (jobs), which means that there's no way they'll be able to afford comparable properties. Some of that is just straight up baby boomers refusing to move because their house is practically worthless now. There is so much sunk cost fallacy going on. "I can't move! My house will triple in value any day now and I don't want to lose that money."
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Some of that is just straight up baby boomers refusing to move because their house is practically worthless now. There is so much sunk cost fallacy going on. A lot of people would prefer to live in their big shabby house with a big yard than a city one bedroom apartment. Cities also have a lot of noise and you don't know all your neighbors. That's hard to get used to. Especially if you are a racist and are scared of all the minorities you will need to live near.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:A lot of people would prefer to live in their big shabby house with a big yard than a city one bedroom apartment. Cities also have a lot of noise and you don't know all your neighbors. That's hard to get used to. Especially if you are a racist and are scared of all the minorities you will need to live near. It's really unproductive to keep pretending anyone's telling rural boomers to move to Brooklyn. I'm sure we can find ways to help people cope with the hustle and bustle of suburban Des Moines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
We should probably just say "urban area" instead of "city" since the latter is apparently synonymous with deep urban core to a lot of people. You don't even have to live in it, just near enough that there are some jobs within commuting distance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
White Rock posted:What is really not useful is blaming the people stuck in a situation and tell them they should suck it up and fix it themselves. That, if anything is a complete waste of breath. What would you suggest?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It's really unproductive to keep pretending anyone's telling rural boomers to move to Brooklyn. I'm sure we can find ways to help people cope with the hustle and bustle of suburban Des Moines. Does suburban Des Moines really want them either, though? I mean, does suburban Des Moines really want to have a large portion of their population growth come from people who AT BEST don't really want to be there and at worst have little education, no skills that translate into a living wage job, bad politics, and a meth or oxycontin addiction to boot. Sounds like a great way to spread misery everywhere. Rural poverty is a hard problem to solve, and we may not ever completely solve it. The hard fact is that town X might be able to be made better by tourism, and Y might make an OK place for a nuclear plant, but Z will probably always suck until it dies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Some of that is just straight up baby boomers refusing to move because their house is practically worthless now. There is so much sunk cost fallacy going on. lol they're bitcoiners except instead of worthless code it's a shitheap in the exurbs nobody wants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
blackmet posted:Does suburban Des Moines really want them either, though? Hell, if they want to, they can live in the exurbs of Des Moines and be pretty drat rural and still commute to work at Wells Fargo or John Deere if they have any skills. There's not a ton of unskilled labor jobs in Des Moines, though. Or they could have until the developers bought up all that land during the last housing boom and covered it in $300k McMansions that are starting to fall apart now because they were built cheap by a fly-by-night who went out of business and reincorporated to dodge honoring warranties, and are lived in by people who can't afford both their mortgages and the maintenance. The cycle is, of course, repeating again with parcels of farmland south of the city being bought up for $50k an acre to build slightly more upscale versions of the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:17
|
|