|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That would be a bad idea. This was supposed to be a lame joke, but now I'm curious. Why is this so bad? If it was at all possible to merge states (North and South Dakota become one big Dakota for example), would that do anything to alleviate poverty?
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
All government data - which, mind you, is some of the best data out there for most broad statistics - is something you should bet getting while you can, if you need it. Doing my dissertation is going to be made possible by Canadians and hackers at this rate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:This was supposed to be a lame joke, but now I'm curious. Why is this so bad? Yes and no to a degree. I don't have time for a big effort post on this today, but I'll try to come back to it because there is some merit to the idea of getting rid of some states.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:If it was at all possible to merge states (North and South Dakota become one big Dakota for example), would that do anything to alleviate poverty? I don't understand why North and South Dakota are separate states (pop about 1.5 million together) but California is one state (pop 38 million.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:This was supposed to be a lame joke, but now I'm curious. Why is this so bad? If you merged New Jersey and Louisiana, that would certainly lower the poverty rate in the Newsiana.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Overall, there is little correlation, and what correlation does exist is downwards. There are some clusters that make sense: Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
pookel posted:I'm not sure how useful this chart is if the numbers are from the last few years, because the economy up here (I live in North Dakota) was changed so dramatically by the recent oil boom. Assuming the boom doesn't come back, I imagine the numbers will be pretty different in a few years. North Dakota's economy has been an anomaly the last few years, as has been the economies of the other states in the region. But this is not a new development, as extractive industries have always been a part of those states' development. But even if we discard North Dakota as a datapoint, we still have 50 datapoints that tell a similar story. States East of the Mississippi river usually have a high rural population, but very little FAR population. States West of the Mississippi usually have a lower rural population, but what rural population they do have is likely to be FAR.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
pookel posted:I'm not sure how useful this chart is if the numbers are from the last few years, because the economy up here (I live in North Dakota) was changed so dramatically by the recent oil boom. Assuming the boom doesn't come back, I imagine the numbers will be pretty different in a few years. The boom will come back. The same thing happened in the 80s in Williston, where they built a ton of roads and housing only to have poo poo go sour. Once the price of oil rises or Trump gives some insane incentive to drillers I'm sure the sleazeballs from elsewhere will show back up to make a quick buck and pollute the state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't understand why North and South Dakota are separate states (pop about 1.5 million together) but California is one state (pop 38 million.) It's because of Senate votes. Admitting new states to the US was a hugely partisan affair, because it meant adding new votes to the Senate. New state admissions depended a lot on the partisan makeup of Congress and the expected voting patterns, as well as (pre-1861) the power balance between free states and slave states. The modern state of California was created during the Compromise of 1850. The territory taken from Mexico in the Mexican-American War had been a question of intense debate between slave states (who wanted new slave states added and wanted to extend slavery to the Pacific coast) and the free states (who opposed all of those things). After considerable wheeling and dealing, the Mexican province of Alta California was chopped up into the State of California and the Territories of Utah and New Mexico (both of which would later be divided into multiple states as well). Most of that territory was largely uninhabited by Americans anyway, so practical considerations largely took a backseat to painting the map with "free" and "slave" colors, hashing out the number of senators each side would get, and kicking as many cans as possible down the road until later. As for the Dakotas, that's far simpler. In 1889, there was a push to admit a bunch of the remaining territories to statehood, but Republicans had majorities in Congress, so Dems agreed to let the Republican-leaning Dakota territory be split into two states (and therefore four Senate votes) in exchange for the Republicans agreeing to admit some Dem-leaning states like Montana. These divisions of states don't necessarily make sense nowadays, but any change to the number of states also means changing the composition of Congress, so it's not happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:These divisions of states don't necessarily make sense nowadays, but any change to the number of states also means changing the composition of Congress, so it's not happening. If it doesn't make sense now, I wonder how it'll look if in the future California is 100 million people and the Dakotas are 2 million people. In the UK, we call these "rotten boroughs."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:If it doesn't make sense now, I wonder how it'll look if in the future California is 100 million people and the Dakotas are 2 million people. In the UK, we call these "rotten boroughs." California currently has almost 40 million people, while Wyoming (which is slightly larger than the entire UK) has a population of a bit under 600k people. That's why there's so much confusion about the definition of "rural" - some people use it to refer to the dying industrial areas in the Midwest, while others use it to refer to massive empty states like those.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Here is my latest quote where I just can't figure out what people are talking about, from an article about why Ohio still supports Trump: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/ohio-trump-voters-unfazed-flynn-resignation-white-house-drama-remain-n720401 quote:"We've never had the chance to say anything or do anything," he added. Like, am I missing something? He talks about Ohio like it is some distant, ignored hinterland, instead of the one state that Presidential candidates spend four months camping out in, fellating the voters on all their pet issues. The town that the article focuses on, Circleville, is a town of 13,000 people, 30 miles from Columbus, Ohio. According to the census, its county, Pickaway, has a median household income of 57,000 dollars (slightly above the US Average) and a median personal income of 25,000 dollars (slightly below the US average). Its poverty rate is 12.4%, again, slightly below the US average. On paper, this looks like a middle class outer-ring suburb of a large American city in a politically important state. And yet the people feel rejected and neglected? Like, I am not saying that there aren't greivances and problems, but what I don't get is this attitude that they are being totally neglected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Here is my latest quote where I just can't figure out what people are talking about, from an article about why Ohio still supports Trump: It's such a dumb narrative. We (both parties) spend virtually the entire campaign cycle talking to white people in the midwest about midwest problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Like, I am not saying that there aren't greivances and problems, but what I don't get is this attitude that they are being totally neglected. This is a common theme with suburban and nominally rural middle/upper middle class white Republican communities. They pine for the days of the '50s and early '60s when only their issues mattered and only they got paid attention to. The idea that Ohio could no longer be the American bellwether and other areas could be more important demographically is completely unacceptable to them. Basically, people who used to be the only ones who mattered create resentment narratives about abandonment when they matter 70% of the time instead of 100%.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
How many godawful pieces have been written about what people [mid-sized post-industrial town] think about [issue]? And it almost always comes back to them saying something thats wantonly untrue or not based in reality. There is, however, a good piece by Sarah Kliff on interviews with ACA Receiving Trump voters in Rural Appalachia: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Here is my latest quote where I just can't figure out what people are talking about, from an article about why Ohio still supports Trump: quote:racial makeup of the city was 95.4% White, 1.9% African American, 0.2% Native American, 0.4% Asian, 0.4% from other races, and 1.7% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 1.1% of the population.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Ohio is very very racist. I'm trying to think of a single positive thing I associate with "Ohio" when I hear the word, and... nothing spring to mind. I think of economic decline, stagnation, dirty industry, flat rear end boring land (say what you will about the free men on the land-types in Montana and Wyoming, at least it's very pretty there), virulent racism, complete ignorance, and a Neil Young song about students getting shot. That's about it. I know John Glenn was from there. I assume his desire to go into space was borne of an attempt to get as far away from Ohio as physically possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm trying to think of a single positive thing I associate with "Ohio" when I hear the word, and... nothing spring to mind. I think of economic decline, stagnation, dirty industry, flat rear end boring land, virulent racism, complete ignorance, and a Neil Young song about students getting shot. That's about it. There are parts of the state that are very pretty. I think it's a mistake to assume that places like Ohio or Wisconsin are predestined to be awful. It's just that overcoming biases and structural inequality is incredibly difficult.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Here is my latest quote where I just can't figure out what people are talking about, from an article about why Ohio still supports Trump: That's always the way, isn't it? Someone's getting quite a bit more than average, but they're absolutely convinced they're getting the least of anyone. I don't want this to be taken in a "lol bulldoze the rurals" way, because I am a defender of these communities and of Americans' right to be different, even if it's inconvenient, even if they're jerks, but we have to divorce the attainable goal of making people secure from the impossible one of making them happy. There are multiple different solutions to our decaying small towns, and we should probably use all of them - help people move away, help people stay, invest in infrastructure, invest in jobs. We have to do all these things because it's the right thing to do and because it makes our nation better, but we also have to accept that they will not thank us for it. "I moved to a bigger town and now there's a negro on my block. The new factory's got strangers working in it. My new job sucks. That new highway they're building bothers my cattle. That new doctor told me to lay off the soda. I'm not a millionaire yet. None of these agencies and politicians and aid workers are paying enough attention to me. Rar rar rar ragh". A lot of people will come around if we work hard on community engagement, consulting people and involving them in the process of improving their lives. But we'll never reach everybody, and some of the things people want will always be irrational and anti-social, like "bring the coal mine back" or "I don't ever want to see a Mexican." We have to set tangible goals and not judge success by how happy people say they are, because old crabby people bitch about poo poo as a full-time job and that's always been their way and it's never going to change. Caretaking is a thankless task, that's why we make women and immigrants do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Here is my latest quote where I just can't figure out what people are talking about, from an article about why Ohio still supports Trump: This has been discussed at length. Trump voters are most likely to be middle class people surrounded by poverty, especially poverty that's gotten worse in the past 30 years. Someone from a solid middle class Ohio suburb surrounded by the post-industrial Ohioan hellscape is like the literal definition of a Trump voter. They're people that perceive a high level of precarity in their financial position even if they're not currently experiencing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:California currently has almost 40 million people, while Wyoming (which is slightly larger than the entire UK) has a population of a bit under 600k people. And yet they both get two senators. That's a senator for 300k people, which is one small city in California.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't understand why North and South Dakota are separate states (pop about 1.5 million together) but California is one state (pop 38 million.) As someone born and raised in the great state of South Dakota, I would rather die than be lumped in with those godforsaken oil-fume-addled northmen. Dammit, we have Mount Rushmore and Deadwood and the Corn Palace and I'm not going to share.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:And yet they both get two senators. That's a senator for 300k people, which is one small city in California. The Senate has always been a non-population based system. However our House of Representatives is getting worse year by year. Initially, each Representative answered to 50,000 citizens. It's up to 700,000 now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
npd2004 posted:The Senate has always been a non-population based system. However our House of Representatives is getting worse year by year. Initially, each Representative answered to 50,000 citizens. It's up to 700,000 now. As long as it isn't one Representative answering to 700 people and the next 700,000 that seems OK. I don't know how much they could get done if they had to hire a football stadium to meet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:As long as it isn't one Representative answering to 700 people and the next 700,000 that seems OK. I don't know how much they could get done if they had to hire a football stadium to meet. The current House can comfortably seat over a thousand representatives and that's by design. A larger Congress would be different but not necessarily worse. Representatives wouldn't be spread so thin, and congressional districts could be smaller and make it easier to elect representatives that align politically with their constituents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The current House can comfortably seat over a thousand representatives and that's by design. A larger Congress would be different but not necessarily worse. Representatives wouldn't be spread so thin, and congressional districts could be smaller and make it easier to elect representatives that align politically with their constituents. otoh isn't india's version of the house so packed with delegates nothing ever passes
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The current House can comfortably seat over a thousand representatives and that's by design. The Real manspreading!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Typo posted:otoh isn't india's version of the house so packed with delegates nothing ever passes India's population is a bit bigger than ours. steinrokkan posted:The Real manspreading! Let's be fair, it's 19.5% womanspreading 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Another useful tool: http://www.povertyusa.org/the-state-of-poverty/poverty-map-county/ I don't like the color scheme, the map goes slowly on my computer, but it is the best resource to look at poverty on a national level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Here is my latest quote where I just can't figure out what people are talking about, from an article about why Ohio still supports Trump: Pretty much everyone feels that way, I think. It's an easy trap to fall into - since no one gets everything they want, everything they don't get is just evidence that they're being neglected by the distant government, no doubt being exploited by those dastardly politicians who are entirely in the pocket of insert boogeyman here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Pretty much everyone feels that way, I think. It's an easy trap to fall into - since no one gets everything they want, everything they don't get is just evidence that they're being neglected by the distant government, no doubt being exploited by those dastardly politicians who are entirely in the pocket of insert boogeyman here. Everybody feels this way because, currently, it's true. Wages have been stagnating for decades. Americans with jobs are working more for less while our infrastructure crumbles. The rich are doing better than ever and productivity has gone up every year in the past 200 with the exception of like...three. The middle class is contracting and all the ways out of poverty and into it are vanishing. It isn't a trap it's the truth. The 99% are getting totally dicked over and are realizing it. What the Republican party did was told their favorite demographics that it isn't the rich is those people that are different than you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Typo posted:otoh isn't india's version of the house so packed with delegates nothing ever passes 245 in the Rajya Sabha for 100 senators. For having a billion+ people the size of it doesn't seem out of control. You may also be thinking of India's judicial system which is notably glacial and incredibly opaque.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
How do you guys feel about the fact that because of climate change and overpopulation we really really need to spin down any areas operating below a certain threshold of density and energy efficiency regardless of sentiment? Like these quasi-rural exurbs of nowhere are the most egregious, but a even a lot of denser suburban areas kinda remain to be seen what happens with a renewable grid and autonomous electric cars in terms of being able to maintain them vs. having a planet to live on. edit: like honestly the poorer and shittier these areas are the smaller the incentives will need to be to get people to leave. Every penny spent on transportation costs that aren't a pipeline, 100,000 ton ship, or efficient train is being spent on the end of the world. shovelbum fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:How do you guys feel about the fact that because of climate change and overpopulation we really really need to spin down any areas operating below a certain threshold of density and energy efficiency regardless of sentiment? Like these quasi-rural exurbs of nowhere are the most egregious, but a even a lot of denser suburban areas kinda remain to be seen what happens with a renewable grid and autonomous electric cars in terms of being able to maintain them vs. having a planet to live on. Right but there's some sort of rugged, savagely noble charm to these outlanders. While their habitat is outright unsustainable at their currently desired standard of living, I think the argument for not drawing them into higher density areas is basically how quaint the life is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Right but there's some sort of rugged, savagely noble charm to these outlanders. While their habitat is outright unsustainable at their currently desired standard of living, I think the argument for not drawing them into higher density areas is basically how quaint the life is. That's not really an argument when we're looking at oxygen generation in the biosphere falling below consumption inside our lifetimes due to plankton die-offs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Right but there's some sort of rugged, savagely noble charm to these outlanders. While their habitat is outright unsustainable at their currently desired standard of living, I think the argument for not drawing them into higher density areas is basically how quaint the life is. Diversity of lifestyle and culture is important in a country. Rural people add a lot to the country, not just because they are "quaint". It's hard to like the xenophobia, but that doesn't mean they should be dispatched to a re-education Starbucks to learn how to live in a Civilized fashion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:How do you guys feel about the fact that because of climate change and overpopulation we really really need to spin down any areas operating below a certain threshold of density and energy efficiency regardless of sentiment? Like these quasi-rural exurbs of nowhere are the most egregious, but a even a lot of denser suburban areas kinda remain to be seen what happens with a renewable grid and autonomous electric cars in terms of being able to maintain them vs. having a planet to live on. Is this like the bizarro opposite version of the dark green movement?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is this like the bizarro opposite version of the dark green movement? Start from 1) A sense of urgency about climate change 2) The idea that standard of living must be maintained bc. in a dark green world we'd all be cavemen but the rich would live in utopia because of course they would and despite its many ills industrial society does offer the promise of excellent medicine, sanitation, etc. for the most people. It scales well, you know?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Right but there's some sort of rugged, savagely noble charm to these outlanders. While their habitat is outright unsustainable at their currently desired standard of living, I think the argument for not drawing them into higher density areas is basically how quaint the life is. You city dwelling assholes are killing the planet by refusing to plug into the matrix.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You city dwelling assholes are killing the planet by refusing to plug into the matrix. There is a point of diminishing returns where increased density isn't really necessary for environmental reasons. If people want to live excessively close together they should feel free to but we shouldn't incentivize that either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:38
|
|