How do we save coal country and rural America? Or, should we?

OK. So the conventional wisdom is that Trump won because he appealed to economically troubled areas by promising the return of coal jobs (never will happen) and manufacturing (maybe will happen, but doubtful).

Hillary also had an economic message too, but you know, it was meant for adults and consisted of more than yelling the words "Jobs". (And please, if you want to be creeped out, listen to the "jobs" section of a Trump speech. He lingers over that word like he's caressing it with his tongue. Ick.)

Anyway - what to do in those areas? How do you revitalize areas that were dependent on long gone industries? Whose very existence, in fact, was dependent on a single industry or employer?

Regional economic policy meant to energize poorer areas is not easy, particularly in a country like the U.S. that doesn't have the socialist proclivity to get closely involved in the economy. The U.S. just doesn't have the tools to do this easily. Unlike, let's say, Germany, which tried to so this with East Germany when they came together. (My understanding was that it wasn't too successful, but I'm not that knowledgeable about it. More info would be welcome.)

(And as long as we're talking economics, why is Stephen Moore on my TV lying to me about the return of 10's of thousands of jobs because Trump removed a reg that allows coal slurry to re-pollute our rivers? Why doesn't Chris Cuomo correct him? Or punch him in the neck?)

Enough of the revelry.

So what do we do? Can we do anything? Coal is not coming back, no way no how. Significant manufacturing is not coming back either. How can we revitalize those economies?

Mining is gone. Manufacturing is gone. Farming is relatively healthy, but will probably not expand enough to revitalize whole areas, assuming those areas are even suitable for farming.

How can rural America sustain itself economically?

Should we kind of tell these folks that maybe since the existence of their town was dependent on employers that are not coming back, maybe they need to move where the economy is thriving?

Do we need to kill ourselves trying to revive their old towns? Or should they do what many (most people?) do
when trying to find work when there's none available locally.

Maybe rural America needs to buck up and move to the cities.



Ain't gonna happen. It is a way of life that is not readily given up. One tidbit I heard the other day is that more coal mining is done in North Dakota than in Appalachia. Appalachia has a deep identity with its history. A few places have tried to expand their means. There are many reasons why it is complicated. I spoke to Appalachia, but this is true for a lot of rural America.


Eliminate farm subsidies.


Certain parts of America are dead or dying economically. As a matter of practical policy, I don't know what you can do beyond providing relief (e.g., welfare) and the means for people to get good educations and move. Politically, that is NOT exactly a winning approach.



tjohn said:

Certain parts of America are dead or dying economically. As a matter of practical policy, I don't know what you can do beyond providing relief (e.g., welfare) and the means for people to get good educations and move. Politically, that is NOT exactly a winning approach.

Isn't that basically the Democrat platform? I guess the "move to SF or Boston or Dallas, dummy" is implied, but there isn't a big need for programmers in rural Nebraska.


Should neglect and the suggestion that they just "move" also be the policy toward those living in inner cities that suffer from a lack of jobs, an undereducated public, crime, and other social problems?


I think this will be one of the defining problems of the 21st Century - how to keep large numbers of people occupied. I realize that since time immemorial, some people have been saying that progress will destroy jobs and that, until recently, that never really happened. But now, maybe it is happening and we need to do something about it and I don't pretend to have any particular solutions.

Norman_Bates said:

Should neglect and the suggestion that they just "move" also be the policy toward those living in inner cities that suffer from a lack of jobs, an undereducated public, crime, and other social problems?



Telling people to move to the large cities is not practical, but moving the large cities closer to people is, to some extent. Investments in commuting infrastructure can dramatically expand access to large-metro jobs. Consider, for example, how where we live, and even areas to to the west of us, are basically suburbs of NYC. What do you think Morris county or western Essex would look like without the link the the amazing economic engine across the Hudson?

There's a lot of options here. On the flashiest, and most expensive end, you have things like high speed rail. I predict a lot of rural California is going to look very different (and economically more diverse and vibrant) when their rail project is done.

Rail is a long-term and very expensive investment, though, and not appropriate for everywhere (though I think the NY metro would really benefit from sustained, deep investment in our existing rail networks). A strong bus system can give a lot of the benefits of rail for a lot less cost - though it can still be a very uphill battle (eg dedicating existing highway lanes exclusively to buses).

Apart from bring the "city" further out into the country, there are also many medium and small towns across the country that have been making conscious efforts are revitalization, some with a good amount of success. These efforts should be broadly supported. It's a very large topic to try to get into in a single post, but some good reading here is the American Futures project. There's a lot more opportunity out in this broad country than you might think.



Norman_Bates said:

Should neglect and the suggestion that they just "move" also be the policy toward those living in inner cities that suffer from a lack of jobs, an undereducated public, crime, and other social problems?

Sure! Maybe they can switch! (But I think the Dems would just prefer everyone to hole up in the cities.)



RobB said:



tjohn said:

Certain parts of America are dead or dying economically. As a matter of practical policy, I don't know what you can do beyond providing relief (e.g., welfare) and the means for people to get good educations and move. Politically, that is NOT exactly a winning approach.

Isn't that basically the Democrat platform? I guess the "move to SF or Boston or Dallas, dummy" is implied, but there isn't a big need for programmers in rural Nebraska.

No there's not, but if you can get some call centers back from India, that's a start.


Perhaps a joint program between government and industry that will train and help people relocate (if they choose) to areas with better employment opportunities.

Employment opportunity in rural areas is typically an industry based on a natural resource such as mining, oil, agriculture, paper, energy, ranching, beef/poultry, etc. Then you have the products and services that support the local population and finally the government infrastructure (schools, law enforcement, and so on).

Once the local industry dries up (e.g. coal mining) the other layers of employment disappear with it.

It's a YUGE problem that may not have a good solution.


The solution i see is in job retraining and educating our next generation of workers for a knowledge economy. Middle class, unskilled labor jobs are not going to come back - that's just not the direction our global economic progress is taking us. I'm in technology and there's a real struggle to find domestic programmers and engineers to fill good paying jobs. So many of those jobs are outsourced or done by skilled foreigners. Take any manufacturing facility and you'll see that most of the work is done by machines and computers.

Why aren't the Republicand talking about a jobs program focused on training instrumentation engineers, software engineers, database engineers, etc? What about retraining coal workers for the clean energy economy?



Norman_Bates said:

Should neglect and the suggestion that they just "move" also be the policy toward those living in inner cities that suffer from a lack of jobs, an undereducated public, crime, and other social problems?

Are you kidding me? The federal government gives money to cities to tear down whole neighborhoods. If that's not a big flashing "move" sign to people living in failing cities, I don't know what is.


well, no, because jobs are available in cities. Their problem is quite different than that of rural America.


Norman_Bates said:

Should neglect and the suggestion that they just "move" also be the policy toward those living in inner cities that suffer from a lack of jobs, an undereducated public, crime, and other social problems?



nice discussion so far, though. thanks.


I worry about the idea if retraining people for IT, etc, since I think that will be the next shock wave in our economy. We lose jobs like manufacturing because it is cheaper overseas. Soon the same will happen to IT and banking. Americans hold no special genius in this regard.


Speaking from personal experience, we do hold some special genius in banking. smile


Well, too many folks dismiss the trades. We can't find young carpenters in my business. Plumbers are short handed, electricians, you name it. These jobs can't be outsourced, and while you need to be smart to do well you don't need a degree.



drummerboy said:

well, no, because jobs are available in cities. Their problem is quite different than that of rural America.



Norman_Bates said:

Should neglect and the suggestion that they just "move" also be the policy toward those living in inner cities that suffer from a lack of jobs, an undereducated public, crime, and other social problems?


Actually, the employment data shows the employment rate between urban and rural America is relatively equivalent. In 2007, the U.S. nonmetro unemployment rate averaged 5.2 percent, compared to 4.5 percent in urban areas. As the recession took hold, metro and nonmetro unemployment rapidly increased, peaking at 9.9 and 10.3 percent respectively in the 1st quarter of 2010. Since that time, the unemployment rates for both metro and non-metro areas of the U.S. have decreased proportionately. The seasonally adjusted nonmetro unemployment rate stood at 5.4 percent in the 2nd quarter of 2016, while the metro rate fell to 4.8 percent. (4.1 in the Newark-Jersey City metro areas). There are, however, disparities hidden within the data. According to a recent Chicago Urban League communication, nearly 47 percent of the city's 20 to 24-year-old African-American males were neither in school nor employed in 2014. Although New York City seems to fare somewhat better, in 2016 Governor Cuomo felt the need to devote $50 million in funding to support the Urban Youth Jobs Program which connects minority and at-risk youth with employment opportunities in communities across the state (apparently, suggesting they move to where there are jobs!). In rural American, the largest single group that is unemployed are older workers, nearing retirement...hardly likely to uproot and move to the city. Either $50 million devoted to upstate New York wasn't needed or wasn't politically popular.


dude, that you think an industry based on skimming off the top is genius is one of our major problems.

ctrzaska said:

Speaking from personal experience, we do hold some special genius in banking. smile



I agree. I think we've really misplaced our focus on college at the expense of trade schools. Starting in school, both career tracks should be treated as equal, but that hasn't been the case for decades, if it ever was.

But at least when I was in high school there was a pretty vibrant vocational department. When my son went to WO high school just a few years ago, vocational training was a joke.


FilmCarp said:

Well, too many folks dismiss the trades. We can't find young carpenters in my business. Plumbers are short handed, electricians, you name it. These jobs can't be outsourced, and while you need to be smart to do well you don't need a degree.



thanks for the information.

I would respond by saying that if employment rates are similar, I'd bet that income is not, so the jobs in rural country are not very good. Or if both the unemployment rate and income levels are ok, then why are we talking about this. cheese

Yes, I agree that older people shouldn't be expected to uproot themselves, and they should be assisted somehow if they are suffering from economic displacement.

In general, all I'm saying is that economic opportunity is far greater in metro areas than in rural areas.

Would you agree with that?

eta: also, I just looked at the web page for the Urban Youth Jobs Program, and I read it a bit differently. It doesn't seem to try to get people to move, it's just targeting the youth in certain cities across the state. Though the last sentence about the additional 50 million is less clear as to how it's being used. I'm sure the details are around somewhere.


The Urban Youth Jobs/New York Youth Jobs Program encourages businesses to hire unemployed, disadvantaged youth ages 16-24 who live in New York State. Originally designed to serve youth in the cities of Albany, Buffalo, New York, Rochester, Schenectady, Syracuse, Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, Utica, White Plains, Yonkers, Brookhaven and Hempstead, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and the legislature re-authorized the program in 2014.

Due to the success of the program in the initial target cities and towns, Governor Cuomo proposed an additional $50 million in funding to businesses hiring youth across the state as part of his 2016 Executive Budget.

For the initial target cities, $30 million is available annually through 2017 and $20 million has been allocated for youth that reside outside one of the designated target areas.



https://www.ny.gov/programs/urban-youth-jobsnew-york-youth-jobs-program

Norman_Bates said:



drummerboy said:

well, no, because jobs are available in cities. Their problem is quite different than that of rural America.



Norman_Bates said:

Should neglect and the suggestion that they just "move" also be the policy toward those living in inner cities that suffer from a lack of jobs, an undereducated public, crime, and other social problems?


Actually, the employment data shows the employment rate between urban and rural America is relatively equivalent. In 2007, the U.S. nonmetro unemployment rate averaged 5.2 percent, compared to 4.5 percent in urban areas. As the recession took hold, metro and nonmetro unemployment rapidly increased, peaking at 9.9 and 10.3 percent respectively in the 1st quarter of 2010. Since that time, the unemployment rates for both metro and non-metro areas of the U.S. have decreased proportionately. The seasonally adjusted nonmetro unemployment rate stood at 5.4 percent in the 2nd quarter of 2016, while the metro rate fell to 4.8 percent. (4.1 in the Newark-Jersey City metro areas). There are, however, disparities hidden within the data. According to a recent Chicago Urban League communication, nearly 47 percent of the city's 20 to 24-year-old African-American males were neither in school nor employed in 2014. Although New York City seems to fare somewhat better, in 2016 Governor Cuomo felt the need to devote $50 million in funding to support the Urban Youth Jobs Program which connects minority and at-risk youth with employment opportunities in communities across the state (apparently, suggesting they move to where there are jobs!). In rural American, the largest single group that is unemployed are older workers, nearing retirement...hardly likely to uproot and move to the city. Either $50 million devoted to upstate New York wasn't needed or wasn't politically popular.



Big problems, no obvious answers. But I'm scratching my head about the ides that it is somehow illiberal, heartless etc. to suggest to people that moving might to improve their life prospects. Some existing progressive agenda items are based on that notion, aren't they? Isn't that what affordable housing laws and initiatives are about? To allow poor people to move to safer and more economically and educationally advantaged places?


Jobs in trades like electricians, plumbing and carpentery are skilled. They require vocational training or apprenticeship. In our area they earn a good living. But without vocational training in school or access to an apprenticeship urban and rural youth are shut out of those opportunities.

A concerted effort by local governments and communities with high unemployment to develop quality vocational programs could help provide new job opportunities. This applies to skilled jobs in the energy sector too.

There are viable solutions out there. It just takes the will to push these programs through.



I agree, but what seems to happen is that if someone suggests targeted vocational training for a certain population, it's criticized for treating that population as not talented/smart enough to go to college. I disagree with this criticism, but it exists.

And this is not helped by Obama proclaiming that everyone needs to go to college and not mentioning skilled trades. I was very disappointed when he said that.

The sad fact is that we devalue the trades as being lesser, somehow, than some college-based career.

Hahaha said:

Jobs in trades like electricians, plumbing and carpentery are skilled. They require vocational training or apprenticeship. In our area they earn a good living. But without vocational training in school or access to an apprenticeship urban and rural youth are shut out of those opportunities.

A concerted effort by local governments and communities with high unemployment to develop quality vocational programs could help provide new job opportunities. This applies to skilled jobs in the energy sector too.

There are viable solutions out there. It just takes the will to push these programs through.



THIS

Hahaha said:

The solution i see is in job retraining and educating our next generation of workers for a knowledge economy. Middle class, unskilled labor jobs are not going to come back - that's just not the direction our global economic progress is taking us. I'm in technology and there's a real struggle to find domestic programmers and engineers to fill good paying jobs. So many of those jobs are outsourced or done by skilled foreigners. Take any manufacturing facility and you'll see that most of the work is done by machines and computers.

Why aren't the Republicand talking about a jobs program focused on training instrumentation engineers, software engineers, database engineers, etc? What about retraining coal workers for the clean energy economy?

We've all had to learn new skills simply because the job requires it. I interview people daily and the lack of computer skills in certain areas of our nation is troubling. And the amount of people who don't have access to home computers and internet is also troubling.

If coal ain't coming back, then the solar industry should be tapping into this downmarket to train, install and transition into clean energy.


Funny thing is that apparently, there are a lot of manufacturing jobs left unfilled because companies can't find skilled workers. Back in the Dark Ages when wages were higher and unions were stronger, companies and unions had training and apprenticeship programs.


+1 tjohn, companies now seem to expect the schools, or magic?, to train their entry-level workers.

Granted, some manufacturing (maybe a lot?) now requires the ability to program/operate pretty advanced equipment. You can't just tell a guy "Stand here, and when one comes by turn this bolt to the left."

At the least, the companies could run cooperative programs with schools....


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.