How do we save coal country and rural America? Or, should we?
shoshannah said:
I have been saying this for a long time: We are in a post-jobs era. In our lifetimes, economy will not see the growth-rate that it did in the post-WWII era. THAT was the anomaly, not now.
For sure. The world had just destroyed a large portion of its industrial base - rebuilding that was almost inevitably going to mean large percentage increases in economic growth. And given that the US was spared the physical devastation of the war, leaving us with little competition to supply worldwide demand for goods, of course our manufacturing sector was unusually strong.
Funny how people seem to so often shrug off "war" part when talking about the postwar era.
drummerboy said:
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.
Your ignorance of fee structures is staggering. Do you have a preferred way banks should bill for their services? Do tell.
I think that is a reasonable alternative read of the Urban Youth Program (can't imagine Cuomo actually thought recipients living in the Bronx would move to Utica for jobs but then why even try to match them with such listings?) and agree there are disparities between rural and urban areas with respect to income levels (albeit offset by cost of living differentials) and economic opportunities. Of course, not everyone in the urban areas are benefiting from those opportunities any more than all those residing in rural areas are lamenting the decline of the coal industry. For example, wonder what percentage of people living in Vinegar Hill or Brownsville were admitted to an Ivy and have a job working in investment banking, one of the more financially lucrative career areas? I happen to hail from a rural area in upstate New York that is economically depressed, still know many of those people, and understand that they are concerned for the future of their children and grandchildren. They had an opportunity to advocate for fracking and even though that might have alleviated some of the financial strain, most whom I know were pleased New York State didn't pass legislation allowing it because they are environmentally conscious. I responded to the thread because I happen to believe that, as a nation, we have a moral obligation to help people from both disadvantaged rural and urban areas do as well as possible in life by creating career, educational, and other opportunities. Socio-political-economic euthanasia of either group - which seemed to be the theme of the thread with respect to rural folk - simply is unacceptable to me. I hope you feel that way, as well.
drummerboy said:
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.
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.
no I don't. I think, in fact that they should all quit because their daily activities are USELESS and do nothing to add to the wealth of this country.
just saying.
again, you don't get it, but I'm not surprised that you will not criticize your bread and butter.
ctrzaska said:
drummerboy said:
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.
Your ignorance of fee structures is staggering. Do you have a preferred way banks should bill for their services? Do tell.
yes, on the whole I think we as a society owe a debt to those folks who are living in economically deserted areas. I don't think they should be left out to dry.
But it's a hard thing to do. You can't just wave a magic wand at a region and bring prosperity. And as I said, the U.S., more than most, is ill-equipped for even the most modest of stimulative efforts. It's just not in our culture anymore. Economic conservativism prevails.
Norman_Bates said:
I think that is a reasonable alternative read of the Urban Youth Program (can't imagine Cuomo actually thought recipients living in the Bronx would move to Utica for jobs but then why even try to match them with such listings?) and agree there are disparities between rural and urban areas with respect to income levels (albeit offset by cost of living differentials) and economic opportunities. Of course, not everyone in the urban areas are benefiting from those opportunities any more than all those residing in rural areas are lamenting the decline of the coal industry. For example, wonder what percentage of people living in Vinegar Hill or Brownsville were admitted to an Ivy and have a job working in investment banking, one of the more financially lucrative career areas? I happen to hail from a rural area in upstate New York that is economically depressed, still know many of those people, and understand that they are concerned for the future of their children and grandchildren. They had an opportunity to advocate for fracking and even though that might have alleviated some of the financial strain, most whom I know were pleased New York State didn't pass legislation allowing it because they are environmentally conscious. I responded to the thread because I happen to believe that, as a nation, we have a moral obligation to help people from both disadvantaged rural and urban areas do as well as possible in life by creating career, educational, and other opportunities. Socio-political-economic euthanasia of either group - which seemed to be the theme of the thread with respect to rural folk - simply is unacceptable to me. I hope you feel that way, as well.
drummerboy said:
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.
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.
not for nothing, and slight shift in subject, but geez, what kind of country are we that in the 21st century, a coal mining job is seen as attractive. It's got to be the worst career I can think of.
What color is the sky in your world?
drummerboy said:
yes, on the whole I think we as a society owe a debt to those folks who are living in economically deserted areas. I don't think they should be left out to dry.
But it's a hard thing to do. You can't just wave a magic wand at a region and bring prosperity. And as I said, the U.S., more than most, is ill-equipped for even the most modest of stimulative efforts. It's just not in our culture anymore. Economic conservativism prevails.
Norman_Bates said:
I think that is a reasonable alternative read of the Urban Youth Program (can't imagine Cuomo actually thought recipients living in the Bronx would move to Utica for jobs but then why even try to match them with such listings?) and agree there are disparities between rural and urban areas with respect to income levels (albeit offset by cost of living differentials) and economic opportunities. Of course, not everyone in the urban areas are benefiting from those opportunities any more than all those residing in rural areas are lamenting the decline of the coal industry. For example, wonder what percentage of people living in Vinegar Hill or Brownsville were admitted to an Ivy and have a job working in investment banking, one of the more financially lucrative career areas? I happen to hail from a rural area in upstate New York that is economically depressed, still know many of those people, and understand that they are concerned for the future of their children and grandchildren. They had an opportunity to advocate for fracking and even though that might have alleviated some of the financial strain, most whom I know were pleased New York State didn't pass legislation allowing it because they are environmentally conscious. I responded to the thread because I happen to believe that, as a nation, we have a moral obligation to help people from both disadvantaged rural and urban areas do as well as possible in life by creating career, educational, and other opportunities. Socio-political-economic euthanasia of either group - which seemed to be the theme of the thread with respect to rural folk - simply is unacceptable to me. I hope you feel that way, as well.
drummerboy said:
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.
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.
do you have some issue with my simple truths?
terp said:
What color is the sky in your world?
drummerboy said:
yes, on the whole I think we as a society owe a debt to those folks who are living in economically deserted areas. I don't think they should be left out to dry.
But it's a hard thing to do. You can't just wave a magic wand at a region and bring prosperity. And as I said, the U.S., more than most, is ill-equipped for even the most modest of stimulative efforts. It's just not in our culture anymore. Economic conservativism prevails.
Norman_Bates said:
I think that is a reasonable alternative read of the Urban Youth Program (can't imagine Cuomo actually thought recipients living in the Bronx would move to Utica for jobs but then why even try to match them with such listings?) and agree there are disparities between rural and urban areas with respect to income levels (albeit offset by cost of living differentials) and economic opportunities. Of course, not everyone in the urban areas are benefiting from those opportunities any more than all those residing in rural areas are lamenting the decline of the coal industry. For example, wonder what percentage of people living in Vinegar Hill or Brownsville were admitted to an Ivy and have a job working in investment banking, one of the more financially lucrative career areas? I happen to hail from a rural area in upstate New York that is economically depressed, still know many of those people, and understand that they are concerned for the future of their children and grandchildren. They had an opportunity to advocate for fracking and even though that might have alleviated some of the financial strain, most whom I know were pleased New York State didn't pass legislation allowing it because they are environmentally conscious. I responded to the thread because I happen to believe that, as a nation, we have a moral obligation to help people from both disadvantaged rural and urban areas do as well as possible in life by creating career, educational, and other opportunities. Socio-political-economic euthanasia of either group - which seemed to be the theme of the thread with respect to rural folk - simply is unacceptable to me. I hope you feel that way, as well.
drummerboy said:
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.
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.
Norman_Bates said:
They had an opportunity to advocate for fracking and even though that might have alleviated some of the financial strain, most whom I know were pleased New York State didn't pass legislation allowing it because they are environmentally conscious. I responded to the thread because I happen to believe that, as a nation, we have a moral obligation to help people from both disadvantaged rural and urban areas do as well as possible in life by creating career, educational, and other opportunities. Socio-political-economic euthanasia of either group - which seemed to be the theme of the thread with respect to rural folk - simply is unacceptable to me. I hope you feel that way, as well.
Agree, but it leaves the question of what to do. Government funding can certainly help open up educational opportunities, but creating jobs is not something the government can do very well.
well, there's an area the govt. can be very helpful in creating jobs - infrastructure spending. And we certainly have lots of opportunities to spend there.
granted, you can argue whether rebuilding depressed areas makes any sense in the first place, but certainly, if you're not going to give up on a area completely, what's wrong with pouring a few million dollars into rebuilding roads and bridges govt buiildings and schools and gas/water/electrical grids? It might be enough to jump start things. I will grant the odds are low, but it's not like it's wasted money, as it puts money into the hands of people who will then recirculate it.
I know in this environment this is just crazy talk. And forget about any Trump initiated and R approved infrastructure plan. It will be so privatized that it will be useless as economic stimulus, but boy will a handful of people get rich.
tjohn said:
Norman_Bates said:
They had an opportunity to advocate for fracking and even though that might have alleviated some of the financial strain, most whom I know were pleased New York State didn't pass legislation allowing it because they are environmentally conscious. I responded to the thread because I happen to believe that, as a nation, we have a moral obligation to help people from both disadvantaged rural and urban areas do as well as possible in life by creating career, educational, and other opportunities. Socio-political-economic euthanasia of either group - which seemed to be the theme of the thread with respect to rural folk - simply is unacceptable to me. I hope you feel that way, as well.
Agree, but it leaves the question of what to do. Government funding can certainly help open up educational opportunities, but creating jobs is not something the government can do very well.
Interesting article about the possible closure of 2 coal fired power plants in southern Ohio and the affect on Manchester, Ohio. Found one quote interesting. One man said if the plants closed the next closest town with work is an hour away.
ctrzaska said:
Your ignorance of fee structures is staggering. Do you have a preferred way banks should bill for their services? Do tell.
A year or two ago, you and I had a dialogue here, and I may not remember it well, so forgive me. I said that the fraction of banks' revenues that were from business loans has fallen sharply over decades, which explains why there are so many bank fees. I think you said you hadn't heard about that trend and were going to research it. I never heard back from you.
Providing business loans is the most valuable fertilizer a bank can add to the economy. In my view, it is why we let banks exist in the first place. Once banks stop doing it, they start looking like the evil entities that they are portrayed as. I say make more loans now and stop charging me for using my bank account and also for not using my account, which is what my bank currently does.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Rentals
Advertisement
I have been saying this for a long time: We are in a post-jobs era. In our lifetimes, economy will not see the growth-rate that it did in the post-WWII era. THAT was the anomaly, not now. Here is my no-holds-barred prescription for improving the quality of life for everyone in the country—and for encouraging innovation, creativity, and ongoing liberal democracy.
1. Medicare for all. 'Nuff said.
2. Universal Basic Income (UBI): I created a thread on this about a year ago. Cradle to grave. To supplant every other social program (except Medicare for all). Get rid of social security, SNAP, WIC, federal student loans, and unemployment insurance. A flat payment from the federal government from cradle to grave will cover all of it. It will save a boat-load of cash. Many experts say it would free people up to pursue innovation. You can save it, you can spend it, you can do anything legal with it. Even if a percentage of people choose not to work and just live of their UBI, I don't care.
3. Parental leave: 6 months of leave after a new baby. Employers are mandated to give the leave but not mandated to pay employee's salary because everyone has UBI.
4. Universal public pre-K.
5. Vocational education: Available as a robust and valued option in every county.
6. National service, mandatory for every American. Minimum 18 months, to be initiated within four months of high school graduation or before the 21st birthday if not a HS grad. It can be military, but mostly it would not be. This would serve so many purposes. First, the service members would provide service to the country, like rebuilding infrastructure or providing childcare for low-income workers. Second, and even more importantly, everyone would be forced to get out of their bubbles. City folk, country folk, evangelicals, Jews, atheists, Muslims, black, white, Asian, immigrant, native-born, private boarding school, failing pubic school, ultra-rich, ultra-poor—everyone would mix, work together, rely on each other, and learn what this country is all about. It could even involve travel to various areas of the country.