After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2017/10/06/her-disability-check-was-gone-and-now-the-only-option-left-was-also-one-of-the-worst/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_economydisabled-702am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
344 comments
I don't know about anyone else here, but I'd like to hear your story.
I cant help you in any way, much to my own discredit, but if you want someone to speak to, or if you ever feel like sharing publicly, I'd be interested.
Side note, where are you moving to?
I cant help you in any way, much to my own discredit, but if you want someone to speak to, or if you ever feel like sharing publicly, I'd be interested.
Side note, where are you moving to?
I don't even see most of my posts so I think something is still filtered or else I am being downvoted so they don't show? A mod said the new account spam thing was released Don't understand HN well as I have always lurked and never participated.
I have told my story in forums many times and it never got me anywhere but more exposed and depressed so I don't feel comfortable giving too many details...though I sort of laid out the basics in another post. My situation is common but the details are unique so I'd not be hard to ID and feel more vulnerable.
No need to apologize for not being able to solve it...the fact you would if you could speaks to your character. My anecdotal evidence is the majority just don't care until it is them.
I have told my story in forums many times and it never got me anywhere but more exposed and depressed so I don't feel comfortable giving too many details...though I sort of laid out the basics in another post. My situation is common but the details are unique so I'd not be hard to ID and feel more vulnerable.
No need to apologize for not being able to solve it...the fact you would if you could speaks to your character. My anecdotal evidence is the majority just don't care until it is them.
I understand not wanting to give details nor wishing to rehash painful memories. All I can hope for is the best of luck for you, andy sincerest hope that things change.
I don't give this advice often since for most people it's the "moving abroad" part that's the deal breaker, but since you mentioned you're doing it already, I'll throw out teaching english as a foreign language. Depending on the country/school you might need a small certificate from a month-long-type training course, or training from the school itself, but for the most part you just need to be able to speak English and have a heartbeat.
When I did it I met other teachers from every conceivable walk of life, some with a situation that sounds similar enough to yours. It's the most realistic way that someone down on their luck can "start fresh" in this day and age (IMO). Good luck.
When I did it I met other teachers from every conceivable walk of life, some with a situation that sounds similar enough to yours. It's the most realistic way that someone down on their luck can "start fresh" in this day and age (IMO). Good luck.
I've done it part time in the past when I attempted this sort of desperation move that failed. It wasn't sustainable and took too much out of me being "switched on and sociable" like that. On top of that the barrier to entry even if I could manage is higher than people think...I dont have a bachelors degree and am old. Schools want young, degreed and flexible. If all you have is being a naive speaker you get private under the table lessons for cash that constantly cancel and every other broke expat is undercutting you for.
If I am ever going to earn it has to be remote and flexible but I just dont have the skills or stability etc to learn them so far. I've tried "DIY learn to code various things" sort of ideas before but something always interrupts it and I suck at it frankly. Then I read how old and inflexible people cannot get hired for anything and I get even more down. I have not heard a new idea that seemed workable in so long I cannot remember.
If I am ever going to earn it has to be remote and flexible but I just dont have the skills or stability etc to learn them so far. I've tried "DIY learn to code various things" sort of ideas before but something always interrupts it and I suck at it frankly. Then I read how old and inflexible people cannot get hired for anything and I get even more down. I have not heard a new idea that seemed workable in so long I cannot remember.
If you go international to someplace cheaper and with any kind of tech scene you may be able to find at least a bit of work assisting software developers with English for apps & sites. There may be a bunch of people able to do that, but "local and able to meet" may have a quality all its own (along with "willing to be paid local rates in local currency").
You say you don't have skills, but at the least you write and presumably speak good grammatically correct English. You might also have at least a little bit of still relevant domain knowledge from your previous career - it may not get you in the door in that industry, but it may open doors in related ones.
You say you don't have skills, but at the least you write and presumably speak good grammatically correct English. You might also have at least a little bit of still relevant domain knowledge from your previous career - it may not get you in the door in that industry, but it may open doors in related ones.
I cannot find it in my heart to admire the people who comment here proscriptively, without any attempt to signal empathy. Its understood few of us (myself included) will be doing anything to ameliorate this situation, and that empathy signalling is at best chest beating, but I still find the lack of compassion in the responses chilling. Yes, not smoking would reduce health risks and spend. so what? If you haven't tried to survive on minimum wage, I am very unsure your critique of their behaviour, which is essentially poverty shaming: you are only poor because [lazy | stupid] forms of logic, adds anything. If you walk over a begger muttering "get a job" you deserve contempt.
If you hate America, vote capitalist, randean individualism.
If you hate America, vote capitalist, randean individualism.
This is how 99% of people are. I wouldn't have believed it until I became a victim. Even people who claim to love you and you have known for life. In the end people care about themselves and if you challenge their just-world view by suffering in front of them, or make them feel bad or guilty, they attack. The sad part is for those people nothing will change it but being forced into despair themselves and then it's too late for both of us.
I made an account just to comment on this issue after lurking for a long time but it's surely just another pointless action because it's the same story over and over. Empathy is not common.
I made an account just to comment on this issue after lurking for a long time but it's surely just another pointless action because it's the same story over and over. Empathy is not common.
> This is how 99% of people are. I wouldn't have believed it until I became a victim. Even people who claim to love you and you have known for life.
I used to be a republican. Or Libertarian. Blame my parents, as I do. They're dyed-in-the-wool republicans/christians, where if you have bad happen, you must have deserved it. So they dont help because you should be able to rescue yourself.
One of their most shameful moments was how horrible they talked of welfare. They qualified for it years ago, and made a big point of pride that they never took it. It to them was this huge badge of shame.
So when I had really bad times, I did take it. And instead of hiding, I said so on Facebook. Boy, my parents hated that. Pity, cause I didnt care. And that it did help me get back up.
> In the end people care about themselves and if you challenge their just-world view by suffering in front of them, or make them feel bad or guilty, they attack. The sad part is for those people nothing will change it but being forced into despair themselves and then it's too late for both of us.
Indeed. Most in this country will never see that. Or they are that, and they'll never be here to say so. Hell, even the "richies" here in HN have had many discussions about it. And one idea that is mentioned is to sell services to them - and its summarily shot down. Why? "There's no money in helping poor people. They don't have money."
> I made an account just to comment on this issue after lurking for a long time but it's surely just another pointless action because it's the same story over and over. Empathy is not common.
We're around. We aren't popular, especially around here. People who focus on empathy simply cannot become capitalists. Because they have to make decisions that preserve human-ness over money, which is completely antithetical to the idea of Venture Capitalism, Capitalists, Big Business, Disruption, and on and on.
There are, of course, token projects that try to show that this class of people care, but in all seriousness, when I stop seeing a fistfull of dollars to X project for "UBI" and briefcases of dollars to lobbying, I'll know that equation has changed.
I used to be a republican. Or Libertarian. Blame my parents, as I do. They're dyed-in-the-wool republicans/christians, where if you have bad happen, you must have deserved it. So they dont help because you should be able to rescue yourself.
One of their most shameful moments was how horrible they talked of welfare. They qualified for it years ago, and made a big point of pride that they never took it. It to them was this huge badge of shame.
So when I had really bad times, I did take it. And instead of hiding, I said so on Facebook. Boy, my parents hated that. Pity, cause I didnt care. And that it did help me get back up.
> In the end people care about themselves and if you challenge their just-world view by suffering in front of them, or make them feel bad or guilty, they attack. The sad part is for those people nothing will change it but being forced into despair themselves and then it's too late for both of us.
Indeed. Most in this country will never see that. Or they are that, and they'll never be here to say so. Hell, even the "richies" here in HN have had many discussions about it. And one idea that is mentioned is to sell services to them - and its summarily shot down. Why? "There's no money in helping poor people. They don't have money."
> I made an account just to comment on this issue after lurking for a long time but it's surely just another pointless action because it's the same story over and over. Empathy is not common.
We're around. We aren't popular, especially around here. People who focus on empathy simply cannot become capitalists. Because they have to make decisions that preserve human-ness over money, which is completely antithetical to the idea of Venture Capitalism, Capitalists, Big Business, Disruption, and on and on.
There are, of course, token projects that try to show that this class of people care, but in all seriousness, when I stop seeing a fistfull of dollars to X project for "UBI" and briefcases of dollars to lobbying, I'll know that equation has changed.
I have known people in more social countries that were able to regain a life because they had access to medical care, housing and reschooling. It takes years but it's possible IF you have that help. Those people are now contributing again and have independence even with their limits. If I had that available, if I had been born in such a place, I would have had a life back over a decade ago. But here I simply cannot manage everything. I have tried to immigrate but it takes 5-8 years of legal stability in most places just to become a permanent resident or citizen and have access to the benefits of such a system. I think I am just screwed. I will move and at best get some small under the table cash and at least accessing affordable healthcare in the private syste while hoping I don't get deported since I probably won't be able to formally legalize. It's not ideal at all but I simply cannot make it here anymore.
Capitalism does not require a lack of empathy- quite the reverse. Good capitalists help every stakeholder, from paying everybody well to providing great, safe, products and excellent returns.
The US system is sickening sometimes.
Capitalism is a an extremely old game design, an MMO created to solve the complex barter chain problem. One of the game's many exploits is that sociopaths (and anyone they train through reward to override their sense of empathy) have an unfair advantage.
The key to the exploit is at the heart of the core gameplay mechanic, which is that every transaction in capitalism is a codec that decimates the complex history and state of the values and liabilities of a good or service down to a single number- the price.
So hiding the abuses of others is one of the many exploits you can hide in the compression artifacts of this global codec. The key workarounds for the exploits in scalar money commerce come in the form of laws, regulations, and investigative journalism. These are all extremely high-latency, low-reliability workarounds.
Scalar money commerce was invented as a low-tech, distributed hack to solve the complex barter chain problem. It worked, but it always had issues, and it didn't scale well.
We need to evolve beyond this primitive system of commerce that decimates everything to a single number at each transaction to one that journals state with long vectors of information tracking millions of dimensions of value and liability, and that uses more sophisticated game design and graph algorithms to solve complex barter chain problems.
The key to the exploit is at the heart of the core gameplay mechanic, which is that every transaction in capitalism is a codec that decimates the complex history and state of the values and liabilities of a good or service down to a single number- the price.
So hiding the abuses of others is one of the many exploits you can hide in the compression artifacts of this global codec. The key workarounds for the exploits in scalar money commerce come in the form of laws, regulations, and investigative journalism. These are all extremely high-latency, low-reliability workarounds.
Scalar money commerce was invented as a low-tech, distributed hack to solve the complex barter chain problem. It worked, but it always had issues, and it didn't scale well.
We need to evolve beyond this primitive system of commerce that decimates everything to a single number at each transaction to one that journals state with long vectors of information tracking millions of dimensions of value and liability, and that uses more sophisticated game design and graph algorithms to solve complex barter chain problems.
I don't disagree with you, but I think there's a lot of people see the kind of people in the article as the opposition to progressive social issues like #BLM, acceptance of immigrants and the very same socialist policies that they survive off of and need to be expanded if these people are to see their lot in life improve. Rural communities overwhelmingly voted for Trump and they form the core of the Fox News constituency. The government they elected is now trying to take away their health care and give a massive tax cut to the top 1%. You'd probably see a lot more compassion among big-city liberals if these communities had embraced Bernie Sanders' agenda which would have redistributed a lot of wealth into their communities. But with their embrace of white nationalist policies and rhetoric, I think you see a lot of liberals feeling like they don't have the energy to care about all of the powerless people in this country and, instead, are focusing what limited resources they have on trying to help other oppressed groups (minorities, undocumented immigrants, etc.)
> You'd probably see a lot more compassion among big-city liberals if these communities had embraced Bernie Sanders' agenda which would have redistributed a lot of wealth into their communities.
Blue Blood Democrats pushed Bernie off the national stage attempting to elect Hillary Clinton, leaving the disadvantaged to only vote for the candidate who offered to champion their cause (Donald Trump). I don't fault most Trump voters one bit. The superior option they had was scuttled by a power hungry candidate who lost to the worst candidate for presidency ever.
> But with their embrace of white nationalist policies and rhetoric, I think you see a lot of liberals feeling like they don't have the energy to care about all of the powerless people in this country and, instead, are focusing what limited resources they have on trying to help other oppressed groups (minorities, undocumented immigrants, etc.)
Which causes conservative America to double down on conservatives in office. Wash, rinse, repeat.
EDIT: "Undocumented immigrants" are not citizens being oppressed; they are illegally in the country and should be deported unless covered under DACA (having arrived in the US as minors).
Blue Blood Democrats pushed Bernie off the national stage attempting to elect Hillary Clinton, leaving the disadvantaged to only vote for the candidate who offered to champion their cause (Donald Trump). I don't fault most Trump voters one bit. The superior option they had was scuttled by a power hungry candidate who lost to the worst candidate for presidency ever.
> But with their embrace of white nationalist policies and rhetoric, I think you see a lot of liberals feeling like they don't have the energy to care about all of the powerless people in this country and, instead, are focusing what limited resources they have on trying to help other oppressed groups (minorities, undocumented immigrants, etc.)
Which causes conservative America to double down on conservatives in office. Wash, rinse, repeat.
EDIT: "Undocumented immigrants" are not citizens being oppressed; they are illegally in the country and should be deported unless covered under DACA (having arrived in the US as minors).
> Blue Blood Democrats pushed Bernie off the national stage attempting to elect Hillary Clinton
What the DNC did in last year's primary was shameful, but...
> leaving the disadvantaged to only vote for the candidate who offered to champion their cause (Donald Trump)
Laughs...he never championed their cause. He told them all their problems were because of minorities and that he'd return the country to a time of bigotry and racism where things would magically be better because they were white. He's since taken the office of The President and used it to try to screw over poor whites in every way imaginable and tried to placate them by making it even worse for minorities. It's hard to blame under-educated people for falling for Fox News propaganda, but you still can't deny their complicity in enabling their own situation. What they did in the general election to defeat Hilary they could have done in the Primary to support Bernie. They didn't.
What the DNC did in last year's primary was shameful, but...
> leaving the disadvantaged to only vote for the candidate who offered to champion their cause (Donald Trump)
Laughs...he never championed their cause. He told them all their problems were because of minorities and that he'd return the country to a time of bigotry and racism where things would magically be better because they were white. He's since taken the office of The President and used it to try to screw over poor whites in every way imaginable and tried to placate them by making it even worse for minorities. It's hard to blame under-educated people for falling for Fox News propaganda, but you still can't deny their complicity in enabling their own situation. What they did in the general election to defeat Hilary they could have done in the Primary to support Bernie. They didn't.
> Laughs...he never championed their cause.
This stance is part of the problem.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bring+jobs+back+trump+youtub...
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+coal+jobs+youtube
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+carrier+jobs+youtube
He promised the disadvantaged he'd get their jobs back from Mexico and China, he promised to bring coal jobs back. Whether he did those things or not doesn't matter. That's what he promised.
> It's hard to blame under-educated people for falling for Fox News propaganda, but you still can't deny their complicity in enabling their own situation. What they did in the general election to defeat Hilary they could have done in the Primary to support Bernie. They didn't.
I don't blame undereducated people. I blame people who care more about illegal immigrants than the disenfranchised citizens suffering in poverty in the US. I blame urban liberals who have no comprehension of the plight the poor in the US are suffering through. I blame upper management of the Democratic Party, who rigged the nomination (along with super delegates) against Bernie Sanders, and I wish nothing but terrible, terrible things on those people.
EDIT: Hillary Clinton is nowhere to be found after her crushing defeat, and Bernie Sanders is still out there every day fighting for universal healthcare and other pro-citizen policies (alongside Elizabeth Warren). We suffered a terrible loss because of Clinton's vanity and pride.
This stance is part of the problem.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bring+jobs+back+trump+youtub...
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+coal+jobs+youtube
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+carrier+jobs+youtube
He promised the disadvantaged he'd get their jobs back from Mexico and China, he promised to bring coal jobs back. Whether he did those things or not doesn't matter. That's what he promised.
> It's hard to blame under-educated people for falling for Fox News propaganda, but you still can't deny their complicity in enabling their own situation. What they did in the general election to defeat Hilary they could have done in the Primary to support Bernie. They didn't.
I don't blame undereducated people. I blame people who care more about illegal immigrants than the disenfranchised citizens suffering in poverty in the US. I blame urban liberals who have no comprehension of the plight the poor in the US are suffering through. I blame upper management of the Democratic Party, who rigged the nomination (along with super delegates) against Bernie Sanders, and I wish nothing but terrible, terrible things on those people.
EDIT: Hillary Clinton is nowhere to be found after her crushing defeat, and Bernie Sanders is still out there every day fighting for universal healthcare and other pro-citizen policies (alongside Elizabeth Warren). We suffered a terrible loss because of Clinton's vanity and pride.
> I blame people who care more about illegal immigrants than the disenfranchised citizens suffering in poverty in the US.
Would you like to blame me?
But, from my perspective, I heard very little Trump say that would affect illegal immigration (his only proposal for that was to build a wall), but I heard lots of things that sounded like heavy bigotry to me. He wanted to ban muslims, ban refugees from the very places where the US instigates wars, and generally said a lot of vile stuff.
I may have taken it all a little too personally. Trump literally advocated for banning my future wife from the US. I'm too old for DACA, but when I tried to get a passport I discovered I didn't have paperwork to get a passport. Recent changes in laws mean our families literally can't visit each other, and we are discussing what to do.
On the other hand, I imagine some people would like their mother-in-law banned from the country. It would at least make a good joke for someone.
Would you like to blame me?
But, from my perspective, I heard very little Trump say that would affect illegal immigration (his only proposal for that was to build a wall), but I heard lots of things that sounded like heavy bigotry to me. He wanted to ban muslims, ban refugees from the very places where the US instigates wars, and generally said a lot of vile stuff.
I may have taken it all a little too personally. Trump literally advocated for banning my future wife from the US. I'm too old for DACA, but when I tried to get a passport I discovered I didn't have paperwork to get a passport. Recent changes in laws mean our families literally can't visit each other, and we are discussing what to do.
On the other hand, I imagine some people would like their mother-in-law banned from the country. It would at least make a good joke for someone.
> Hillary Clinton is nowhere to be found after her crushing defeat, and Bernie Sanders is still out there every day fighting for universal healthcare and other pro-citizen policies
At least in modern times most losing presidential candidates stay pretty quiet for some time. Also, while I guess you can call it a crushing defeat in that she lost, I will note that she did win the popular vote by a margin of several million.
As for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren it may be relevant that both are still in office.
At least in modern times most losing presidential candidates stay pretty quiet for some time. Also, while I guess you can call it a crushing defeat in that she lost, I will note that she did win the popular vote by a margin of several million.
As for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren it may be relevant that both are still in office.
> He promised the disadvantaged he'd get their jobs back from Mexico and China
All candidates promised jobs. Trump was promising jobs that either no longer really exist due to automation or are soon to be automated out of existence. Clinton and Sanders promised more forward-looking jobs without the racist overtones. It was obvious to anyone not watching Fox News which plan would be better for poor people in this country. When I said he never championed their cause, I meant he never championed the cause of the poor over the rich. He championed the cause of the white over the minority and immigrant. Sanders and Clinton were put forth visions to help the poor that were far more compelling. The problem is that those visions included black people and immigrants, so large swaths of the country dismissed them.
> I blame people who care more about illegal immigrants than the disenfranchised citizens suffering in poverty in the US
Illegal immigrants are human beings too and deserve every bit the consideration that citizens do. The same logic that you use to dismiss illegal immigrants can be used to dismiss poor people in fly-over states...they were born in poverty across some arbitrarily-drawn line and what moral obligation do we have to care for them? Well, if you believe that you have a moral obligation to care for one group, you have a moral obligation to care for the other as well. Arbitrary lines drawn on a map, whether delineating states or countries, don't change that.
> I blame urban liberals who have no comprehension of the plight the poor in the US are suffering through
You mean those same liberals that mostly voted for Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general? Both choices were demonstrably in the interest of the poor people described in this piece. Those liberals you're blaming may not have experienced that sort of poverty (however some of us did...my mom was on welfare until I was 8 years old), but they absolutely have the interests of the poor in mind when they vote.
> I blame upper management of the Democratic Party
No arguments there...the DNC elites absolutely screwed over the country believing that no one could lose to Trump and that the demographics of this country had permanently shifted. They got their comeuppance but we're all suffering the consequences.
> Hillary Clinton is nowhere to be found after her crushing defeat
She did write a book about the election, but I think the election really pointed out just how damaging and counterproductive she and her crony wing of the Democratic party have been to progressive causes. That she's now out of the spotlight speaks more to being marginalized by those with actual elected office (like Sanders and Warren...none of them are asking her for her help) than it does to her lack of interest in trying to fix things. Too much of the country, including Democrats, hates her right now. I think there's almost universal agreement that we'd all like her to step away from public life and leave the future of this country to a new generation of politicians.
All candidates promised jobs. Trump was promising jobs that either no longer really exist due to automation or are soon to be automated out of existence. Clinton and Sanders promised more forward-looking jobs without the racist overtones. It was obvious to anyone not watching Fox News which plan would be better for poor people in this country. When I said he never championed their cause, I meant he never championed the cause of the poor over the rich. He championed the cause of the white over the minority and immigrant. Sanders and Clinton were put forth visions to help the poor that were far more compelling. The problem is that those visions included black people and immigrants, so large swaths of the country dismissed them.
> I blame people who care more about illegal immigrants than the disenfranchised citizens suffering in poverty in the US
Illegal immigrants are human beings too and deserve every bit the consideration that citizens do. The same logic that you use to dismiss illegal immigrants can be used to dismiss poor people in fly-over states...they were born in poverty across some arbitrarily-drawn line and what moral obligation do we have to care for them? Well, if you believe that you have a moral obligation to care for one group, you have a moral obligation to care for the other as well. Arbitrary lines drawn on a map, whether delineating states or countries, don't change that.
> I blame urban liberals who have no comprehension of the plight the poor in the US are suffering through
You mean those same liberals that mostly voted for Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general? Both choices were demonstrably in the interest of the poor people described in this piece. Those liberals you're blaming may not have experienced that sort of poverty (however some of us did...my mom was on welfare until I was 8 years old), but they absolutely have the interests of the poor in mind when they vote.
> I blame upper management of the Democratic Party
No arguments there...the DNC elites absolutely screwed over the country believing that no one could lose to Trump and that the demographics of this country had permanently shifted. They got their comeuppance but we're all suffering the consequences.
> Hillary Clinton is nowhere to be found after her crushing defeat
She did write a book about the election, but I think the election really pointed out just how damaging and counterproductive she and her crony wing of the Democratic party have been to progressive causes. That she's now out of the spotlight speaks more to being marginalized by those with actual elected office (like Sanders and Warren...none of them are asking her for her help) than it does to her lack of interest in trying to fix things. Too much of the country, including Democrats, hates her right now. I think there's almost universal agreement that we'd all like her to step away from public life and leave the future of this country to a new generation of politicians.
I blame the poor who continue to vote republican.
They deserve every hardship that gets them. Get screwed out of health care. Deserve it. Billionaires pocket tax breaks and then still get rid of jobs. Totally deserve it. Shitty schools for your kid, and you can't afford the nice private school even with the vouchers. I feel sorry for the kid, but the blame lies with the parents. Get fired for no reason and your union is gone. Well you wanted that right?
There is a lot of people who didn't choose this, and that is sad. The rest, they can shut up and enjoy the world they built.
They deserve every hardship that gets them. Get screwed out of health care. Deserve it. Billionaires pocket tax breaks and then still get rid of jobs. Totally deserve it. Shitty schools for your kid, and you can't afford the nice private school even with the vouchers. I feel sorry for the kid, but the blame lies with the parents. Get fired for no reason and your union is gone. Well you wanted that right?
There is a lot of people who didn't choose this, and that is sad. The rest, they can shut up and enjoy the world they built.
> "Undocumented immigrants" are not citizens being oppressed
They're not citizens being oppressed, but they are human beings being oppressed. They're often fleeing war-torn countries and, by definition, have taken a proactive action to try to escape their circumstances and the poverty that they were born into. Your lack of compassion for them whilst simultaneously descrying people's lack of compassion for similarly impoverished groups of citizens is hypocritical and borders on sociopathic. Citizenship and race are not a distinctions that have any moral standing. Suffering is suffering and either we have an moral obligation to help or we don't.
They're not citizens being oppressed, but they are human beings being oppressed. They're often fleeing war-torn countries and, by definition, have taken a proactive action to try to escape their circumstances and the poverty that they were born into. Your lack of compassion for them whilst simultaneously descrying people's lack of compassion for similarly impoverished groups of citizens is hypocritical and borders on sociopathic. Citizenship and race are not a distinctions that have any moral standing. Suffering is suffering and either we have an moral obligation to help or we don't.
Pragmatism is not a lack of compassion. There are limits to everything.
You're the one calling out people for lack of compassion towards the poor people in the article. Who's to say that they haven't decided to focus on the immigrants in their own states over the plight of the poor in those other states. There's limits to everything, right? Why are you the only one that gets to draw the line between those who do and those who don't deserve pity? Why are you the one that gets to decide that citizens of a state that voted for the treatment they're receiving are more deserving of our help and compassion than illegal aliens in our own states?
Personally, when I compare someone that's come to a foreign country and fights to get by doing under-the-table manual labor with someone with an opiate addiction on government assistance, if I have to draw the line and help one and not the other, I'm helping the one that's making a positive contribution to the country instead of leeching off the government and voting for Republicans. I feel compassion for the plights of both groups, but if there are limits to everything and I've got to be pragmatic, well, I'm not spending my limited bandwidth caring about West Virginia. The Guatemalans fleeing the drug violence that's only engulfed their country because of the addictions and failed drug policies of the US are where I'm going to focus more of my compassion. They are the ones that I see on a daily basis and who's humanity is much harder for me to ignore.
Citizenship is artificial, especially in an era where companies will ship jobs to wherever offers the cheapest labor. Suffering is universal, whether it's the Central Americans that are living in poverty in California, the Syrian refugees that I saw begging in the streets of Malaysia during my time there or the opiate addicts of West Virginia. And I have very little patience for people who try to draw a line between Americans and foreigners because suffering is somehow the normal state of being for brown people.
Personally, when I compare someone that's come to a foreign country and fights to get by doing under-the-table manual labor with someone with an opiate addiction on government assistance, if I have to draw the line and help one and not the other, I'm helping the one that's making a positive contribution to the country instead of leeching off the government and voting for Republicans. I feel compassion for the plights of both groups, but if there are limits to everything and I've got to be pragmatic, well, I'm not spending my limited bandwidth caring about West Virginia. The Guatemalans fleeing the drug violence that's only engulfed their country because of the addictions and failed drug policies of the US are where I'm going to focus more of my compassion. They are the ones that I see on a daily basis and who's humanity is much harder for me to ignore.
Citizenship is artificial, especially in an era where companies will ship jobs to wherever offers the cheapest labor. Suffering is universal, whether it's the Central Americans that are living in poverty in California, the Syrian refugees that I saw begging in the streets of Malaysia during my time there or the opiate addicts of West Virginia. And I have very little patience for people who try to draw a line between Americans and foreigners because suffering is somehow the normal state of being for brown people.
> Why are you the only one that gets to draw the line between those who do and those who don't deserve pity?
All humans deserve pity. A country has limited resources, and must collectively decide (by its citizenry) how those resources are spent. Citizenship entitles you to a vote. That's democracy!
> Why are you the one that gets to decide that citizens of a state that voted for the treatment they're receiving are more deserving of our help and compassion than illegal aliens in our own states?
See democracy above. Citizenship entitles you to decide the direction, actions, and fate (ideally, not always) of your country.
> Citizenship is artificial, especially in an era where companies will ship jobs to wherever offers the cheapest labor.
Clearly citizenship is not artificial if we're arguing the merits of it, and people who don't have it want it, and are willing to break the law for a close substitute.
Good chat. We don't agree, but I enjoyed the discussion. Its always helpful to explore other viewpoints. Everyone wants to see the world a better place, its just the routes we argue over.
All humans deserve pity. A country has limited resources, and must collectively decide (by its citizenry) how those resources are spent. Citizenship entitles you to a vote. That's democracy!
> Why are you the one that gets to decide that citizens of a state that voted for the treatment they're receiving are more deserving of our help and compassion than illegal aliens in our own states?
See democracy above. Citizenship entitles you to decide the direction, actions, and fate (ideally, not always) of your country.
> Citizenship is artificial, especially in an era where companies will ship jobs to wherever offers the cheapest labor.
Clearly citizenship is not artificial if we're arguing the merits of it, and people who don't have it want it, and are willing to break the law for a close substitute.
Good chat. We don't agree, but I enjoyed the discussion. Its always helpful to explore other viewpoints. Everyone wants to see the world a better place, its just the routes we argue over.
What I meant by citizenship being artificial is that I, a citizen, do not owe a greater allegiance to other citizens above non-citizens. Of course citizenship has its implications in the ability to vote, work legally and such. But its membership does not create an "us" that's in opposition to the non-citizen "them." If we're going to get tribal, I'm far more aligned with foreigners who share my worldview than I am with most Americans. I don't feel a greater tug on my heartstrings when reading the article we're discussing than I do when I read about the refugee crisis in Syria. I know more Syrians than I know people from West Virginia.
It's like the difference between coworkers and friends. Coworkers are people you're grouped with for convenience sake. But you don't need to share any close bond with them. Friends are people you choose to associate with and for whom you care deeply. Coworkers can also be friends, but they don't have to be. My fellow citizens are like my coworkers. Many illegal aliens are like my friends. If I were to suggest to you that you should prioritize your coworkers above your friends, you'd react in much the same way that I'm reacting here when you tell me I should prioritize citizens over non-citizens.
It's like the difference between coworkers and friends. Coworkers are people you're grouped with for convenience sake. But you don't need to share any close bond with them. Friends are people you choose to associate with and for whom you care deeply. Coworkers can also be friends, but they don't have to be. My fellow citizens are like my coworkers. Many illegal aliens are like my friends. If I were to suggest to you that you should prioritize your coworkers above your friends, you'd react in much the same way that I'm reacting here when you tell me I should prioritize citizens over non-citizens.
Is "acceptance of immigrants" really a progressive social issue, or is it a pro-business economic issue with excellent marketing? In my opinion it's sort of ironic to promote that and socialism in the same sentence. Bernie Sanders in particular has been opposed to increased immigration in the past. I imagine he's not as vocal about that anymore because it's no longer politically viable.
In the same way it's a progressive social issue to support universal healthcare, I'd say it's a progressive issue to accept refugees and other immigrants trying to make better lives for themselves.
The common thread is empathy and a desire to help those less fortunate.
The common thread is empathy and a desire to help those less fortunate.
I think in many ways Trump and Sanders had the same appeal to very different demographics.
We've all come to understand that politicians are mostly liars. And I think Trump represented what was seen as a break from the mold because he seemed authentic. He said things that you're not "supposed" to say, he acted in a way you're not "supposed" to act. In general, he seemed to be being a person and not a politician. He made lots of promises as all politicians do, but I think his behavior being far outside of the mold gave people hope and optimism that he was being genuine - that he would actually fight to bring jobs back, work to curtail foreign competition for what jobs there are, and so on.
Sanders similarly broke the mold of a politician. Polls show socialism focus tests somewhere near the apocalypse, yet Sanders openly called himself a democratic socialist. And he talked about many things that have become completely taboo in politics including the corrupting influence of banks paired with a completely myopic monetary policy, single payer healthcare systems, corporate tax avoidance (something Trump also hit on), and more. He said things you're not supposed to say, and so I think we also viewed him as breaking the mold of a politician - and being somebody that might genuinely work to do the things he is talking about.
The behavior you're describing is why it's particularly tough for the two sides to ever see eye to eye. Imagine you were one of these disenfranchised poor living threadbare and barely getting by ever since the day you were born --- and the national discussion was on how to try to treat individuals who came into the country illegally better. That sort of thing breeds resentment. That resentment in turn is then characterized as racism. And that perceived racism in turn denigrates their own position even more, which results in even more empathy for immigrants leading to even greater resentment, and so on. It's a vicious cycle.
I wish there 'domestic exchange programs.' Have a substantial number of individuals living in one side of the bubble temporarily join a family living on the other side. I think peoples' eyes would be opened if they could see we all really just want the same thing - and that's a better life for the people. The only thing we disagree on is how to get there. But somehow in this process instead of seeing eye to eye we've instead characterized those that disagree with us as something less than rational humans capable of being swayed. And as both sides refuse to communicate to the other sides rationally this sort of inhumanity becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
We've all come to understand that politicians are mostly liars. And I think Trump represented what was seen as a break from the mold because he seemed authentic. He said things that you're not "supposed" to say, he acted in a way you're not "supposed" to act. In general, he seemed to be being a person and not a politician. He made lots of promises as all politicians do, but I think his behavior being far outside of the mold gave people hope and optimism that he was being genuine - that he would actually fight to bring jobs back, work to curtail foreign competition for what jobs there are, and so on.
Sanders similarly broke the mold of a politician. Polls show socialism focus tests somewhere near the apocalypse, yet Sanders openly called himself a democratic socialist. And he talked about many things that have become completely taboo in politics including the corrupting influence of banks paired with a completely myopic monetary policy, single payer healthcare systems, corporate tax avoidance (something Trump also hit on), and more. He said things you're not supposed to say, and so I think we also viewed him as breaking the mold of a politician - and being somebody that might genuinely work to do the things he is talking about.
The behavior you're describing is why it's particularly tough for the two sides to ever see eye to eye. Imagine you were one of these disenfranchised poor living threadbare and barely getting by ever since the day you were born --- and the national discussion was on how to try to treat individuals who came into the country illegally better. That sort of thing breeds resentment. That resentment in turn is then characterized as racism. And that perceived racism in turn denigrates their own position even more, which results in even more empathy for immigrants leading to even greater resentment, and so on. It's a vicious cycle.
I wish there 'domestic exchange programs.' Have a substantial number of individuals living in one side of the bubble temporarily join a family living on the other side. I think peoples' eyes would be opened if they could see we all really just want the same thing - and that's a better life for the people. The only thing we disagree on is how to get there. But somehow in this process instead of seeing eye to eye we've instead characterized those that disagree with us as something less than rational humans capable of being swayed. And as both sides refuse to communicate to the other sides rationally this sort of inhumanity becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
> I cannot find it in my heart to admire the people who comment here proscriptively, without any attempt to signal empathy.
There seems to be a small but vocal "ayn rand" crowd mired in cynicism on this site. Somehow that if everyone "worked hard", we'd all be successful. That is true to some extent but there are only a limited number of seats in the "successful" table.
There was a story on hackernews about a scientist who did nobel prize winning work but had to drive buses for a living.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15422928
There is a lot more to success than the individual. The environment and opportunities available have a lot more to do with success than the individual.
There seems to be a small but vocal "ayn rand" crowd mired in cynicism on this site. Somehow that if everyone "worked hard", we'd all be successful. That is true to some extent but there are only a limited number of seats in the "successful" table.
There was a story on hackernews about a scientist who did nobel prize winning work but had to drive buses for a living.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15422928
There is a lot more to success than the individual. The environment and opportunities available have a lot more to do with success than the individual.
If you blame the less fortunate for their misfortune, you can lie to yourself that it can never happen to you. Welfare? You would never need it because it is only the lazy stupid people who would rather mooch off others than do anything to better their lives would ever become so poor to need welfare.
Accepting that people can fall into poverty through no fault of their own is a crushing reality, as one would also have to accept that it can happen to them at any moment. Many choose to believe the comfortable lie rather than the uncomfortable truth.
Accepting that people can fall into poverty through no fault of their own is a crushing reality, as one would also have to accept that it can happen to them at any moment. Many choose to believe the comfortable lie rather than the uncomfortable truth.
It seems that you have an issue with beliefs that you assume people have, rather than a literal reading of what they stated. People generally interpret things much more negatively over text channels like email, than hearing the same thing in person, so I'd be cautious of such a negative take.
I agree. in substance, this is what the '84 RAND study said about imputed meaning in emails and flame wars. But, that said, there is a very definite trend in written discourse online about the poor: that trend is, to say they are only to blame themselves. We see it in 'fat people with diabetes who are poor caused it themselves' or 'if you stopped smoking you'd be healthier and richer' -both are true, but both are narrow, and un-empathetic statements. SO, I make a generalization which is perfectly capable of being wrong, but none the less I make it: the lack of visible empathy from people who make single-issue statements of 'self blame' for poor people, very probably implies a lack empathy. [edited]
No shit. The tricky thing with this kind of work is it has to be all cash-only, under the table. Best if nobody sees you doing it, which rules out a lot of the more legitimate kinds of side work - if you're supposed to be 80% disabled, it looks a little fishy when you're out cutting lawns or splitting firewood or caretaking... I grew up on the northern end of Appalachia, and huge numbers of people there supplement their income growing a little cash crop out in the woods - you had to be a little careful in places that you didn't blunder into a plantation when you were out deer hunting. I wonder whether the recent legalization pushes are putting a hurting on that front.
I grew up in the california mountains. Marijuana was a notable factor in the local economy. When CA passed medical marijuana I dont recall any adverse impact on prices. My supposition is this basically used existing supply and allowed for very small scale personal production. As recently as 2010 wholesale prices were in $3000/lb range.
When CO & WA legalized recreational use they followed the liquor industry producer/distributor/retailer model. This explicitely provided for large scale commercial production. By 2014-15 wholesale prices had dropped to $2000/lb or so. Today I think wholesale is down around $1000/lb on the west coast. In some shops retail prices are $1250-1500/lb.
In short, yes prices have dropped precipitously in the past few years. And Id expect further decline as large commerical operations continue to grow in well regulated states. Small personal grows will still be strictly profitable. But the small "family business" black market operations are being squeezed quite hard.
Caveat, numbers from memory and im not in the business myself.
When CO & WA legalized recreational use they followed the liquor industry producer/distributor/retailer model. This explicitely provided for large scale commercial production. By 2014-15 wholesale prices had dropped to $2000/lb or so. Today I think wholesale is down around $1000/lb on the west coast. In some shops retail prices are $1250-1500/lb.
In short, yes prices have dropped precipitously in the past few years. And Id expect further decline as large commerical operations continue to grow in well regulated states. Small personal grows will still be strictly profitable. But the small "family business" black market operations are being squeezed quite hard.
Caveat, numbers from memory and im not in the business myself.
Hey, that kind of describes Washington state, Oregon, and even California.
Not sure why this is an article. This is just normal life in many parts of rural America from Pennsylvania to Washington to Arizona.
When I lived in West Virginia, I did note that the Washington Post had a weird fascination with the place. Whenever things got slow, you could expect some big exposé about what a bunch of uneducated, dirty bumpkins we were.
WaPo even once held a contest to come up with a new slogan for West Virginia when it didn't like seeing "Almost Heaven" on the license plates. The winner was "Almost Haiti."
When I lived in West Virginia, I did note that the Washington Post had a weird fascination with the place. Whenever things got slow, you could expect some big exposé about what a bunch of uneducated, dirty bumpkins we were.
WaPo even once held a contest to come up with a new slogan for West Virginia when it didn't like seeing "Almost Heaven" on the license plates. The winner was "Almost Haiti."
I'm guessing it's an article because a lot of WaPo readers aren't aware that this is normal life in many parts of rural America.
* edit: removed comma
> Not sure why this is an article. This is just normal life in many parts of rural America from Pennsylvania to Washington to Arizona.
Plenty of people have no idea that there are people living like this in America.
Plenty of people have no idea that there are people living like this in America.
This is true. Whenever I see people on TV or the internet or wherever raising money for clean water and basic sanitation or basic electricity in other parts of the world, I think about the THOUSANDS of homes I've seen in West Virginia, Tennessee, and especially Texas that lack water, toilets, and electricity.
Somehow America's dirt poor aren't as exciting or trendy as the exotic overseas dirt poor.
Somehow America's dirt poor aren't as exciting or trendy as the exotic overseas dirt poor.
> Somehow America's dirt poor aren't as exciting or trendy as the exotic overseas dirt poor.
It's not that poverty is exciting. It's that abject poverty in the richest country on Earth is shocking and goes against assumptions people had as correct since ever.
It's not that poverty is exciting. It's that abject poverty in the richest country on Earth is shocking and goes against assumptions people had as correct since ever.
> THOUSANDS of homes I've seen in West Virginia, Tennessee, and especially Texas that lack water, toilets, and electricity.
What the hell? How can this be? I'm trying to think of something constructive to say here but the situation is so outrageous that I don't know where to start.
What the hell? How can this be? I'm trying to think of something constructive to say here but the situation is so outrageous that I don't know where to start.
And plenty of people in these areas have not idea what life is like outside of their rural areas. My brother recently told me a story of talking to two 20 somethings in rural Pennsylvania (not Amish). They had never traveled anywhere outside of their town and had no concept of what it was like to live anywhere else.
I currently live in rural upstate New York. When a longtime friend of mine found out that I would soon be leaving to live in a big city in the south he yelled at me, called me an idiot, and said I would get raped and murdered there.
This is a guy in his mid-30's who has only ever visited a place with more than 10,000 people once, so his entire perception of what it's like in urban America is based off of the salacious news stories he reads online.
This is a guy in his mid-30's who has only ever visited a place with more than 10,000 people once, so his entire perception of what it's like in urban America is based off of the salacious news stories he reads online.
As someone who recently moved to this city, he's not entirely wrong...in 2 years and without ever going to the "bad" parts of mine, I've been mugged in broad daylight, my roommate was assaulted randomly for no reason after his car broke down, I've had a guy threaten to kill me and follow me around when he sees me, and I get a postcard in the mail every other week or so telling me about another one of the homeless guys within a couple blocks of me's sex crimes, which almost always includes multiple offenses and at least one rape. One of my neighbors had two guys come run up at her, grab her dog, and run away with it. I've had 0 encounters with anything like this in the suburbs.
Well I've been living in Chicago for almost 20 years now and I've only been murdered a couple times. Happens to millions of people in this city every day don't you know?
Hm.
http://heyjackass.com/
Certainly not millions, but that's not something I'd be proud of.
Nowhere in New Hampshire do people say "don't worry, its just certain parts that have all the violence."
http://heyjackass.com/
Certainly not millions, but that's not something I'd be proud of.
Nowhere in New Hampshire do people say "don't worry, its just certain parts that have all the violence."
I agree it's terrible and Chicago could do better but my point is if you really look at the number this stuff is blown way out of proportion. That's no comfort for those who are affected by it, but the odds of it happening to you even in a place like Chicago if you just take a few minor precautions are vanishingly small.
If they could do better, why aren't they?
What makes you think they aren't trying?
I don’t think they aren’t trying, I think they can’t really do much better than they are.
I mean, yes, murder is bad - but are the 58 people dead during September random strangers who got shot? Or is this the result of mostly gang/organized crime violence?
You're not likely to die in a car crash if you don't drive a car.
You're not likely to die in a car crash if you don't drive a car.
Minor nit at this point but NHTSA just released their 2016 data.
37,641 die on US roads in 2016, including 5,987 pedestrians, 840 cyclists, for 18% of deaths.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLejbNAWsAMmDOO.jpg
37,641 die on US roads in 2016, including 5,987 pedestrians, 840 cyclists, for 18% of deaths.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLejbNAWsAMmDOO.jpg
> You're not likely to die in a car crash if you don't drive a car.
Unless you're collateral damage.
Unless you're collateral damage.
What kind of psychopath-filled nightmare land do you live in?
Columbus, OH lol
I suppose I'm probably just unlucky, but you can't deny that the odds of this stuff happening goes way up in an urban area.
Apparently forcible rape is _less_ common in big cities:
EDIT: Seems that Alaskans are incredibly rapey:
http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_...
http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2015/2015ncvrw_stats_urbanrural.pdf?sfvrsn=2
EDIT: Seems that Alaskans are incredibly rapey:
http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_...
I'm sorry that you've experienced that kind of thing, but hopefully you also realize that not every urban area is like this, and maybe your neighborhood is or is becoming less "good" than you originally believed when you moved there.
But this isn't unique to country bumpkins. I could rattle off dozens of people I know personally in Los Angeles county that think that LA is what life looks like elsewhere.
edit/ My point is simply that being sheltered isn't a unique experience based on where you live or the population center you're living in.
edit/ My point is simply that being sheltered isn't a unique experience based on where you live or the population center you're living in.
This is why this is an article:
"And when that happens, they come to buyers such as Vance who dry and resell the roots to processors, which pulverize and resell them to natural-supplement manufacturers, which resell them as herbal products to retailers, which market them to health-conscious consumers."
To me, this is what the article was leading up to. The poorest Americans, the most vulnerable Americans, are breaking their backs (literally) and risking their lives (literally) with no benefits, while rich American are buying up the result for health products that may or may not have any real effect for them.
The real story here is that a significant portion of Americans have enough to money to essentially light it on fire on a regular basis while another significant portion is trying to stop from getting kicked off of SSDI.
"And when that happens, they come to buyers such as Vance who dry and resell the roots to processors, which pulverize and resell them to natural-supplement manufacturers, which resell them as herbal products to retailers, which market them to health-conscious consumers."
To me, this is what the article was leading up to. The poorest Americans, the most vulnerable Americans, are breaking their backs (literally) and risking their lives (literally) with no benefits, while rich American are buying up the result for health products that may or may not have any real effect for them.
The real story here is that a significant portion of Americans have enough to money to essentially light it on fire on a regular basis while another significant portion is trying to stop from getting kicked off of SSDI.
I'm always kind of amazed that stories about how much it sucks to be poor are "news" and not common knowledge.
I remember when Ehrenreich's Nickle and Dimed came out and it got all this press. I was dumbfounded. People needed a book to let them know that it is hard to survive on a minimum wage job?
I remember when Ehrenreich's Nickle and Dimed came out and it got all this press. I was dumbfounded. People needed a book to let them know that it is hard to survive on a minimum wage job?
I forget the name of the book, but after reading Ehrenreich's book, I read one by a college-aged kid who went from literally having no money to having some sort of relatively good job.
It wasn't particularly well written, but it got a fair amount of press - because it reaffirmed people's "gumption and bootstraps" American philosophy, where hard work is the solution to everything, regardless of context or circumstance.
Of course a white 20 year old can get hired. Of course he has the time to walk an hour to his job and work there for 12 hours since he has no children or elderly relatives to take care of. Of course he can move furniture, since he's young and healthy. Of course he can get a job without a criminal record.
It wasn't particularly well written, but it got a fair amount of press - because it reaffirmed people's "gumption and bootstraps" American philosophy, where hard work is the solution to everything, regardless of context or circumstance.
Of course a white 20 year old can get hired. Of course he has the time to walk an hour to his job and work there for 12 hours since he has no children or elderly relatives to take care of. Of course he can move furniture, since he's young and healthy. Of course he can get a job without a criminal record.
>Of course a white 20 year old can get hired. Of course he has the time to walk an hour to his job and work there for 12 hours since he has no children or elderly relatives to take care of. Of course he can move furniture, since he's young and healthy. Of course he can get a job without a criminal record.
Is it unreasonable to expect this level of effort out of any 20yo who's options are "be poor" or do this?
Not being white and having a criminal record aren't going to stop you from making ends meet. They just make it harder to proceed upward after that point.
Is it unreasonable to expect this level of effort out of any 20yo who's options are "be poor" or do this?
Not being white and having a criminal record aren't going to stop you from making ends meet. They just make it harder to proceed upward after that point.
The starting point is not a collage degree. The starting point is 14 when many people drop out of school, get sick, get pregnant, etc. If you make it to 20 without anything bad happening including a clean record and good credit then sure the next 12 months is not hard.
> Is it unreasonable to expect this level of effort out of any 20yo who's options are "be poor" or do this?
It's totally not, but the book presented him as a ambitious go-getter who pulled himself up by his bootstraps. I wish I remembered the damn book's name.
It's totally not, but the book presented him as a ambitious go-getter who pulled himself up by his bootstraps. I wish I remembered the damn book's name.
Income mobility in the United States is not that high. Most people stay in the income class that they are born into, so most people who are not impoverished do not know what poverty is like.
Also, the level of poverty covered in the article is pretty extreme. I grew up in a low income area but it was not difficult to find some way to make 15-20k a year. My neighbors were no where near as poor as the woman highlighted in the article.
Also, the level of poverty covered in the article is pretty extreme. I grew up in a low income area but it was not difficult to find some way to make 15-20k a year. My neighbors were no where near as poor as the woman highlighted in the article.
For some stats to back this up, the Brookings Institute report shows that mobility is much higher in Canada and the Scandinavian social democracies than it is in the U.S. or the U.K.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_econ...
Many other reports corroborate these findings.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_econ...
Many other reports corroborate these findings.
One of the narratives of the last election was that the "elites" and our newspapers were oblivious to conditions facing working folks in the interior states. It was probably a false accusation, but it helped fuel a wave of self loathing that persists today. (A friend of mine blasted the NY Times for ignoring the Midwest on the same day that they published a lengthy story about Flint MI).
Yet, when someone does write an article, it's seen as offensive.
Is there a right way to report on what's going on?
Yet, when someone does write an article, it's seen as offensive.
Is there a right way to report on what's going on?
It might help if they hired local journalists or republished stories from local media sources.
It's pretty ridiculous reading articles from coastal media that covers other parts of America as though it were a strange, foreign land, full of unfamiliar customs.
Or maybe that really is how the NY/DC/SF/LA ruling class feels?
It's pretty ridiculous reading articles from coastal media that covers other parts of America as though it were a strange, foreign land, full of unfamiliar customs.
Or maybe that really is how the NY/DC/SF/LA ruling class feels?
> It's pretty ridiculous reading articles from coastal media that covers other parts of America as though it were a strange, foreign land, full of unfamiliar customs.
To people outside the region covered, it is a strange, in many ways foreign, land, full of unfamiliar customs.
So is, say, California to outsiders; including New Yorkers, the idea of a culturally homogenous bicoastal society is a myth made up to sell a boogeyman to Middle America.
To people outside the region covered, it is a strange, in many ways foreign, land, full of unfamiliar customs.
So is, say, California to outsiders; including New Yorkers, the idea of a culturally homogenous bicoastal society is a myth made up to sell a boogeyman to Middle America.
To be fair, attitudes of many on the coasts are doing a good enough job of that already.
In case anyone is interested, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1994/12/04/... is the article in the Washington Post from December 4, 1994.
While it is a popular slogan, West Virginia has never had "Almost heaven" on its license plates. The slogans on license plates have been "Mountain State" (in all caps) and "Wild, Wonderful".
While it is a popular slogan, West Virginia has never had "Almost heaven" on its license plates. The slogans on license plates have been "Mountain State" (in all caps) and "Wild, Wonderful".
Because it's going to be an interesting counterpoint to next month when the Republicans in Congress start telling us all how badly we need tax cuts for rich people. And then talk about how we should pay for it by cutting the meager benefits we give out to people who are hard up, like those in this article.
I'm not a socialist, but the contrast between this and gold-plated Trump Tower is almost enough to make that sound appealing.
I'm not a socialist, but the contrast between this and gold-plated Trump Tower is almost enough to make that sound appealing.
The other entries can be seen at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1994/12/04/...
West Virginia border is 106 miles from Washington DC. One of the poorest areas of the country is next door to the Nations Capital, that makes good press.
> Not sure why this is an article.
WashingtonPost has to generate content to make money.
WashingtonPost has to generate content to make money.
What part of WV?
Reminds me of a few articles I have bookmarked - more about suburban than rural, and how the people get by:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/12/6/best-of-2016-s...
https://granolashotgun.com/2016/08/15/suburban-poverty/
https://granolashotgun.com/2015/03/30/affordable-housing-mau...
https://granolashotgun.com/2017/08/04/the-precariat-shoppe/
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/12/6/best-of-2016-s...
https://granolashotgun.com/2016/08/15/suburban-poverty/
https://granolashotgun.com/2015/03/30/affordable-housing-mau...
https://granolashotgun.com/2017/08/04/the-precariat-shoppe/
That is so depressing. No wonder suicide rates are up.
You know there's a difference between "give a man a fish" and "teach a man to fish", but what do you do when the fish are just gone?
It was mentioned in the article, but not extensively discussed. I think maybe the largest distinct segment of the economy in ex-coalcountry regions is now pharmaceuticals, legal and illegal. There's the legal root and mushroom hunting, which go into supplements, but a large fraction of the people are growing marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, collecting sassafras root bark for MDMA cooks, and reselling their prescription opioids, in addition to the older traditions of moonshining and tobacco cigarette smuggling.
And everyone is on social security disability. If all you ever knew is coal mining, that's your condition that prevents you from finding gainful employment. If you need to see what happens with bare-bones basic income, that's it. The whole community barely scrapes along, and everyone has to do some niche hustle to earn their gas money a dime at a time. If you threw out the penalty for working, most of those people would be doing something productive, even if it's manufacturing ugly tchotchkes to be sold in a tourist trap, because whatever it is would give them beef in their stew instead of just barely enough gas in the tank to keep going.
You know there's a difference between "give a man a fish" and "teach a man to fish", but what do you do when the fish are just gone?
It was mentioned in the article, but not extensively discussed. I think maybe the largest distinct segment of the economy in ex-coalcountry regions is now pharmaceuticals, legal and illegal. There's the legal root and mushroom hunting, which go into supplements, but a large fraction of the people are growing marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, collecting sassafras root bark for MDMA cooks, and reselling their prescription opioids, in addition to the older traditions of moonshining and tobacco cigarette smuggling.
And everyone is on social security disability. If all you ever knew is coal mining, that's your condition that prevents you from finding gainful employment. If you need to see what happens with bare-bones basic income, that's it. The whole community barely scrapes along, and everyone has to do some niche hustle to earn their gas money a dime at a time. If you threw out the penalty for working, most of those people would be doing something productive, even if it's manufacturing ugly tchotchkes to be sold in a tourist trap, because whatever it is would give them beef in their stew instead of just barely enough gas in the tank to keep going.
> And everyone is on social security disability.
I spent several years during and after university hitchhiking all around the world. After seeing most of Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa, I had a general idea of what kind of people are driving around during the day. And then I traveled across the USA .
It turns out that benefits cheats are a very distinct category there in a way they aren’t a thing in most other countries (even Canada). With so many of my drivers, conversations would go like this: "So, what do you do?" "I’m on disability.” "Are you disabled?" "No, but I fool the government into giving me a cheque". They had nothing better to do during the day than drive around, though I have no idea how how they could afford petrol.
> If you threw out the penalty for working...
Indeed, basic income might be a better solution. It would let people claim benefits and work. And people would no longer have to be lying and deceitful to get their money; the prevalence of that kind of behaviour must have some spiritual impact on the community and trust in government. On the other hand, unlike certain countries that heavily fund culture in rural areas so that perpetually unemployed people have libraries and theatres and regional chamber orchestras to spend their time at productively, people in the complete cultural vacuum described in the linked article would probably continue to act self-destructively even with basic income.
I spent several years during and after university hitchhiking all around the world. After seeing most of Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa, I had a general idea of what kind of people are driving around during the day. And then I traveled across the USA .
It turns out that benefits cheats are a very distinct category there in a way they aren’t a thing in most other countries (even Canada). With so many of my drivers, conversations would go like this: "So, what do you do?" "I’m on disability.” "Are you disabled?" "No, but I fool the government into giving me a cheque". They had nothing better to do during the day than drive around, though I have no idea how how they could afford petrol.
> If you threw out the penalty for working...
Indeed, basic income might be a better solution. It would let people claim benefits and work. And people would no longer have to be lying and deceitful to get their money; the prevalence of that kind of behaviour must have some spiritual impact on the community and trust in government. On the other hand, unlike certain countries that heavily fund culture in rural areas so that perpetually unemployed people have libraries and theatres and regional chamber orchestras to spend their time at productively, people in the complete cultural vacuum described in the linked article would probably continue to act self-destructively even with basic income.
Sham disability is an integral part of the US welfare system, because it's politically expedient. It allows the government to pay poor people just enough to avoid a violent revolution, while sidestepping the issue of the "deserving poor". It also conveniently conceals the real rate of unemployment - you can pretend that your unemployment rate is 4.2% if you've recategorised most of your long-term unemployed citizens as disabled. The claimants aren't cheating the system, they're using it as it was designed to be used.
Britain did much the same thing after the decline of heavy industry. The number of disability benefit claimants trebled in 20 years, concentrated almost entirely in towns that used to have a mine, a steel mill or a shipyard. In some parts of the UK, over 20% of the working-age population are claiming disability benefits. Staff at welfare offices were effectively coaching people on how to claim disability benefits, because it helped them meet their performance targets.
Britain did much the same thing after the decline of heavy industry. The number of disability benefit claimants trebled in 20 years, concentrated almost entirely in towns that used to have a mine, a steel mill or a shipyard. In some parts of the UK, over 20% of the working-age population are claiming disability benefits. Staff at welfare offices were effectively coaching people on how to claim disability benefits, because it helped them meet their performance targets.
This is one reason why employment/population ratio is probably a better measure of economic health than the unemployment rate.
> unlike certain countries that heavily fund culture in rural areas so that perpetually unemployed people have [places] to spend their time at productively
Could you cite examples of what countries these are who pursue these policies for the stated objective of giving poor people things to do while not working? I've never heard of this as a policy objective before for subsidizing libraries and "culture", and I am very curious about how well it works.
Could you cite examples of what countries these are who pursue these policies for the stated objective of giving poor people things to do while not working? I've never heard of this as a policy objective before for subsidizing libraries and "culture", and I am very curious about how well it works.
The Nordic countries are good example; look at how many regional orchestras Finland has, for instance. The "stated objective" isn't expressly to give the unemployed something to do; rather, the general idea is that people in the provinces have the right to culture just as much as people in the big cities. But the consequence is that in backwaters where a substantial percentage of people are unemployed, they still have access to healthy activities, and to community gathering places that are non-profit and not centered around drinking.
This is replicated all over the rust belt. One of the saddest portrayals of this is the photo essay, The Ruins of Detroit[1]. These once mighty economic engines have been silenced: manufacturing, coal, etc. What happens next is that the people who depend upon these industries to make a living, and live ... do less well of a job of this.
Some argue that unions would help (they wouldn't), or anti-globalism would stop factories/industries from moving (maybe temporarily). The sad fact remains that industries are, to a degree, tied to regions, and people grow up depending upon those industries in those regions. Once the industry finds a lower cost mechanism to come to market, those dependent people are cut free.
Its the short term, profit focused mindset and all it brings that is a huge part of the problem. Note that I am a staunch capitalist, and I see this.
I don't have a solution to this. I wish I did. None of the political parties have anything close to a solution for this. Giving money directly to people may help for a while, but is likely to spark inflation, which will cause this to repeat in a few years.
I remember one of the political parties crowing about how they saved the auto industry in Michigan during the last major financial crisis. Funny, as I live there, and I remember one of the people who lives in my sub whose business was destroyed by this "saving" thanks to many long held overdue invoices at one of the car company's being zeroed out, coming to my front door, with his son to ask for help. Food specifically.
Foolish policies that do not contemplate consequences for actions, apart from the groups that the politicos favor, help decimate regions like this. Coal is evil as I've heard. And the people who mine it? They are the ones now suffering because, you know, its evil, and coal must die.
Every decision, every policy has consequences. There are never any easy solutions.
(edits to correct spelling/punctuation errors)
[1] http://www.marchandmeffre.com/detroit
Some argue that unions would help (they wouldn't), or anti-globalism would stop factories/industries from moving (maybe temporarily). The sad fact remains that industries are, to a degree, tied to regions, and people grow up depending upon those industries in those regions. Once the industry finds a lower cost mechanism to come to market, those dependent people are cut free.
Its the short term, profit focused mindset and all it brings that is a huge part of the problem. Note that I am a staunch capitalist, and I see this.
I don't have a solution to this. I wish I did. None of the political parties have anything close to a solution for this. Giving money directly to people may help for a while, but is likely to spark inflation, which will cause this to repeat in a few years.
I remember one of the political parties crowing about how they saved the auto industry in Michigan during the last major financial crisis. Funny, as I live there, and I remember one of the people who lives in my sub whose business was destroyed by this "saving" thanks to many long held overdue invoices at one of the car company's being zeroed out, coming to my front door, with his son to ask for help. Food specifically.
Foolish policies that do not contemplate consequences for actions, apart from the groups that the politicos favor, help decimate regions like this. Coal is evil as I've heard. And the people who mine it? They are the ones now suffering because, you know, its evil, and coal must die.
Every decision, every policy has consequences. There are never any easy solutions.
(edits to correct spelling/punctuation errors)
[1] http://www.marchandmeffre.com/detroit
> I remember one of the political parties crowing about how they saved the auto industry in Michigan during the last major financial crisis. Funny, as I live there, and I remember one of the people who lives in my sub whose business was destroyed by this "saving" thanks to many long held overdue invoices at one of the car company's being zeroed out, coming to my front door, with his son to ask for help. Food specifically.
Yes, "forgiving debt" always sounds like a great idea from the debtors' perspective. Debt holds most people down for some period of their lives..
But the flip side is that for every debtor, there are lenders.
Those lenders give their money with some level of confidence that they'll get it back. When they don't, it's going to be an annoyance for the top few percent of companies and people who can take the loss.. and punish the middle who (in the best case) could have lent it for other investments or (in the worst case) destroy others won't be able to pay their employees and provide for their families.
Yes, "forgiving debt" always sounds like a great idea from the debtors' perspective. Debt holds most people down for some period of their lives..
But the flip side is that for every debtor, there are lenders.
Those lenders give their money with some level of confidence that they'll get it back. When they don't, it's going to be an annoyance for the top few percent of companies and people who can take the loss.. and punish the middle who (in the best case) could have lent it for other investments or (in the worst case) destroy others won't be able to pay their employees and provide for their families.
If debts would never be forgiven/default, then lenders would not be able to charge interest.
Likewise, while they don't charge interest, contractors factor not getting paid for 90 days after work completion into their rates.
Likewise, while they don't charge interest, contractors factor not getting paid for 90 days after work completion into their rates.
What?
If you had a 100% guarantee of getting your money back next year, would you loan me all of your savings for this year? You will receive no other compensation for lending me this money.
If debts were never forgiven, maybe interest rates would be lower, but lenders are still providing a service for which an interest rate must be paid.
If you had a 100% guarantee of getting your money back next year, would you loan me all of your savings for this year? You will receive no other compensation for lending me this money.
If debts were never forgiven, maybe interest rates would be lower, but lenders are still providing a service for which an interest rate must be paid.
I would, at the interest rate at which new money is being printed. It would be a better investment then keeping it in my savings account, with it's 0.05% interest, that's for sure.
Unfortunately, nobody loans money at that rate. They always charge a premium.
Unfortunately, nobody loans money at that rate. They always charge a premium.
There is always an opportunity cost.
That's why many contractors and SaaS platforms give a discount for paying up front. They'd rather have a smaller amount now than a larger amount over time.
That's why many contractors and SaaS platforms give a discount for paying up front. They'd rather have a smaller amount now than a larger amount over time.
> Giving money directly to people may help for a while, but is likely to spark inflation,
I take it you are referring to Universal Basic Income. It would only cause inflation if the most of the goods in their basket of unmet needs were supply constrained. But those commodities (i.e household goods), are not supply constrained at all, due in no small part to industrial efficiency and globalization, so they likely won't experience inflation.
Scarce valuable goods and services, like education and housing in areas of high demand (not rural WV), would see inflation, but even that would be mitigated somewhat by a progressive UBI benefit.
> Foolish policies that do not contemplate consequences for actions, apart from the groups that the politicos favor, help decimate regions like this.
This is pinning responsibility on the Obama administration for the failures of an industry that mismanaged itself with short term thinking, kicked the can down the road, and in doing so set up a no-win collapse situation that the government had to clean up because the alternative was likely much worse. The time bomb was ticking regardless of the political scenario. The 2008 recession just sped up the clock a bit at the end.
We have GM today because of the bailout. You might argue we should have let it all go down in flames and hopefully something would take it's place, buy that process would arguably be even more damaging to the local economy.
I take it you are referring to Universal Basic Income. It would only cause inflation if the most of the goods in their basket of unmet needs were supply constrained. But those commodities (i.e household goods), are not supply constrained at all, due in no small part to industrial efficiency and globalization, so they likely won't experience inflation.
Scarce valuable goods and services, like education and housing in areas of high demand (not rural WV), would see inflation, but even that would be mitigated somewhat by a progressive UBI benefit.
> Foolish policies that do not contemplate consequences for actions, apart from the groups that the politicos favor, help decimate regions like this.
This is pinning responsibility on the Obama administration for the failures of an industry that mismanaged itself with short term thinking, kicked the can down the road, and in doing so set up a no-win collapse situation that the government had to clean up because the alternative was likely much worse. The time bomb was ticking regardless of the political scenario. The 2008 recession just sped up the clock a bit at the end.
We have GM today because of the bailout. You might argue we should have let it all go down in flames and hopefully something would take it's place, buy that process would arguably be even more damaging to the local economy.
The biggest unmet need is housing, and in most areas that is definitely supply constrained. UBI will just go right into landlords pockets.
> The biggest unmet need is housing, and in most areas that is definitely supply constrained.
Outside of places like San Francisco (urban areas with strong political resistance to redevelopment and geography which limits nearby alternatives), that's a tolerable approximation of truth only over very short terms, as increases market clearing costs for housing spur investment and (re)development elsewhere.
Outside of places like San Francisco (urban areas with strong political resistance to redevelopment and geography which limits nearby alternatives), that's a tolerable approximation of truth only over very short terms, as increases market clearing costs for housing spur investment and (re)development elsewhere.
The biggest advantage I can see is that it would let people get out of such supply-constrained housing markets. If you're got a guaranteed $15-20k UBI, then why not bail on being in a super-expensive city? Go earn minimum wage as a lifty at a ski mountain out in Wyoming or Montana, where land is dirt cheap, or whatever else it is that would float your boat.
The downside in most of these areas now is that the employment market sucks. Consequently, you already tend to see a lot of people on fixed incomes, like retirees, living there.
The downside in most of these areas now is that the employment market sucks. Consequently, you already tend to see a lot of people on fixed incomes, like retirees, living there.
The good capitalist would say that if a firm moves out of a region, that another firm will happily pounce on all of those experienced, employable workers they left behind! Hiring is hard, so having a big pool of applicants is great!
What the good capitalist ignores is the extent to which workers become specialized at the firm, become a cog not shaped correctly for any other firm. Call this lack of fungibility. (It's one reason why company loyalty used to a) be a popular feature, and b) work both ways.)
The good capitalist also ignores the fact that the conditions that drove the firm away in the first place will generally drive away other firms, too. Company analysts think in herds. Consider the enormous cost to give up an employed work-force, since acquisition and maintenance cost for a large work-force is high. Why wouldn't a second firm, faced with the same inputs as the first, make the same decision as the first?
What the good capitalist ignores is the extent to which workers become specialized at the firm, become a cog not shaped correctly for any other firm. Call this lack of fungibility. (It's one reason why company loyalty used to a) be a popular feature, and b) work both ways.)
The good capitalist also ignores the fact that the conditions that drove the firm away in the first place will generally drive away other firms, too. Company analysts think in herds. Consider the enormous cost to give up an employed work-force, since acquisition and maintenance cost for a large work-force is high. Why wouldn't a second firm, faced with the same inputs as the first, make the same decision as the first?
you kind of encompassed this, but more generally what happens when the demand for semi-skilled labor just dries up. there is just no need for these people and their work. not in any geography. not for packaging, painting, sorting, inspection, assembly, or any such task. the quasi equilibrium of the 20th century labor economy is gone.
i don't know what we're going to do with those people, but it seems likely that a lot of those towns will be completely gone in a generation or less.
i don't know what we're going to do with those people, but it seems likely that a lot of those towns will be completely gone in a generation or less.
Oakland county just to the north of Detroit is one of the wealthiest (93/3100 by per capital income), most educated counties (44% have bachelors or higher; San Francisco is 54%) in the country.
Washtenaw County, just to the west, is also high on both of those measures.
Wayne County (where Detroit is located) is middle of the pack on those measures, not at the bottom.
Washtenaw County, just to the west, is also high on both of those measures.
Wayne County (where Detroit is located) is middle of the pack on those measures, not at the bottom.
This is because all the wealthy, educated, white people left Detroit proper in the late 1960s. Some moved north to Oakland County but Wayne County covers a lot of area other than Detroit itself.
Washtenaw County is likely up there because of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The biggest hospital by gross revenue, third biggest by bed count is here, as are a whole bunch of research parks related to the automotive industry.
Washtenaw County is likely up there because of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The biggest hospital by gross revenue, third biggest by bed count is here, as are a whole bunch of research parks related to the automotive industry.
Right, my point is just that "Detroit" isn't really a great way to judge the Rust Belt. It is in a bad situation but doesn't characterize the region very well.
Well I can't speak much for the surrounding Detroit area (haven't spent much time over there) but there is a joke in Ann Arbor that its '20 square miles surrounded by reality'
Whenever I visit at the surrounding metros in Michigan, places like Flint, Lancing, Grand Rapids, etc.. I can't help but agree with the joke.
Whenever I visit at the surrounding metros in Michigan, places like Flint, Lancing, Grand Rapids, etc.. I can't help but agree with the joke.
> "Coal is evil as I've heard. And the people who mine it? They are the ones now suffering because, you know, its evil, and coal must die."
That's a strawman. Coal isn't dying because it's evil. Thermal coal is dying because it can't compete with cheaper, more efficient natural gas generation.
That's a strawman. Coal isn't dying because it's evil. Thermal coal is dying because it can't compete with cheaper, more efficient natural gas generation.
Coal ostensibly has a rather high rate of deaths caused per joule of energy produced, compared to some other non-renewables (e.g. nuclear, iirc?).
To the extent that that is true; to the extent that these deaths aren't solely of coal workers (who therefore ought to be aware of the risks and to have bargained for commensurate wages+benefits); and to the extent that this is indeed an externality (i.e. neither the coal companies nor their customers pay anything for deaths caused by coal) ... then (a) coal is indeed evil, and (b) the industry ought to be politically pressured out of business, and when it goes out of business we all ought to say "good riddance".
Come to think of it, externalization of costs is, in general, a singularly evil state of affairs, even outside the coal industry. Perhaps humanity should work on fixing it.
To the extent that that is true; to the extent that these deaths aren't solely of coal workers (who therefore ought to be aware of the risks and to have bargained for commensurate wages+benefits); and to the extent that this is indeed an externality (i.e. neither the coal companies nor their customers pay anything for deaths caused by coal) ... then (a) coal is indeed evil, and (b) the industry ought to be politically pressured out of business, and when it goes out of business we all ought to say "good riddance".
Come to think of it, externalization of costs is, in general, a singularly evil state of affairs, even outside the coal industry. Perhaps humanity should work on fixing it.
The Democratic Party Presidential candidate in the last election openly boasted about plans to "put the coal companies out of business" after she would be elected, so it's not entirely a straw man to say that there are people who would kill coal at a rate faster than what competition would achieve.
Yes, it's a strawman. Coal's present predicament has exactly nothing to do with political disfavor. Coal remains heavily subsidized [1], under-regulated [2], and enjoys entrenched support at all levels of government. And yet it still can't compete with newer more efficient alternatives.
Note that the Trump administration is now pushing to give coal massive new subsidies in the form of forced extra payments to coal-fired power plants. Also note that the money will be taken directly from us, the ratepayers; they will be charges added to our electric bills.
1. For example, the federal government has long arranged the bidding and royalty system in a way that ensures the lowest possible lease rates for coal mining, and coal companies are allowed to self-bond, so that when they go bankrupt, the public has to pick up the bills for cleanup and remediation.
2. See the TVA's recent coal ash disasters for a prime example of an under-regulated industry. Other examples abound.
Note that the Trump administration is now pushing to give coal massive new subsidies in the form of forced extra payments to coal-fired power plants. Also note that the money will be taken directly from us, the ratepayers; they will be charges added to our electric bills.
1. For example, the federal government has long arranged the bidding and royalty system in a way that ensures the lowest possible lease rates for coal mining, and coal companies are allowed to self-bond, so that when they go bankrupt, the public has to pick up the bills for cleanup and remediation.
2. See the TVA's recent coal ash disasters for a prime example of an under-regulated industry. Other examples abound.
You've missed the point I and the GP are making completely. GP is making an argument about what is happening to displaced people, not about what is happening to the coal industry.
The claim in the GP is _not_ that coal "is dying to political disfavor", the claim is that political disfavor of coal exists and is not helpful _to the people who used to mine it_, for whatever reason those people were displaced.
It really doesn't matter if coal is dying because alternatives are better or if it's the Illuminati doing it, because that doesn't change the fact that politicians are not doing anything to address the effects of it and in some cases are being explicitly callous towards people who used to be employed mining coal.
The claim in the GP is _not_ that coal "is dying to political disfavor", the claim is that political disfavor of coal exists and is not helpful _to the people who used to mine it_, for whatever reason those people were displaced.
It really doesn't matter if coal is dying because alternatives are better or if it's the Illuminati doing it, because that doesn't change the fact that politicians are not doing anything to address the effects of it and in some cases are being explicitly callous towards people who used to be employed mining coal.
Yes, I get it, you really don't like what Hillary said. Neither does she; in her new book she calls that statement one of her biggest mistakes.
But one politician's ill-considered indulgence in the heat of a campaign does not make your case that "politicians are not doing anything" to help coal miners.
Quite clearly, the opposite is true. Coal miners are America's most fashionable symbol of blue-collar righteousness, and politicians on both sides of the aisle are tripping over each other to be seen "doing something" for them. In both state and national politics, this has given coal miners influence way out of proportion to their constituency, and far beyond that of any other jobless group such as former steel-workers or loggers or out-of-work retail store workers.
Invoking the bogeyman of coal-hating elites is nothing more than a way to keep a political football inflated.
But one politician's ill-considered indulgence in the heat of a campaign does not make your case that "politicians are not doing anything" to help coal miners.
Quite clearly, the opposite is true. Coal miners are America's most fashionable symbol of blue-collar righteousness, and politicians on both sides of the aisle are tripping over each other to be seen "doing something" for them. In both state and national politics, this has given coal miners influence way out of proportion to their constituency, and far beyond that of any other jobless group such as former steel-workers or loggers or out-of-work retail store workers.
Invoking the bogeyman of coal-hating elites is nothing more than a way to keep a political football inflated.
There's also the factor that those coal jobs are GONE. Even with increased demand if the Trump Administration is able to really push that through, automation and changes in mining mean that all those jobs as coal miners aren't coming back, and the people who were told that they are coming back were simply lied to.
There's also the fact that there just aren't that many coal jobs to begin with.
Here's one link, you can find lots more:
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/
Coal gets a lot of attention because it's visible, distinctive, and I think a lot of people see it as a stand-in for any blue-collar job, i.e. the stuff that's all being automated or obsoleted out of existence.
Here's one link, you can find lots more:
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/
Coal gets a lot of attention because it's visible, distinctive, and I think a lot of people see it as a stand-in for any blue-collar job, i.e. the stuff that's all being automated or obsoleted out of existence.
> Some argue that unions would help (they wouldn't), or anti-globalism would stop factories/industries from moving (maybe temporarily). The sad fact remains that industries are, to a degree, tied to regions, and people grow up depending upon those industries in those regions. Once the industry finds a lower cost mechanism to come to market, those dependent people are cut free.
I want to clarify that China is doing a great job being very protectionist about areas like social networks (WeChat) and search (Baidu) - making it impossible for the giants to compete.
If protectionism works, then maybe it's not that the US can't do it, but it simply doesn't work with our political model.
It is highly possible that in 50 years, people will talk about the failed model of democratic republics, whereas capitalist communism dominates.
For example, if we had universal health care I think many smaller companies would exist lessening the rust belt phenomenon.
I want to clarify that China is doing a great job being very protectionist about areas like social networks (WeChat) and search (Baidu) - making it impossible for the giants to compete.
If protectionism works, then maybe it's not that the US can't do it, but it simply doesn't work with our political model.
It is highly possible that in 50 years, people will talk about the failed model of democratic republics, whereas capitalist communism dominates.
For example, if we had universal health care I think many smaller companies would exist lessening the rust belt phenomenon.
One good thing about a true basic income is that there wouldn't be conditions for receiving it so it would significantly lessen the penalty for working legitimately (obviously there would still be tax reasons to have income you don't need to report). My hope for basic income is that by simplifying how we give aid it can take out much of the ridiculous bureaucracy of it but I'm obviously no expert
The concern I have with this will be inflation. People now have money, sellers can now raise prices. Which eventually gets us right back to where we were. You can give them more money, but then you are accelerating the cycle.
sellers who raise prices will need to compete with ones who don't.
And ... how well is that working out in markets like, say, high speed internet (from someone who is struggling to find competitive offerings in a large market near major cities).
The point is that sellers may attempt to partition markets to reduce competitive pressure, allowing each to increase their pricing without worrying about being undercut.
The point is that sellers may attempt to partition markets to reduce competitive pressure, allowing each to increase their pricing without worrying about being undercut.
that's because the FCC didn't deregulate the last mile LLU would promote more competition
Not quite. Inflation isn’t the outright awful thing people assume it is. Further, the concept is to give people just enough to survive. That creates demand for only the basics. The basics are largely standardized items. When was the last time there was a shortage in corn, cotton, flour? They’re all commodities. If anything modern prices for these goods and services are likely to be indifferent to the increase in demand from simple basic income.
Another example is the cost of additional real estate outside the city. Building costs in rural America are essentially linear with demand. There’s no shortage of land out there and basic income would allow people to live in such areas.
Another example is the cost of additional real estate outside the city. Building costs in rural America are essentially linear with demand. There’s no shortage of land out there and basic income would allow people to live in such areas.
Its not awful over a short term. Over a longer term, it will price commodities out of reach. I've watched milk prices rise dramatically over the last 5 years or so. This is in part due to the costs of production rising, not necessarily the farm margins. These costs of production rise for any number of reasons, but mostly its because rising costs tend to spread out through the economy. [1]
My point is that prices will rise and find their time dependent values, in a way that will diminish the purchasing power of those you'd be attempting to help. You give enough so they have some left over, and enterprising groups will realize that they can raise prices to reflect the larger purchasing power.
Economics 101 in this case.
[1] http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0212/inflation-an...
My point is that prices will rise and find their time dependent values, in a way that will diminish the purchasing power of those you'd be attempting to help. You give enough so they have some left over, and enterprising groups will realize that they can raise prices to reflect the larger purchasing power.
Economics 101 in this case.
[1] http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0212/inflation-an...
Milk inflation is not that significant. Five dollars of milk in 2000 will cost you 6.51 USD today[0]. It's actually lower this year than it was in 2014[1].
[0] - http://www.in2013dollars.com/Milk/price-inflation [1] - https://ycharts.com/indicators/milk_price
[0] - http://www.in2013dollars.com/Milk/price-inflation [1] - https://ycharts.com/indicators/milk_price
Hmm ... not 3 years ago, the milk I currently pay $4/gallon for was selling for ~$3/gallon. Maybe outside of Michigan it is different.
Heh, in Ohio milk is currently 1$/gal.
Milk is also not a necessity for survival. Also over the longer term the UBI would increase at the base inflation rate. It would have to move in relation to all things.
> I've watched milk prices rise dramatically over the last 5 years or so.
Milk is subject to government price supports, including a mandate to purchase if market prices fall below a certain floor.
> My point is that prices will rise and find their time dependent values, in a way that will diminish the purchasing power of those you'd be attempting to help.
It's true to the extent that the long term effect of a fixed UBI will be less than you would expect based on prices at the time adopted and the inflation that net beneficiaries would experience without the UBI. This is mitigated if the UBI formula tends to grow in nominal terms (e.g., because it's tied to a revenue source which grows with the economy, or indexed to inflation) and, in any case, it requires unlikely assumptions about elasticity to have it not be a real net benefit to the nominal net beneficiaries.
Milk is subject to government price supports, including a mandate to purchase if market prices fall below a certain floor.
> My point is that prices will rise and find their time dependent values, in a way that will diminish the purchasing power of those you'd be attempting to help.
It's true to the extent that the long term effect of a fixed UBI will be less than you would expect based on prices at the time adopted and the inflation that net beneficiaries would experience without the UBI. This is mitigated if the UBI formula tends to grow in nominal terms (e.g., because it's tied to a revenue source which grows with the economy, or indexed to inflation) and, in any case, it requires unlikely assumptions about elasticity to have it not be a real net benefit to the nominal net beneficiaries.
Econ 101 should not use milk as a case study.
> The basics are largely standardized items.
Do you think that if everyone in that story got a $2k BI check that the huts they live in would continue to rent for $300? Doubtful - very doubtful.
Do you think that if everyone in that story got a $2k BI check that the huts they live in would continue to rent for $300? Doubtful - very doubtful.
Exactly. Rent seeking behavior, to extract more from tenants would be expected. This would spread. Causing other prices to rise.
There’s not going to be that much UBI to extract. Plus the assured UBI would empower people to move away from excise rent seekers.
I am going to assume I am more cynical than you on this. Rent seeking behavior is usually aimed hardest at those least likely to protest, or without resources to protest. Someone can rent seek another if the other person has no other effective choices, regardless of UBI or not. That is, UBI in isolation will likely fail.
UBI is likely, at best, a bandaid, and should not be isolated. Should be part of a broader scope of programs that help people jumpstart a move, training, etc.
That said, I do think we need it[1]. But it should be combined with other programs that help people (not redistributive programs per se, but things that help people do the things that they can't do or even consider doing now).
[1] I think we need it, as disruption will continue across industries, geos, and will impact people in very negative ways. So we need a way for them to help themselves while they consider options. If this means helping them get mobile and settled at a new location, help finding a job, and training, that could be tremendous if linked with UBI.
UBI is likely, at best, a bandaid, and should not be isolated. Should be part of a broader scope of programs that help people jumpstart a move, training, etc.
That said, I do think we need it[1]. But it should be combined with other programs that help people (not redistributive programs per se, but things that help people do the things that they can't do or even consider doing now).
[1] I think we need it, as disruption will continue across industries, geos, and will impact people in very negative ways. So we need a way for them to help themselves while they consider options. If this means helping them get mobile and settled at a new location, help finding a job, and training, that could be tremendous if linked with UBI.
UBI is going to go in the order of priority for:
* roof over ones' head, no matter how shitty
* food, no matter how shitty
* minimum utilities
* booze, drugs
* other
the first 3 would capture everything just as they do now.
* roof over ones' head, no matter how shitty
* food, no matter how shitty
* minimum utilities
* booze, drugs
* other
the first 3 would capture everything just as they do now.
Man, that's like trying to move to a state that has less nitrogen in its atmosphere. Rent-seekers are everywhere. If you go anywhere they currently are not, they will follow the scent of your wallet to wherever you end up.
They wouldn't continue to live in $300/month huts. They'd be able to move.
You assume they would. As soon as the UBI hits, the 300$ huts become $1300 huts. And we have the same pattern all over again.
Enable them to mobile, independent of UBI. Enable them to get food, health care (real stuff, not the obamacare crap[1]), job training, child care (if needed), relocation and housing assistance. Don't hand them money for these things (apart from UBI), but help them with a health card that handles medical/dental/etc. Give them a "credit" card that they can use with a set of well scrutinized vendors for relo/housing. Etc.
[1] when my $dayjob-1 died, I had to sign my family up for obamacare. About the same amount I paid for my old good plan. Much higher deductibles, covered almost no meds, little hospitalization. The thing needs to be fixed, not repealed. Fixing it is going to be hard as it was designed to fail and be replaced with single payer. So there is that.
Enable them to mobile, independent of UBI. Enable them to get food, health care (real stuff, not the obamacare crap[1]), job training, child care (if needed), relocation and housing assistance. Don't hand them money for these things (apart from UBI), but help them with a health card that handles medical/dental/etc. Give them a "credit" card that they can use with a set of well scrutinized vendors for relo/housing. Etc.
[1] when my $dayjob-1 died, I had to sign my family up for obamacare. About the same amount I paid for my old good plan. Much higher deductibles, covered almost no meds, little hospitalization. The thing needs to be fixed, not repealed. Fixing it is going to be hard as it was designed to fail and be replaced with single payer. So there is that.
"Just enough to survive" gets purchased anyways - there wouldn't be a huge increase in demand for corn, cotton, and flour.
What about a resource-based basic income? There is already a vast surplus of food and shelter that goes wasted every year, at least in the US.
this has always made a lot of sense to me. in the US we used to have govt cheese (and peanut butter, and butter, etc). it would mean the development of a persistent and more easily recognizable underclass.
the US is already subsidizing foodstuffs to attempt to address the problem from the supply side. it seems politically untenable though to wire that up to the demand side directly without sending it through some for-profit machinery somewhere. its basically communism.
the US is already subsidizing foodstuffs to attempt to address the problem from the supply side. it seems politically untenable though to wire that up to the demand side directly without sending it through some for-profit machinery somewhere. its basically communism.
That's one way to reasonably do it. Otherwise, the benefit goes largely to the rent-seekers instead of the people you're trying to help.
I suppose another way would be to issue restricted local currencies and non-transferable coupons or vouchers. That has the added benefit of creating a lot of paper-pushing bureaucracy jobs.
I suppose another way would be to issue restricted local currencies and non-transferable coupons or vouchers. That has the added benefit of creating a lot of paper-pushing bureaucracy jobs.
>I suppose another way would be to issue restricted local currencies and non-transferable coupons or vouchers. That has the added benefit of creating a lot of paper-pushing bureaucracy jobs.
Isn't one of the main goals of BI to eliminate the "need" for bullshit jobs, though?
Isn't one of the main goals of BI to eliminate the "need" for bullshit jobs, though?
The bureaucracy will always need to create more of itself.
And it isn't always about the money, either. Sometimes the petits Napoleons just need to lord the tiny bit of power they have over those who don't even have that much.
My cynicism is bleeding through. The US government has a tendency to just throw money at a problem instead of actually doing something to solve it. Failing that, they throw on a half-assed patch that is only funded well enough to partially address the unintended consequences of the check-writing fix.
The only realistic way to keep BI out of the pockets of rent-seekers is to pay it as the basic necessities rather than as cash. Nobody will raise your rent from 20# of corn to 30# of corn, but they sure will raise it from $200 to $300. And the best way to do that is to hire people to produce the necessities directly. But congress is skittish about doing anything that looks too much like communism. Hence the vouchers. So they can control how things get done without actually doing anything.
And it isn't always about the money, either. Sometimes the petits Napoleons just need to lord the tiny bit of power they have over those who don't even have that much.
My cynicism is bleeding through. The US government has a tendency to just throw money at a problem instead of actually doing something to solve it. Failing that, they throw on a half-assed patch that is only funded well enough to partially address the unintended consequences of the check-writing fix.
The only realistic way to keep BI out of the pockets of rent-seekers is to pay it as the basic necessities rather than as cash. Nobody will raise your rent from 20# of corn to 30# of corn, but they sure will raise it from $200 to $300. And the best way to do that is to hire people to produce the necessities directly. But congress is skittish about doing anything that looks too much like communism. Hence the vouchers. So they can control how things get done without actually doing anything.
I think that would happen only if basic income means most people stop working. Most people I've met aren't really satisfied to just live around the poverty line to the point where they work multiple full time jobs so there seems to be precedent to believe that you can give a basic income and have people still work. It's not like basic income would be making money out of thin air so it's not like it necessitates inflation
Sadly this is already going on. House prices will always be a small tick above whatever the max amount the banks are willing to lend out that year, and as that lent money trickles into the broader circulation it also drives up other prices.
Just pumping more money in will fix nothing. What is needed is for some massive non-profit entity to step in and provide basic goods and services at a known price. This then fixes the floor of the economy rather than continually trying to chase the roof.
Just pumping more money in will fix nothing. What is needed is for some massive non-profit entity to step in and provide basic goods and services at a known price. This then fixes the floor of the economy rather than continually trying to chase the roof.
This was indeed a depressing article. It would be interesting to see the data around this phenomenon - how many instances of this are occurring now vs. 10-20-30-40 years ago? Surely globalism is having some measurable impact on the capability of rural populations to find work and make a living. Curious about other factors as well.
I don't think you can just pin this all on one issue. "Globalism" mainly means moving manufacturing overseas, but that's not really applicable for most rural locations. "Immigration" especially the undocumented kind, is centered around low-wage service sectors. Again, not mainly part of the rural economy.
The main issues are the collapse of coal and other higher wage resource extracting jobs, the take over of family farms by large corporations, and the fact that the majority of U.S. economic growth in the last 20+ years has been centered around very large cities. And it's pretty much impossible for people in these towns to get in on any of it since they don't have the networks, the skills, or the savings they would need to start from scratch in one of those cities.
The main issues are the collapse of coal and other higher wage resource extracting jobs, the take over of family farms by large corporations, and the fact that the majority of U.S. economic growth in the last 20+ years has been centered around very large cities. And it's pretty much impossible for people in these towns to get in on any of it since they don't have the networks, the skills, or the savings they would need to start from scratch in one of those cities.
"Surely globalism is having some measurable impact on the capability of rural populations to find work and make a living."
Globalism has had a huge, positive impact on the ability of many rural populations to find work by allowing them to no longer be rural populations. Look at how the growth of outsourced manufacturing in China led to the largest migration in human history, as dirt-poor subsistence farmers were able to find better jobs in the cities. Similarly, European integration has allowed people from miserable places in rural Romania or Bulgaria to move to Spain or Germany for better jobs.
Even the people who stay in those rural places benefit, because prosperous people in the cities send money back home to their families. I get the impression that in the USA, however, people who have made a good life in the cities don’t send much money back home.
Globalism has had a huge, positive impact on the ability of many rural populations to find work by allowing them to no longer be rural populations. Look at how the growth of outsourced manufacturing in China led to the largest migration in human history, as dirt-poor subsistence farmers were able to find better jobs in the cities. Similarly, European integration has allowed people from miserable places in rural Romania or Bulgaria to move to Spain or Germany for better jobs.
Even the people who stay in those rural places benefit, because prosperous people in the cities send money back home to their families. I get the impression that in the USA, however, people who have made a good life in the cities don’t send much money back home.
Sure, that's great for China and the countries where globalism has positively impacted those rural populations but there isn't much accounting for those populations that are left behind at home.
That's because rural Chinese or Cambodian makes a lot less than a rural American described in this article.
Hence one of the critiques of globalism.
I may have not been obvious - i'm agreeing.
That's a good point. I grew up poor as fuck, and there's a huge set of rules which incentivize poverty. For instance, if the family makes more than a certain amount, you lose health care.
So you wind up in a situation where you're basically discouraged from working.
I remember going to the dentist when I turned 18, and I was stunned to see the bill. I'd never seen a medical bill in my entire life.
So you wind up in a situation where you're basically discouraged from working.
I remember going to the dentist when I turned 18, and I was stunned to see the bill. I'd never seen a medical bill in my entire life.
> what do you do when the fish are just gone?
Move to where the fish are. The economy isn't terrible everywhere.
Move to where the fish are. The economy isn't terrible everywhere.
I know this is hard for valley drones with no loyalties to comprehend, but not everyone is able or afford to move in the first place, or willing to move even if they could scrape it. Moving is expensive and when the only thing in the world you have is your family and friends, would you just up and give that up? Especially for those who are not in their 20s. And where do you live when you do move, when you have no money to save and you have to struggle to live in a shack with no plumbing or kitchen or bed? "Just move" is not a tenable solution.
I live nowhere near "the valley" and yes, moving to where the work is is what people did in past hard times. Sometimes moving across the ocean (immigrants to the USA in the early 20th century).
Maybe we should be helping people with relocation instead of enabling their miserable existence where they are.
Maybe we should be helping people with relocation instead of enabling their miserable existence where they are.
Yeah, things like Ellis Island and hobos riding the rails are really things we should aspire to return to. History is never wrong.
Assume, as the story implies, that they haven't the money to move. Moving costs money.
Exactly what should they do?
Channeling Marie Antoinette is obviously not the right answer (e.g. moving to the jobs) as they are functionally immobile, and as the article notes, they are disabled.
Note: the above question is somewhat rhetorical. There is no real answer, or rather no easy answer. Basic income may help, or it may delay eventual help.
Exactly what should they do?
Channeling Marie Antoinette is obviously not the right answer (e.g. moving to the jobs) as they are functionally immobile, and as the article notes, they are disabled.
Note: the above question is somewhat rhetorical. There is no real answer, or rather no easy answer. Basic income may help, or it may delay eventual help.
"I'm going to start explaining to people, when you have an area that just isn't working like upper New York state, where people are getting very badly hurt, and then you'll have another area 500 miles away where you can't get people, I'm going to explain, you can leave. It's OK. Don't worry about your house."
http://www.timesunion.com/7day-business/article/Trump-says-u...
http://www.timesunion.com/7day-business/article/Trump-says-u...
Also the economy is pretty terrible in most places. That if anything should be the biggest backing for a UBI.
Really? We should subsidize broken economies in perpetuity, by allowing people to stay in them forever? I think that's only going to cement what we're already seeing, unless people use their UBI to buy luggage and bus fare.
Once people aren’t forced to labor for basic survival they will have options. Right now industry tends to be locality based and very insular. For instance, had Detroit had more than one major industry powering it then the collapse of manufacturing cars wouldn’t have hit them so critically. My point is UBI would increase peoples’ liberties with their time. Suddenly there could be all sorts of cottage industries built ip alongside the larger ones. In times of economic stress, like in all complex systems, diversity helps spread and diminish stress.
Ah, so we should abandon capital investment and revert to nomadic lifestyles, where swarms of people wander the landscape looking for work.
They should be investing in their own caravan carts, rather than paying $300/month for just enough floor to throw down a mattress? Like Roma (Gypsy), Irish Travelers, or hoboes? Yes, those are all cultures valued well by the landowner class.
You can't solve a regional problem by depopulating the region. You'll just end up with the same problems in the neighboring region.
And in the metaphor, the fish are gone. As in extinct. Coal mining is dead. Natural gas extraction and green energy killed it. People still working in the industry are the isopods picking over the carcasses. Eventually, they will get down to the bones, and they too will have to find something else to eat.
They should be investing in their own caravan carts, rather than paying $300/month for just enough floor to throw down a mattress? Like Roma (Gypsy), Irish Travelers, or hoboes? Yes, those are all cultures valued well by the landowner class.
You can't solve a regional problem by depopulating the region. You'll just end up with the same problems in the neighboring region.
And in the metaphor, the fish are gone. As in extinct. Coal mining is dead. Natural gas extraction and green energy killed it. People still working in the industry are the isopods picking over the carcasses. Eventually, they will get down to the bones, and they too will have to find something else to eat.
This is the Hacker News' equivalent comment of "Let them eat cake". I hope things are going well in The Capitol.
Where do you suppose they would live? Under a bridge in San Francisco? Unless you are going to host them.
Where do you suppose they would live? Under a bridge in San Francisco? Unless you are going to host them.
Tangentially related, I do a bit of urban/suburban exploring on paths under overpasses or railroad right of ways and nearly every where I have been in California from San Francisco to San Diego there are homeless people living wherever there is a bit of shade.
Mobility is not the same for everyone for a multitude of reasons.
It seems more practical to move the fish to where the people are.
You mean like, turn Appalachia into the Silicon Valley of the East?
This is an old idea, and implementations of it almost never work. It's usually because there's some other facet of "the fish" that is difficult to replicate somewhere else, and people do the replicating in some cargo-cult fashion.
This is an old idea, and implementations of it almost never work. It's usually because there's some other facet of "the fish" that is difficult to replicate somewhere else, and people do the replicating in some cargo-cult fashion.
> If all you ever knew is coal mining, that's your condition that prevents you from finding gainful employment.
Why can they not expand their knowledge?
And if they truly cannot, then ...
What productive purpose can we possibly expect them to have? Or in other words: why should we evaluate them as non-negligible?
Why can they not expand their knowledge?
And if they truly cannot, then ...
What productive purpose can we possibly expect them to have? Or in other words: why should we evaluate them as non-negligible?
You know, you should really think about your usage of that word "evaluate". These are people, but you're talking about them in the language that a master might use to discuss the value of a slave- as in, how many dollars do they bring in. What's the value of a bedtime story read to a child? We are all going to die man, life is not about money and profit. Go outside and breathe the fresh air and rethink your life.
The world is indifferent to people's existence. People will only ever mean something if they accomplish something, not because they're people.
Why should I, or anyone, see differently?
> What's the value of 1 bedtime story read to a child?
Well, if we could perform a large study, starting during the participants' childhood, with half the children read X bedtime stories and the other half read X-1, and could somehow control for every possible source of confounding influence across the participants' entire lifetime, then we could see whether there is a statistically-significant difference in the two groups' distributions of net worth at retirement ... then we could begin to answer that question. (In order to get a complete answer, we would need to repeat that experiment for many different values of X and fit a curve to all the results.)
Needless to say, neither you nor I will be alive when that study is published, even if we are alive when that study becomes less-than-impossible to perform.
So today we can at 2nd-best say "not enough information", and at best make a slightly-educated guess of "it's likely negligible among all other influences on children".
> We are all going to die man, life is not about money and profit.
Even if I assume so, my experience is that life utterly sucks without the freedom imbued by money (which, incidentally, is obtained via profit).
Yet I also dispute your assertion to the core. Life is most definitely all about money and profit. Because (a) whatever you think life is about ... you will invariably need money to pursue that goal, and (b) unless you're a farmer or hunter or etc., you literally cannot live without it, unless you steal, which is unethical and criminal. (Under some governments, I'll grant, it is possible to not earn one's money; so the "and profit" portion is not as applicable. Still, even in such cases, someone earned it before having it stol- uhh, taxed from them.)
Oh, and because you're making this assertion, I can also tell that you have at least some modicum of money and profits; otherwise, you would not find this assertion so easy to make.
Why should I, or anyone, see differently?
> What's the value of 1 bedtime story read to a child?
Well, if we could perform a large study, starting during the participants' childhood, with half the children read X bedtime stories and the other half read X-1, and could somehow control for every possible source of confounding influence across the participants' entire lifetime, then we could see whether there is a statistically-significant difference in the two groups' distributions of net worth at retirement ... then we could begin to answer that question. (In order to get a complete answer, we would need to repeat that experiment for many different values of X and fit a curve to all the results.)
Needless to say, neither you nor I will be alive when that study is published, even if we are alive when that study becomes less-than-impossible to perform.
So today we can at 2nd-best say "not enough information", and at best make a slightly-educated guess of "it's likely negligible among all other influences on children".
> We are all going to die man, life is not about money and profit.
Even if I assume so, my experience is that life utterly sucks without the freedom imbued by money (which, incidentally, is obtained via profit).
Yet I also dispute your assertion to the core. Life is most definitely all about money and profit. Because (a) whatever you think life is about ... you will invariably need money to pursue that goal, and (b) unless you're a farmer or hunter or etc., you literally cannot live without it, unless you steal, which is unethical and criminal. (Under some governments, I'll grant, it is possible to not earn one's money; so the "and profit" portion is not as applicable. Still, even in such cases, someone earned it before having it stol- uhh, taxed from them.)
Oh, and because you're making this assertion, I can also tell that you have at least some modicum of money and profits; otherwise, you would not find this assertion so easy to make.
fallingfrog(1)
[deleted]
Ive been there. Years ago.
Back in '07 got laid off. Company shut down. Lots of us tried to scramble to get jobs, and all the quick low paying jobs filled up. I got into unemployment and started collecting the $207/week. And this, obviously, wasn't enough. It certainly didn't equal to the part that was taken out of my paycheck for "unemployment insurance".
2 weeks turned into a month. Which turned into months, then into a year. Then the '08 recession hit. I saw people with graduate science degrees working at McDonalds. There was no fucking way I could get a job, even with blanketing my resumes and filling out webforms that are never responded (Thank you for submitting your application. You will never hear from us).
And im still struggling with the $207/week. So I start hustling on craigslist, doing odd jobs. Of course I'm supposed to report this. Well, guess what.... I used this money to relocate myself to a better location, and got a job.
Ideally, if you make 1$ on unemployment, you are supposed to report it, and you get $1 less. And if you do work a low paying job, then you get worked to the bone for 30 hours, and get minimum wage which is $187 after taxes. And minus gas, minus lunch, and too tired to look elsewhere. So you hold out for a better one that can get you out of the hole.
Yeah, it's just a bad situation all around. And it turns everyone into criminals.
Back in '07 got laid off. Company shut down. Lots of us tried to scramble to get jobs, and all the quick low paying jobs filled up. I got into unemployment and started collecting the $207/week. And this, obviously, wasn't enough. It certainly didn't equal to the part that was taken out of my paycheck for "unemployment insurance".
2 weeks turned into a month. Which turned into months, then into a year. Then the '08 recession hit. I saw people with graduate science degrees working at McDonalds. There was no fucking way I could get a job, even with blanketing my resumes and filling out webforms that are never responded (Thank you for submitting your application. You will never hear from us).
And im still struggling with the $207/week. So I start hustling on craigslist, doing odd jobs. Of course I'm supposed to report this. Well, guess what.... I used this money to relocate myself to a better location, and got a job.
Ideally, if you make 1$ on unemployment, you are supposed to report it, and you get $1 less. And if you do work a low paying job, then you get worked to the bone for 30 hours, and get minimum wage which is $187 after taxes. And minus gas, minus lunch, and too tired to look elsewhere. So you hold out for a better one that can get you out of the hole.
Yeah, it's just a bad situation all around. And it turns everyone into criminals.
>It certainly didn't equal to the part that was taken out of my paycheck for "unemployment insurance".
You were getting more than $207/week taken out of your paycheck for unemployment insurance? That's highway robbery!
You were getting more than $207/week taken out of your paycheck for unemployment insurance? That's highway robbery!
When you work for 5 years at a place, and unemployment law only recognizes the last 2 years as history, yes, I am getting cheated.
The point of unemployment insurance is to cover things like this. And when the govt's law intentionaly blinds them to your previous payments, there definitely is something wrong.
Did I calculate exactly how much I paid in? No. But do 5 years of being paid reasonably well; I paid in plenty.
The point of unemployment insurance is to cover things like this. And when the govt's law intentionaly blinds them to your previous payments, there definitely is something wrong.
Did I calculate exactly how much I paid in? No. But do 5 years of being paid reasonably well; I paid in plenty.
>because disability payments on average amount to less than minimum wage, sometimes much less, ...
Why is this? How are these people expected to survive, if they are disabled to the point that they can't hold down a job, and aren't allowed to work without the risk of losing their disability payments? Busking? I know that's been one traditional job for disabled people over the centuries, but I feel like we should be able to do better.
Why is this? How are these people expected to survive, if they are disabled to the point that they can't hold down a job, and aren't allowed to work without the risk of losing their disability payments? Busking? I know that's been one traditional job for disabled people over the centuries, but I feel like we should be able to do better.
Disability is often done on a percentage basis. If you're completely unable to work you get 100%.
If you can't stand for a long time, but can sit and work, you might get 30% disability.
Even at 100% it's not a lot of money, but I've heard it's enough to exist.
If you can't stand for a long time, but can sit and work, you might get 30% disability.
Even at 100% it's not a lot of money, but I've heard it's enough to exist.
So if you're at 30% disability because you can't stand for long periods or do physical labor, are you still allowed to hold down an office or clerical job where you work 30-50 hours a week? It might mean unique difficulties with things like transportation, but the government isn't paying you a salary under the understanding that you aren't fit to work, they're providing you a stipend to compensate for the unique difficulties of your situation.
Or, if they are paying you a sort of salary under the understanding that you aren't fit to work, why is it below minimum wage when you demonstrably already have more problems than most people?
Edit: Okay, reading the article shines a bit more light on this, but it's still very confusing. I can't imagine having to navigate these systems without any resources. And even then:
>This means recipients receiving the maximum $735 check can earn up $1,555 per month and still be eligible for a disability payment.
The maximum is under $9K/year? That is not a living wage for someone without disabilities.
Or, if they are paying you a sort of salary under the understanding that you aren't fit to work, why is it below minimum wage when you demonstrably already have more problems than most people?
Edit: Okay, reading the article shines a bit more light on this, but it's still very confusing. I can't imagine having to navigate these systems without any resources. And even then:
>This means recipients receiving the maximum $735 check can earn up $1,555 per month and still be eligible for a disability payment.
The maximum is under $9K/year? That is not a living wage for someone without disabilities.
My sister is physically disabled and works a clerical job part-time. She continually has to watch her hours at her job because if she makes too much money, she is required to pay back the difference in her SSI disability cheque. Please note that her combined income from work and disability benefits is peanuts - it's enough to live on in a rural Midwestern town where things haven't gone up shit creek as badly as the Rust Belt and Appalachia, but it's no glamourous lifestyle and the requirement to stay underneath certain income lest you lose your SSI benefits is a perverse incentive not to try and find better work.
Hour limits imposed because of benefits do no beneficial good. In fact all they really accomplish is keeping people down.
> but I've heard it's enough to exist.
How does health insurance/care work for these people? Do you automatically qualify for the government programs (MA?) if you are even partially disabled?
How does health insurance/care work for these people? Do you automatically qualify for the government programs (MA?) if you are even partially disabled?
If you receive SSI disability payments you qualify for Medicare even if you're not 65. However, you don't qualify until 2 years after you're eligible. People typically will go on Medicaid since they can't work and their low (or non-existent) income qualifies them for Medicaid.
With the ACA, you will qualify for full insurance due to grants. But if these people have already qualified for federal / state disability payments, they will almost certainly be entitled to some combination of SSDI / Medicare / Medicaid.
Medicaid, funded by the state.
Some food subsidies via EBT or WIC.
The more 'entrepreneurial' folks can also sell their prescriptions, subsidize other's food purchases w/ the EBT card (in exchange for cash), and make/sell moonshine.
Some food subsidies via EBT or WIC.
The more 'entrepreneurial' folks can also sell their prescriptions, subsidize other's food purchases w/ the EBT card (in exchange for cash), and make/sell moonshine.
So, UBI is basically like being on 100% disability?
Disability payments are also based on how much you've paid into Social Security. For example, if I were to go on disability tomorrow, I would receive about $1,800 a month, due to the payments I've made into the system (I just checked my Social Security account the other day).
So the people who receive low disability payments are mostly people who have never had a job, or have not paid much into Social Security. I believe the floor for disability is $750 a month. Which isn't really okay, but many people on disability make enough to live on, so poverty is not an issue for all recipients of disability.
So the people who receive low disability payments are mostly people who have never had a job, or have not paid much into Social Security. I believe the floor for disability is $750 a month. Which isn't really okay, but many people on disability make enough to live on, so poverty is not an issue for all recipients of disability.
It's so the U.S. doesn't end up with an epidemic of people "on the dole" like they have in the U.K.
PBS viewers may know it as Onslow Syndrome.
PBS viewers may know it as Onslow Syndrome.
In case anyone else was confused about the reference, it appears to be to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Keeping_Up_Appearances... from the British sitcom "Keeping Up Appearances", written for the BBC but also airing in the US on PBS.
"Any more beer?"
We spent the last few decades dismantling whatever shambles of a social safety net we had, and we don't give a shit about people who can't afford to live. We say "get a job", and we just don't care.
Speak for yourself, I care deeply about the less fortunate - I just don't think that the social safety net is well designed or cost effective and I think pouring more money into it will just incentivize preying on the people caught in the net.
I think there are solid ways to help people but that usually means investment in them, rather than increased dependence on the system. I'd gladly chip in for this lady to get a solar panel and battery, or a waterless toilet, or microhouse, or access to cheaper fuel.
There's some pro-liberty stuff that would be great for the working poor:
* less emissions laws on vehicles - it'd be cheaper to make fuel efficient vehicles at the expense of some NOX emissions
* fewer zoning laws - it'd make micro housing more accessible
* fewer renewable energy laws / less protectionism on solar - make off-grid systems more appealing
A $10k investment in this lady's life would dramatically alter it. It would give her a toilet, better housing, and energy.
Conversely, giving her an extra $100 or so per month might just go to beer and cigs so she can deal with how crappy her life is and doesn't really give her enough to get ahead.
And that line about her brother having a quadruple bypass is icing on the cake. How much do you think we spent on that? 120k? We should keep the expenditures the same but give people a choice on how to spend it. Maybe the brother would have rolled the dice with Indian quality of care (i.e a 10k surgery) and split the savings with him - give him 50k cash for saving public money.
I think there are solid ways to help people but that usually means investment in them, rather than increased dependence on the system. I'd gladly chip in for this lady to get a solar panel and battery, or a waterless toilet, or microhouse, or access to cheaper fuel.
There's some pro-liberty stuff that would be great for the working poor:
* less emissions laws on vehicles - it'd be cheaper to make fuel efficient vehicles at the expense of some NOX emissions
* fewer zoning laws - it'd make micro housing more accessible
* fewer renewable energy laws / less protectionism on solar - make off-grid systems more appealing
A $10k investment in this lady's life would dramatically alter it. It would give her a toilet, better housing, and energy.
Conversely, giving her an extra $100 or so per month might just go to beer and cigs so she can deal with how crappy her life is and doesn't really give her enough to get ahead.
And that line about her brother having a quadruple bypass is icing on the cake. How much do you think we spent on that? 120k? We should keep the expenditures the same but give people a choice on how to spend it. Maybe the brother would have rolled the dice with Indian quality of care (i.e a 10k surgery) and split the savings with him - give him 50k cash for saving public money.
Are you suggesting that giving the poor huge amounts of money in one lump sum will help them more than giving them a smaller amount each month?
I think it depends.
There are some people who would turn a lump sum into self-sufficiency. There are some people who would turn a lump sum into an overdose/bender.
I think we should take the total welfare budget and let people compete for using it the best. I think the best KPIs for welfare are 1) poverty reduction 2) violent crime reduction 3) QALY increases.
If a charity can demonstrate better results than say a county, the charity should get more money.
What isn't cost effective is giving a guy a titanium leg but such a bad quality of life that he would pawn his titanium leg. Don't you think there's a better allocation of money in that guy's life?
There are some people who would turn a lump sum into self-sufficiency. There are some people who would turn a lump sum into an overdose/bender.
I think we should take the total welfare budget and let people compete for using it the best. I think the best KPIs for welfare are 1) poverty reduction 2) violent crime reduction 3) QALY increases.
If a charity can demonstrate better results than say a county, the charity should get more money.
What isn't cost effective is giving a guy a titanium leg but such a bad quality of life that he would pawn his titanium leg. Don't you think there's a better allocation of money in that guy's life?
Yes. When you give someone with a terrible quality of life a lump sum they spend more of it on stuff that improves their quality of life than they would if it were distributes as small payments over time.
Look at what people do with tax returns. They spend it on big items that they couldn't justify budgeting and saving for otherwise.
Look at what people do with tax returns. They spend it on big items that they couldn't justify budgeting and saving for otherwise.
Is it possible that a person with a terrible quality of life lacks the discipline not to waste a large sum of money? If so, what is the likelihood that such a person will squander all of their lump sum?
I considered myself poor up until a couple years ago. The biggest kick in the balls each year was the vehicle inspection. If you live in a place without public transit you can't just go without a car. So I would be paying thousands of dollars to replace sensors that did little to improve the actually functionality of the car all in the name of getting rid of that check engine light. Most of the time I couldn't afford it and it was cheaper to just get a fine from time to time.
+1.
Most of the time, the issues aren't making the car pollute an illegal amount (or at least not usually), they're just making the car pollute more than it was certified to pollute (or the issues make it impossible for the car to verify that it's polluting the right amount).
And there's no Cost-Benefit analysis done for people. My grandma had to pay $3k to get her car fixed, she drives 20 miles/wk. IT would have been much cheaper for her just to buy offsets but that's not permissible. However, when Jeep builds gas guzzlers, they can just buy credits from Tesla and Toyota so the DOT doesn't fine them.
Even if her car is polluting more, it's polluting as much as I was when I was commuting 100 mi/day.
I live in a city that despises car pollution, but the traffic light timing really stinks and I"m sure that there'd be less pollution if they made the system work better. They want me to drive a hybrid, I want them to do the job I"m paying them to do: take care of the fundamental infrastructure.
Most of the time, the issues aren't making the car pollute an illegal amount (or at least not usually), they're just making the car pollute more than it was certified to pollute (or the issues make it impossible for the car to verify that it's polluting the right amount).
And there's no Cost-Benefit analysis done for people. My grandma had to pay $3k to get her car fixed, she drives 20 miles/wk. IT would have been much cheaper for her just to buy offsets but that's not permissible. However, when Jeep builds gas guzzlers, they can just buy credits from Tesla and Toyota so the DOT doesn't fine them.
Even if her car is polluting more, it's polluting as much as I was when I was commuting 100 mi/day.
I live in a city that despises car pollution, but the traffic light timing really stinks and I"m sure that there'd be less pollution if they made the system work better. They want me to drive a hybrid, I want them to do the job I"m paying them to do: take care of the fundamental infrastructure.
Could you explain more about this vehicle inspection? I've never had a required inspection but I haven't driven that much either.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/smog
Some states (mostly costal states) have rules that vehicles have to be inspected regularly. Some states inspect vehicles for safety reasons, other states inspect vehicles for emissions compliance, and a few states look for both.
It's well intentioned, but the checks leave something to be desired. In some states, a check engine light is an automatic fail regardless of whether or not the rest of the car is okay to drive. As the parent comment mentioned, it can be really expensive to fix check engine lights.
I have a car hobby and one guy I know spent like 30 hours diagnosing / repairing his 2000 Honda minivan to fix the check engine light. He tried to get a waiver, his car was producing a legal amount of emissions, but he couldn't get the check engine light to clear until he replaced a fuel pressure regulator - it's a total crock of crap. He's an older guy who only used the van to pick up his grandkids after school.
He couldn't get the minivan certified, so he had to pick up his kids in his pre-emissions car or else run the risk of a ticket he couldn't afford.
In this case, the law coerced him to drive kids in a car without seat belts or any emissions equipment than a safe car with a check engine light. IMO the laws are total failures.
Some states (mostly costal states) have rules that vehicles have to be inspected regularly. Some states inspect vehicles for safety reasons, other states inspect vehicles for emissions compliance, and a few states look for both.
It's well intentioned, but the checks leave something to be desired. In some states, a check engine light is an automatic fail regardless of whether or not the rest of the car is okay to drive. As the parent comment mentioned, it can be really expensive to fix check engine lights.
I have a car hobby and one guy I know spent like 30 hours diagnosing / repairing his 2000 Honda minivan to fix the check engine light. He tried to get a waiver, his car was producing a legal amount of emissions, but he couldn't get the check engine light to clear until he replaced a fuel pressure regulator - it's a total crock of crap. He's an older guy who only used the van to pick up his grandkids after school.
He couldn't get the minivan certified, so he had to pick up his kids in his pre-emissions car or else run the risk of a ticket he couldn't afford.
In this case, the law coerced him to drive kids in a car without seat belts or any emissions equipment than a safe car with a check engine light. IMO the laws are total failures.
I don't see at all how this makes the laws "total failures".
You're asking the emissions testing people to: believe that random guy X is going to keep his car, that he's only going to use it for one short trip a day, that the check engine light only means one thing, that it's within legal limits despite the check engine light being on, and on and on and on.
You're asking them to make an exemption--or somehow modify the laws to account for "Grampa says he will only drive short distances"--on a whole host of things they have no way of verifying or even knowing, and that makes the laws total failures?
I guess I can't see how you're proposing that vehicle emissions be regulated at all, if "this car hobbyist says..." and "grampa says..." are relevant factors in determining the road-worthiness of a car.
You're asking the emissions testing people to: believe that random guy X is going to keep his car, that he's only going to use it for one short trip a day, that the check engine light only means one thing, that it's within legal limits despite the check engine light being on, and on and on and on.
You're asking them to make an exemption--or somehow modify the laws to account for "Grampa says he will only drive short distances"--on a whole host of things they have no way of verifying or even knowing, and that makes the laws total failures?
I guess I can't see how you're proposing that vehicle emissions be regulated at all, if "this car hobbyist says..." and "grampa says..." are relevant factors in determining the road-worthiness of a car.
There's an easier way to discourage pollution - fuel taxes.
If the law encourages someone to drive a pre-emissions car over a emissions compliant but not not emissions certified car, it encourages pollution.
If the law encourages someone to drive a pre-emissions car over a emissions compliant but not not emissions certified car, it encourages pollution.
I think the question is. Do you believe that we can have good government policies that can be improved overtime. Or do you just want to have the smallest possible government.
Because the conversation in the right hasn't been about what policies are the best, it has been about getting rid of the government.
Because the conversation in the right hasn't been about what policies are the best, it has been about getting rid of the government.
Hardly, the right fawns over the military and LEOs.
Most right wingers you would talk to (IRL - not on the internet that skews libertarian) are interested in cost effectiveness. Some of them say the current levels of 'quality' are alright and we should find ways to reduce the costs. Others say that we're spending enough but not getting good enough results.
I'd be fine with spending a lot more in welfare if the results were better. However, I would disagree with many left-wingers on what good results are. I think left wingers' ideal welfare state would be like a magical feeding trough, my ideal welfare state is one that invests in people so they can the State and humanity to the best of their abilities - if they stop serving the State and humanity, I think that merits less investment. A person who helps the less fortunate is more deserving of welfare than someone who plays WOW full time because they like crushing noobs.
I have no tolerance for young men who play video games in their parent's basement. If they have a disease, I'd chip in to help treat them. If they're just lazy, then that's on the parents who enable them. I'd also be concerned about pretending their personal failures are medical problems - which is one of the reasons I'm mostly opposed to SSI/SSD.
For people with gumption, we should try to find a way to make them productive. My pet proposal is to give these people priority for government jobs. DMV clerks can't such much more, we could at least give it to someone who's down on their luck. For people without gumption, I think we should put them on a nice beach and make sure they have food and access to basic health care.
Most right wingers you would talk to (IRL - not on the internet that skews libertarian) are interested in cost effectiveness. Some of them say the current levels of 'quality' are alright and we should find ways to reduce the costs. Others say that we're spending enough but not getting good enough results.
I'd be fine with spending a lot more in welfare if the results were better. However, I would disagree with many left-wingers on what good results are. I think left wingers' ideal welfare state would be like a magical feeding trough, my ideal welfare state is one that invests in people so they can the State and humanity to the best of their abilities - if they stop serving the State and humanity, I think that merits less investment. A person who helps the less fortunate is more deserving of welfare than someone who plays WOW full time because they like crushing noobs.
I have no tolerance for young men who play video games in their parent's basement. If they have a disease, I'd chip in to help treat them. If they're just lazy, then that's on the parents who enable them. I'd also be concerned about pretending their personal failures are medical problems - which is one of the reasons I'm mostly opposed to SSI/SSD.
For people with gumption, we should try to find a way to make them productive. My pet proposal is to give these people priority for government jobs. DMV clerks can't such much more, we could at least give it to someone who's down on their luck. For people without gumption, I think we should put them on a nice beach and make sure they have food and access to basic health care.
[deleted]
>>We spent the last few decades dismantling whatever shambles of a social safety net we had
The empirical evidence would suggest the opposite:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
The empirical evidence would suggest the opposite:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
I was going to say. Safety net as a percentage of gov't spending has only increased. That would suggest we're not dismantling anything.
The percentage going to military spending out of total government spending is only as small as it is on the chart if it's decided to try to have a very narrow view of what constitutes military spending, but a broad view of what can fit in other categories. If you include not just DoD spending, but DoD retiree and healthcare, veteran's benefits, interest on the debt of previous military spending, the defense-oriented outlays of the DoE, NASA, Homeland Security, the State Department and the intelligence agencies, then the defense percentage will be larger, and other portions smaller, including what is put under entitlement programs from fromer military/intelligence etc. getting retirement and health benefits.
Agreed. Though the point about interest from debt incurred from military spending could equally apply to all other spending categories so wouldn't change the proportions.
In any case, the largest area of spending growth has been social and entitlement programs, even if one excludes veterans-related social spending and controls for the effect of demographic changes on entitlement outlays.
In any case, the largest area of spending growth has been social and entitlement programs, even if one excludes veterans-related social spending and controls for the effect of demographic changes on entitlement outlays.
The real shame in the article is that rent of $300 per month is being charged on an unimproved 10x20 shed, which you can buy for under $5k almost anywhere in rural and suburban areas.
Who set up that deal? How did they get a certificate of occupancy without a toilet?
Who set up that deal? How did they get a certificate of occupancy without a toilet?
Once again, I'm probably breaking the rules.
Consider this person: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=hestipod
> I made an account just to comment on this issue after lurking for a long time but it's surely just another pointless action because it's the same story over and over. Empathy is not common.
Three (at this time) comments that seem to be very relevant to this topic and discussion, yet all [dead].
> Most people ignore me, some give useless advice that makes them feel like they did something, and nothing changes.
Indeed.
Consider this person: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=hestipod
> I made an account just to comment on this issue after lurking for a long time but it's surely just another pointless action because it's the same story over and over. Empathy is not common.
Three (at this time) comments that seem to be very relevant to this topic and discussion, yet all [dead].
> Most people ignore me, some give useless advice that makes them feel like they did something, and nothing changes.
Indeed.
If the comments are [dead] but not [flagged][dead], the account is banned. If a past commenter has been egregious enough, the mods will ban not only the main account but also put in some checks to prevent a user from creating new accounts to otherwise circumvent the ban--comments from such new accounts are also marked [dead]. As others have pointed out, if the comments are worthwhile, they can be vouched. There are differing opinions on this method of banning, but it does allow comments to be vouched for.
> If the comments are [dead] but not [flagged][dead], the account is banned.
That's not quite right. These comments were killed by anti-spam software. When this happens to legitimate accounts we rely on the community to vouch for them or email us at [email protected].
That's not quite right. These comments were killed by anti-spam software. When this happens to legitimate accounts we rely on the community to vouch for them or email us at [email protected].
Cheers. Thanks for filling in the blanks!
(Offtopic) If you click on the comment, there is a [vouch] link to bring certain comments back from the dead.
I find that this is a good balance to keep the well-written comments that add to the discussion and deserve a second chance.
I find that this is a good balance to keep the well-written comments that add to the discussion and deserve a second chance.
Sure...but my question remains: why were the comments flagged in the first place?
It might be because my account is new...some antispam feature? But I have experienced enough avoidance and disdain irl and online simply for being in this position I wouldn't be surprised if someone flagged me for insulting their political view or something else. If it's the former then no big deal. If it's the latter it's beyond me to affect and my words are just venting for myself rather than changing anything.
hestipod's comments all being dead seems to prove his/her point.
I thought all three were well-written and illuminating.
I thought all three were well-written and illuminating.
I completely agree.
At the moment, two of the three are no longer dead.
At the moment, two of the three are no longer dead.
(edit: I finished it,as I should have the first time. Not that i change my point of view though) <s>I couldn't finish the article, not because it was too heartbreaking, but because of the stupidity of the author.</s>
..."went to the already-crowded Dollar Store and Dollar General and bought dog food, dog treats, Slim Jims, three six-packs of Milwaukee’s Best, pruners for digging roots and a backpack to carry it all."
I have been on the poverty line, I'm damn close to being there again. You have money for dog food and beer? Also earlier noted in the article smoking.
I'm not sorry to say, fucking pull your head in.
I have had to grow my own vegetables and cut lawns to feed my family (when I was 14!), None of us had money to mnoke, drink or have pets.
Oh you spent your day digging up roots? Why not plant something then?(if you're already stealing from public land, why not at least try and utilise it somehow?)
“I worked underground until I started having anxiety and I couldn’t stand to go back underground,”, I sure hope that doesn't deserve a disability payment, there are many more deserving than that. Shit I don't like underground either, doesn't mean I'm disabled, just means that I don't like the idea of that much mass over my head. I can still do other work.
My opinion on this piece is that the author was trying to pull heart strings without actually being objective.
..."went to the already-crowded Dollar Store and Dollar General and bought dog food, dog treats, Slim Jims, three six-packs of Milwaukee’s Best, pruners for digging roots and a backpack to carry it all."
I have been on the poverty line, I'm damn close to being there again. You have money for dog food and beer? Also earlier noted in the article smoking.
I'm not sorry to say, fucking pull your head in.
I have had to grow my own vegetables and cut lawns to feed my family (when I was 14!), None of us had money to mnoke, drink or have pets.
Oh you spent your day digging up roots? Why not plant something then?(if you're already stealing from public land, why not at least try and utilise it somehow?)
“I worked underground until I started having anxiety and I couldn’t stand to go back underground,”, I sure hope that doesn't deserve a disability payment, there are many more deserving than that. Shit I don't like underground either, doesn't mean I'm disabled, just means that I don't like the idea of that much mass over my head. I can still do other work.
My opinion on this piece is that the author was trying to pull heart strings without actually being objective.
>Oh you spent your day digging up roots? Why not lant something then?
I'm just guessing but the author may be referring to ginseng roots, which my low-income friends occasionally collect here in Appalachia. They could make hundreds of dollars in a single day.
Planted ginseng takes 2+ years until you can harvest it. I asked them about planting/cultivating, which they said wasn't really viable but they did try to harvest the wild ginseng in a sustainable way.
I'm just guessing but the author may be referring to ginseng roots, which my low-income friends occasionally collect here in Appalachia. They could make hundreds of dollars in a single day.
Planted ginseng takes 2+ years until you can harvest it. I asked them about planting/cultivating, which they said wasn't really viable but they did try to harvest the wild ginseng in a sustainable way.
Yet, from the articles writing, that isn't what they were aquiring, Bor was there a mention of that.
I argue that the author of the piece is either being dishonest(if they were regularly digging up ginseng or similar), not performing enough research or just plain not actually researching for his article.
(Although there was a part about how much the root purchaser had spent that day, and it does seem as if they had either purchased massively under market value(for ginseng), or the roots were all low value.
Also planting for sale is different than planting for consumption, a few dozen fast growing consumption based plants would have a much better outcome if you were concerned about health and saving money. It does take effort and planning though.
I argue that the author of the piece is either being dishonest(if they were regularly digging up ginseng or similar), not performing enough research or just plain not actually researching for his article.
(Although there was a part about how much the root purchaser had spent that day, and it does seem as if they had either purchased massively under market value(for ginseng), or the roots were all low value.
Also planting for sale is different than planting for consumption, a few dozen fast growing consumption based plants would have a much better outcome if you were concerned about health and saving money. It does take effort and planning though.
Your opinion is BS, because you didn't RTFA, at best you skimmed it. How about the part where the woman is a heart patient who had a quadruple bypass? And you're arguing about $20 for dog food and beer, but ignoring the fact that half her meager income is spent renting a shed?
The bottom line is that, if the people in the article were mentally and physically able to do what they needed to do to get out of poverty, they probably would have done so already. But they aren't so they're stuck trying and failing to meet very basic needs.
The bottom line is that, if the people in the article were mentally and physically able to do what they needed to do to get out of poverty, they probably would have done so already. But they aren't so they're stuck trying and failing to meet very basic needs.
So to the downvoters, do you actually have a logical response, or just a knee jerk reaction?
I have been there, I grew up not knowing where each meal was coming from. I have lived next to and interacted with people who can't make logical decisions about what to do.
I have seen people pull themselves from there, to actually attain something worthwhile, (I'd like to believe I am one of those people), and I have seen and interacted with those who will use any excuse to avoid actually working, or bettering themselves.
So again, would you like to have a discussion about it? I'm more than willing.
I am disappointed about the downvotes without a good reason though, this is why we come to hn after all.
I have been there, I grew up not knowing where each meal was coming from. I have lived next to and interacted with people who can't make logical decisions about what to do.
I have seen people pull themselves from there, to actually attain something worthwhile, (I'd like to believe I am one of those people), and I have seen and interacted with those who will use any excuse to avoid actually working, or bettering themselves.
So again, would you like to have a discussion about it? I'm more than willing.
I am disappointed about the downvotes without a good reason though, this is why we come to hn after all.
[deleted]
So what about those of us, who are despite common belief the majority, who are in between? Those too old or broken or indebted to work like a 14yo and hope for a future? Those who lost everything after doing what you did and building a life. Those of us who WANT to better ourselves and be independent but cannot get the support to do so? What do you expect US to do? You are falling victim to survivorship bias and victim blaming when you say "I did it and know others who have therefore anyone can". Do you really think I would CHOOSE to live like this if I had an alternative? You need to believe it's all bored, lazy people so you can hold on to your point of view and feel safe yourself. You are afraid and you take it out on those suffering. I have seen this over and over. Any "discussion" people with such views ever have is full of blame and assumption.
It reminds me of this incredible HBO documentary from 2009 chronicling the daily life of a (pretty crazy) rural family called "The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQBiXDNVeSA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQBiXDNVeSA
Is there a non-paywalled link available? I'm not finding anything via the web link.
Logan County, West Virginia, where this article is set, voted 80% in favor of Trump, giving him 10,000 additional votes. [1] The entire state of West Virginia went to Trump.
If Democrats want to change the current political landscape in this country, they might start by addressing some of these peoples' problems while they're campaigning on everyone else's problems too.
Trump (and conservatives) aren't going to do a thing for these people, but at least they mentioned them.
[1]: http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/...
If Democrats want to change the current political landscape in this country, they might start by addressing some of these peoples' problems while they're campaigning on everyone else's problems too.
Trump (and conservatives) aren't going to do a thing for these people, but at least they mentioned them.
[1]: http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/...
> Trump (and conservatives) aren't going to do a thing for these people, but at least they mentioned them.
One of Trump's campaign promises was to cut back environmental and business regulations and get the coal industry rolling again. He actually did pull out of the Paris climate accord.
Is this the right approach? Will Trump's actions help these communities? I'm not sure. But it's simply not true that he's doing nothing about the issue.
One of Trump's campaign promises was to cut back environmental and business regulations and get the coal industry rolling again. He actually did pull out of the Paris climate accord.
Is this the right approach? Will Trump's actions help these communities? I'm not sure. But it's simply not true that he's doing nothing about the issue.
I think it is - imagine how much better off these people would be if they spent less on fuel - $50 in gas on a $750 monthly budget is proportionally near what I spend on RENT with my (pre-tax) salary.
I'm not sure coal can compete with fracking so the coal jobs are moot.
I'm not sure coal can compete with fracking so the coal jobs are moot.
Coal was viable as a fuel until a few years ago. Then the environmental regulations hit full force, and forced many of these companies under. I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but worth repeating. Decisions have consequences. Deciding that you will enforce a particular tax/regulation policy based upon perceived (real or otherwise) environmental harm means that the people who depend upon those industries for their livelihood, are going to suffer.
Coal is still cheaper (pre-regulations to kill the industry). Fracking is a response to a) offshore drilling restriction regs and b) OPEC raising its cost per barrel to the point where it becomes economically viable. Coal is even better, albeit a dirtier fuel, from a cost perspective. But it has been regulated into economic impracticality, by the previous administration.
OPEC tried to kill fracking, after their proxies in the US failed to get it turned off, by driving the price per barrel down to levels where it was economically infeasible to use fracking. However, they didn't count on technological development and newer field discoveries. Which actually enabled fracking to reduce the crossover to profitability point below where OPEC was aiming. While this was happening, we all enjoyed the benefit of competition and lower prices for fuel.
OPEC has since cried UNCLE and has given up this direction.
The point for coal being, that, had the regulations not been enacted, much of what is discussed in this story would not be the case. But they were enacted, because some people felt that their connection to the environment was far more important than other peoples livelihood. Yes, it really is that simple.
While I'd love to see us transition to cleaner tech over time, I recognize that there is economic momentum in existing energy tech. Losing this economic momentum means that we consign a non-negligible fraction of our neighbors to effectively an economic dustbin.
The rust belt was a prototype for this from an economic view ... it became less expensive to manufacture out of country, so we did. Manufacturing naturally flows to the lowest cost areas, to maximize profits and margins. Manufacturing employs large swaths of people who learn niche jobs, and aren't mobile to find new jobs, when old ones go away.
Generally speaking, you can't fight economics. You can distort it with regulations and taxes. But it will eventually settle on an equilibrium.
And karma is, as it were ... painful ...
Coal is still cheaper (pre-regulations to kill the industry). Fracking is a response to a) offshore drilling restriction regs and b) OPEC raising its cost per barrel to the point where it becomes economically viable. Coal is even better, albeit a dirtier fuel, from a cost perspective. But it has been regulated into economic impracticality, by the previous administration.
OPEC tried to kill fracking, after their proxies in the US failed to get it turned off, by driving the price per barrel down to levels where it was economically infeasible to use fracking. However, they didn't count on technological development and newer field discoveries. Which actually enabled fracking to reduce the crossover to profitability point below where OPEC was aiming. While this was happening, we all enjoyed the benefit of competition and lower prices for fuel.
OPEC has since cried UNCLE and has given up this direction.
The point for coal being, that, had the regulations not been enacted, much of what is discussed in this story would not be the case. But they were enacted, because some people felt that their connection to the environment was far more important than other peoples livelihood. Yes, it really is that simple.
While I'd love to see us transition to cleaner tech over time, I recognize that there is economic momentum in existing energy tech. Losing this economic momentum means that we consign a non-negligible fraction of our neighbors to effectively an economic dustbin.
The rust belt was a prototype for this from an economic view ... it became less expensive to manufacture out of country, so we did. Manufacturing naturally flows to the lowest cost areas, to maximize profits and margins. Manufacturing employs large swaths of people who learn niche jobs, and aren't mobile to find new jobs, when old ones go away.
Generally speaking, you can't fight economics. You can distort it with regulations and taxes. But it will eventually settle on an equilibrium.
And karma is, as it were ... painful ...
I think you're making a lot of good points here, but:
> Coal is still cheaper...
This is only true when you socialize the long-term costs incurred by coal. Regulation is an attempt to push some of those costs back onto the companies that incur them, and then it turns out that coal isn't so cheap after all.
I suppose that since "regulation" is becoming a dirty word in politics, and especially with the influence from fringe libertarians, we could instead provide government-funded lawyers to sue any coal-producing company on behalf of any individual or community that can provide any evidence that coal production harmed them in some way. We could set up expedited courts for it and allow any coal-producing company to be litigated against even if they weren't directly responsible for the injury, and remove the other various loopholes that massive environment-exploiting companies use to make money at the expense of people's health.
Then, there wouldn't regulations, and coal would still be expensive.
> Coal is still cheaper...
This is only true when you socialize the long-term costs incurred by coal. Regulation is an attempt to push some of those costs back onto the companies that incur them, and then it turns out that coal isn't so cheap after all.
I suppose that since "regulation" is becoming a dirty word in politics, and especially with the influence from fringe libertarians, we could instead provide government-funded lawyers to sue any coal-producing company on behalf of any individual or community that can provide any evidence that coal production harmed them in some way. We could set up expedited courts for it and allow any coal-producing company to be litigated against even if they weren't directly responsible for the injury, and remove the other various loopholes that massive environment-exploiting companies use to make money at the expense of people's health.
Then, there wouldn't regulations, and coal would still be expensive.
For all our focus on the indirect costs in coal, there seems to be willful ignorance about the environmental impact of Chinese solar panels. Sure, you can get solar panels from countries with more environmental oversight but that's going to impact the payoff curve.
It's a shame that the focus is on conservation - energy abundance is better for humanity.
It's a shame that the focus is on conservation - energy abundance is better for humanity.
Human civilization has always made concessions in the name of progress, and as we've progressed, the concessions we're willing to make have changed.
There certainly are environmental (and human) costs associated with producing electricity from solar energy, but the costs between that and coal production and combustion are not exactly the same.
I hope there will be a day when the production of conventional PV will be a concession we're no longer willing to make because something even better has been developed.
In the meantime, in a discussion about the socialized costs of coal and whether that's being fairly factored into arguments about its price, I think "but solar..." is a bit of a red herring. Relevant, but only barely.
There certainly are environmental (and human) costs associated with producing electricity from solar energy, but the costs between that and coal production and combustion are not exactly the same.
I hope there will be a day when the production of conventional PV will be a concession we're no longer willing to make because something even better has been developed.
In the meantime, in a discussion about the socialized costs of coal and whether that's being fairly factored into arguments about its price, I think "but solar..." is a bit of a red herring. Relevant, but only barely.
but the costs between that and coal production and combustion are not exactly the same.
And what are they in favor of? Coal? Solar?
And what are they in favor of? Coal? Solar?
I'm not well enough versed in coal to compare pre-Obama coal with current levels of fracking.
There are some Obama era regulations I support, there are many more that I don't support. You have to concede that coal ash is a big issue and mountain top clearing mining is a disaster on a small scale though we can argue about its merits.
My personal opinion is that we should plow all energy subsidies into nuclear fission power, fusion research, and basic science for batteries / capacitors. Build massive nuclear plants for each power grid and let the states bid on who wants the plant investment. People who want it can buy their own renewables.
There are some Obama era regulations I support, there are many more that I don't support. You have to concede that coal ash is a big issue and mountain top clearing mining is a disaster on a small scale though we can argue about its merits.
My personal opinion is that we should plow all energy subsidies into nuclear fission power, fusion research, and basic science for batteries / capacitors. Build massive nuclear plants for each power grid and let the states bid on who wants the plant investment. People who want it can buy their own renewables.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the coal sector added only 1,000 jobs from October 2016 through June 2017.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/pruitt-...
(You can click through the links to see the raw data, but the article provides important context.)
The coal sector employs only around 50,000 people, so the added jobs represent a 2% increase. And it is unclear how much of that was a result of, or even encouraged by, Trump's policies. We do know one thing though: most of those jobs are being replaced by, or will soon be replaced by, natural gas mining jobs. Coal as a whole is a dying industry and cannot be "saved" by killing a few regulations.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/pruitt-...
(You can click through the links to see the raw data, but the article provides important context.)
The coal sector employs only around 50,000 people, so the added jobs represent a 2% increase. And it is unclear how much of that was a result of, or even encouraged by, Trump's policies. We do know one thing though: most of those jobs are being replaced by, or will soon be replaced by, natural gas mining jobs. Coal as a whole is a dying industry and cannot be "saved" by killing a few regulations.
He hasn't done (and isn't likely to do) anything that will have a measurable impact on these peoples' lives. Pulling out of the Paris climate accord only hurt the US in the long run and didn't give a single dollar back to anybody in deeply impoverished rural areas in exchange.
For someone to have "done" something, I'd want to see some kind of difference in the before and after pictures.
For someone to have "done" something, I'd want to see some kind of difference in the before and after pictures.
Clinton did campaign on a jobs and retraining program specifically for these people. But how can you compete with someone saying they'll hand-wave away your problems and return your old way of life?
How appealing is a retaining program when you're dirty, tired, old, and not able to get to a class room?
She didn't campaign on a jobs program, or at least not one that would matter like a jobs guarantee.
She didn't campaign on a jobs program, or at least not one that would matter like a jobs guarantee.
Should they just lie instead?
Sometimes reality is not appealing.
Sometimes reality is not appealing.
Should they just lie instead?
What's the objective?
I think the retraining is a neoliberal dog whistle for 'these people deserve their current lives'. If the objective is to run a campaign that's consistent with (or an affirmation of) elite coastal values, then harping on retraining is exactly the right thing to do.
If you want to want the most votes, you have to appeal to the most amount of people. Making coastal elites the outgroup is smart because there aren't that many of them and they probably support one of their own anyway.
What's the objective?
I think the retraining is a neoliberal dog whistle for 'these people deserve their current lives'. If the objective is to run a campaign that's consistent with (or an affirmation of) elite coastal values, then harping on retraining is exactly the right thing to do.
If you want to want the most votes, you have to appeal to the most amount of people. Making coastal elites the outgroup is smart because there aren't that many of them and they probably support one of their own anyway.
> I think the retraining is a neoliberal dog whistle for 'these people deserve their current lives'.
I have to agree with you here. You see this implied in comment threads like this one too, that they're making choices that are ultimately causing their own situation.
Contrast this with similar articles involving impoverished people in urban environments, especially those with other skin colors, and the difference is stark.
I think Democrats have largely written these people off, and they've lost a lot of political power because of it, and they're still running around and looking for fault everywhere else but in their own politics.
From an impoverished rural perspective, "the government will bring you jobs" and "the government will provide retraining programs" are exactly the wrong messages and goes to show how out of touch Democrats are with these voters. From these peoples' perspective, the government is the source of many of their troubles. The government gives them a disability check that isn't enough to live on, and then threatens to take it away for any of a vast number of reasons; the government shut down the companies that gave them jobs; the government provides all kinds of programs for other people, but not for them (e.g. affirmative action). The moment a politician says, "the government can fix your problems, and I represent the government", they lose this audience.
I have to agree with you here. You see this implied in comment threads like this one too, that they're making choices that are ultimately causing their own situation.
Contrast this with similar articles involving impoverished people in urban environments, especially those with other skin colors, and the difference is stark.
I think Democrats have largely written these people off, and they've lost a lot of political power because of it, and they're still running around and looking for fault everywhere else but in their own politics.
From an impoverished rural perspective, "the government will bring you jobs" and "the government will provide retraining programs" are exactly the wrong messages and goes to show how out of touch Democrats are with these voters. From these peoples' perspective, the government is the source of many of their troubles. The government gives them a disability check that isn't enough to live on, and then threatens to take it away for any of a vast number of reasons; the government shut down the companies that gave them jobs; the government provides all kinds of programs for other people, but not for them (e.g. affirmative action). The moment a politician says, "the government can fix your problems, and I represent the government", they lose this audience.
If you want to know what I would do to make these lives better, it'd be campaigning for universal basic income.
Unfortunately, that would be labeled "socialism" and made political suicide in seconds. An alternative would be to heavily subsidize housing, food, gas, healthcare, medicine and do that disguised as an attempt to bootstrap a local self-sufficient economy. It'd actually be a lot more socialist than UBI but politics is the art of the possible and not all state transitions are allowed.
Unfortunately, that would be labeled "socialism" and made political suicide in seconds. An alternative would be to heavily subsidize housing, food, gas, healthcare, medicine and do that disguised as an attempt to bootstrap a local self-sufficient economy. It'd actually be a lot more socialist than UBI but politics is the art of the possible and not all state transitions are allowed.
Unfortunately, that would be labeled "socialism" and made political suicide in seconds.
If you think that's true then it is, right?
I have dissident rightist view points. I hang out with dissident rightists. I've never once heard them say that UBI is worse than the status quo, and I think pairing UBI with reduced low-skill immigration is something 95% of them could get behind.
Sure, the Paul Ryans and Pelosis of the world might gnash their teeth over UBI but it's something that nearly everyone outside the status quo supports.
If you think that's true then it is, right?
I have dissident rightist view points. I hang out with dissident rightists. I've never once heard them say that UBI is worse than the status quo, and I think pairing UBI with reduced low-skill immigration is something 95% of them could get behind.
Sure, the Paul Ryans and Pelosis of the world might gnash their teeth over UBI but it's something that nearly everyone outside the status quo supports.
Most of my right wing friends are the Ayn Rand kind and are deeply offended by the idea of paying other people to live.
Ask them whether they'd prefer UBI or the current system assuming both cost the same.
I did. It's a principle thing. That odd notion that if you can't feed yourself you don't deserve to be fed.
They might have fooled you with that answer but that doesn't address the question.
They don't want retraining, they want their jobs. Remember “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business”?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/sanders-looking-to-rac...
It is a tough sell to take away an $80k/year job and replace it with slightly above minimum wage.
Solar array installation and wind farm maintenance pay pretty well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/business/energy-environme...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/business/energy-environme...
The article had a quote that some starting coal mining salaries were up to $150k, but after a 2.5 year apprenticeship for solar install, workers can make $25/hr.
Better than minimum wage, but isn't it hard for somebody with a family to train for two years without a salary?
Better than minimum wage, but isn't it hard for somebody with a family to train for two years without a salary?
This is a hard truth: Trump had the populist vote (mostly lies IMHO) and Clinton ceded it to him.
What Democrats needed was to nominate a better populist. I doubt Sanders would have won WV, but I think he might have done better than Clinton in red-areas of states she should have won like Florida or Michigan.
What Democrats needed was to nominate a better populist. I doubt Sanders would have won WV, but I think he might have done better than Clinton in red-areas of states she should have won like Florida or Michigan.
> Clinton did campaign on a jobs and retraining program specifically for these people.
To the extent that's true, she did an incredibly poor job of communicating it, and it was certainly not a visible, central theme of her campaign.
And, it probably didn't help politically (whether or not the association is warranted) that her husband also, in living memory of many voters, made similar promises tied to NAFTA, with little substantuve result in that area (and then cut pre-existing long-term safety net programs to rub salt in the wound.)
To the extent that's true, she did an incredibly poor job of communicating it, and it was certainly not a visible, central theme of her campaign.
And, it probably didn't help politically (whether or not the association is warranted) that her husband also, in living memory of many voters, made similar promises tied to NAFTA, with little substantuve result in that area (and then cut pre-existing long-term safety net programs to rub salt in the wound.)
As an outside to the whole affair, i felt the overarching theme of the Clinton campaign was "mutated" gender politics.
But for most people outside the beltway and campuses, the economy and their daily expenses were a more pressing issue.
Thus that the Democrats decides to hitch their horse with Clinton, even though her campaign focus seemed off target or ill focused, and she already had a negative reputation from the Obama years, and being the wife of a former President, effectively sunk the campaign from the word go.
Even afterwards it seems like the main way Democrats can find to attack Trump is on trying to tar him as a misogynist. Of all the things that the guy can be attacked for, that is what they decided to focus on???
But for most people outside the beltway and campuses, the economy and their daily expenses were a more pressing issue.
Thus that the Democrats decides to hitch their horse with Clinton, even though her campaign focus seemed off target or ill focused, and she already had a negative reputation from the Obama years, and being the wife of a former President, effectively sunk the campaign from the word go.
Even afterwards it seems like the main way Democrats can find to attack Trump is on trying to tar him as a misogynist. Of all the things that the guy can be attacked for, that is what they decided to focus on???
West Virginia only has 5 electoral college votes.
Right, but they have a great votes/population ratio. Giving small states a voice is precisely why we have the current distribution of electoral votes.
'...great votes/population ratio'
Can you elaborate on that?
Can you elaborate on that?
noworld(4)
> She lit a home-rolled cigarette and, getting to work with a mattock, tried to ignore the weather. She had lately been telling herself that she had to stop taking these risks. They were more than an hour from the nearest hospital, and what if she had another heart attack?
Yeah...she seems to be ignoring the heart-attack risk she is pumping into her lungs while she says that. I get that it's an addiction that is hard to kick, but come on. If you've already had quintuple bypass surgery, maybe it's time to give up smoking?
Yeah...she seems to be ignoring the heart-attack risk she is pumping into her lungs while she says that. I get that it's an addiction that is hard to kick, but come on. If you've already had quintuple bypass surgery, maybe it's time to give up smoking?
I can relate to this sentiment, but you've got take into account the whole story:
- Failing health, already has nearly died. - No safety net. - Risks life every time this voyage is made. - Doesn't have access to many resources.
Here you have someone who doesn't have (what appears to be) working plumbing. Doesn't even have a _kitchen_ (just a hot pad). No assets or finances to speak of. Likely no support network. On top of all of that you want them to tackle a nearly impossible task of giving up addiction? I'll note that many many people with all the resources in the world cannot break addiction, let alone someone with nearly no resources.
Definitely not wise for her to continue with her habits as they are. But given the amount of stress and pressure, along with impending doom, some semblance of mercy should be exercised. It's not like she already doesn't have other major problems requiring her attention
- Failing health, already has nearly died. - No safety net. - Risks life every time this voyage is made. - Doesn't have access to many resources.
Here you have someone who doesn't have (what appears to be) working plumbing. Doesn't even have a _kitchen_ (just a hot pad). No assets or finances to speak of. Likely no support network. On top of all of that you want them to tackle a nearly impossible task of giving up addiction? I'll note that many many people with all the resources in the world cannot break addiction, let alone someone with nearly no resources.
Definitely not wise for her to continue with her habits as they are. But given the amount of stress and pressure, along with impending doom, some semblance of mercy should be exercised. It's not like she already doesn't have other major problems requiring her attention
I view smoking as a kind of break from life. It has a calming effect. Many people smoked during my deployments to Iraq for the same reason - it calms you and allows a simple break otherwise not found. I don't smoke as the smell gives me a terrible headache but I understand the reasoning - particularly when life is hard.
Smoking does not actually have calming effects. It only relieves the feeling of withdrawal cause by smoking in the first place.
> "I view smoking as a kind of break from life. It has a calming effect. Many people smoked during my deployments to Iraq for the same reason - it calms you and allows a simple break otherwise not found. .."
I found this to be the same reason why many of my fellow shipmates smoked during my time in the Navy. It was a kind of pre-watch "bonding" session of sorts...We'd smoke our cigs, grab a quick bite from the galley, then relieve the watch...our pre-watch smoke was a kind of "shoot-the-shit" before we had to be serious and formal operators.
I found this to be the same reason why many of my fellow shipmates smoked during my time in the Navy. It was a kind of pre-watch "bonding" session of sorts...We'd smoke our cigs, grab a quick bite from the galley, then relieve the watch...our pre-watch smoke was a kind of "shoot-the-shit" before we had to be serious and formal operators.
Smokin' and Jokin'. About the only part of the service I miss.
I did air traffic control at Balad. At that time it was considered one of the most complex and busiest air-spaces in the world, paraphrased from the president of O'Hare. Obviously, we didn't see combat or deal with life altering experiences but it was balls to the wall intense for 8 hours a day. At the time I even smoked a few Camels during breaks. Certainly a way to bond with a fellow controller during a break.
Thank you for your service. I did some time at good ol JBB in 08-09.
This is when I first started smoking. First I was bumming here and there, then in order to not feel like a bum I bought a pack and slowly the pack would disappear faster and faster... I smoked for four years (At peak a pack a day) and gave it up cold turkey. Lots of wasted money.
This is when I first started smoking. First I was bumming here and there, then in order to not feel like a bum I bought a pack and slowly the pack would disappear faster and faster... I smoked for four years (At peak a pack a day) and gave it up cold turkey. Lots of wasted money.
I was there a year prior in the fall of 07. I rarely smoked, at most 1 - 3 a day and usually just when controlling - sometimes I didn't cause I hate the after smell.
Glad you were able to quit! Aside from health, the money certainly adds up.
Glad you were able to quit! Aside from health, the money certainly adds up.
This kind of sentiment is exactly why more liberals need to read more articles like this one. If you've never lived that life, it's easy to sit back and proclaim for someone else how much better things might be for them if only they didn't do things the way they do. It makes it easy to dismiss their problems as entirely their own fault while we get to feel good about giving out some solid advice.
Those cigarettes and that beer is what keeps her going every month. They are likely her only real source of meager happiness.
She doesn't have Netflix. Internet. Literally, a toilet to piss into. She doesn't smoke them because she's addicted, she smokes them because they make her life, for a short term, a little tiny bit better.
Y'ever notice how, the poorer people are, the worse their habits are? How they tend to eat more junk food, exercise less, spend more money on trivial things? Yeah, that's why. Healthy living is a luxury and an awful lot of folks have forgotten about that.
Those cigarettes and that beer is what keeps her going every month. They are likely her only real source of meager happiness.
She doesn't have Netflix. Internet. Literally, a toilet to piss into. She doesn't smoke them because she's addicted, she smokes them because they make her life, for a short term, a little tiny bit better.
Y'ever notice how, the poorer people are, the worse their habits are? How they tend to eat more junk food, exercise less, spend more money on trivial things? Yeah, that's why. Healthy living is a luxury and an awful lot of folks have forgotten about that.
I hate to be the bearer of reality, but...
This kind of sentiment is exactly why more [conservatives] need to read more articles like [some other expose about being poor, but in the city instead]. If you've never lived that life, it's easy to sit back and proclaim for someone else how much better things might be for them if only they didn't do things the way they do. It makes it easy to dismiss their problems as entirely their own fault while we get to feel good about giving out some solid advice.
Those cigarettes and that beer is what keeps her going every month. They are likely her only real source of meager happiness.
She doesn't have Netflix. Internet. Literally, a toilet to piss into. She doesn't smoke them because she's addicted, she smokes them because they make her life, for a short term, a little tiny bit better.
Y'ever notice how, the poorer people are, the worse their habits are? How they tend to eat more junk food, exercise less, spend more money on trivial things? Yeah, that's why. Healthy living is a luxury and an awful lot of folks have forgotten about that.
This kind of sentiment is exactly why more [conservatives] need to read more articles like [some other expose about being poor, but in the city instead]. If you've never lived that life, it's easy to sit back and proclaim for someone else how much better things might be for them if only they didn't do things the way they do. It makes it easy to dismiss their problems as entirely their own fault while we get to feel good about giving out some solid advice.
Those cigarettes and that beer is what keeps her going every month. They are likely her only real source of meager happiness.
She doesn't have Netflix. Internet. Literally, a toilet to piss into. She doesn't smoke them because she's addicted, she smokes them because they make her life, for a short term, a little tiny bit better.
Y'ever notice how, the poorer people are, the worse their habits are? How they tend to eat more junk food, exercise less, spend more money on trivial things? Yeah, that's why. Healthy living is a luxury and an awful lot of folks have forgotten about that.
If we were honest, we'd find it very difficult to properly condemn the spending habits of the poor. I spent $20 on breakfast today for goodness sakes - that's probably more discretionary income than a lot of these folks have for a month. But that $20 of mine isn't really going to be missed, because I have a job that pays me an order of magnitude more than these folks earn. $700 a month to live on? That's what, 2 weeks rent for a single room in San Francisco.
At a root level, living brings on a level of expenses. It varies from place to place, but no matter how frugal you are, there are some expenses you simply can't run from. Once you've passed that level, it's easy to save.
At a root level, living brings on a level of expenses. It varies from place to place, but no matter how frugal you are, there are some expenses you simply can't run from. Once you've passed that level, it's easy to save.
Smoking makes you feel better in the short term because your body is jonesing for that nicotine, and dopamine gets released when you give your body the nicotine. Then you don't smoke, and you feel shitty until the next nicotine hit. You give a poor justification for an addiction, and the happiness is merely a result of the feedback loop of nicotine > dopamine > no nicotine > dopamine crash > nicotine > dopamine > etc. I'm bastardizing the chemical reactions, but you get the idea.
I'm pretty sure medical science would say she is smoking because she's addicted.
If she didn't smoke, she would be less likely to die of a fucking heart attack so she could actually work and be actually healthy. I'm not shitting on all poor people making poor decisions, just this lady who has at least one easily solvable problem (smoking while being a heart surgery survivor).
Healthy living is not a luxury. Not drinking soda/eating junk food every day and walking are quite free if I recall...
I'm pretty sure medical science would say she is smoking because she's addicted.
If she didn't smoke, she would be less likely to die of a fucking heart attack so she could actually work and be actually healthy. I'm not shitting on all poor people making poor decisions, just this lady who has at least one easily solvable problem (smoking while being a heart surgery survivor).
Healthy living is not a luxury. Not drinking soda/eating junk food every day and walking are quite free if I recall...
Can you please stop? The problem with this line of commenting is that it's predictable, reductionist, and uncivil—not a good combination for Hacker News.
The parent comment is neither uncivil nor needlessly reductionistic. And why exactly does predictability constitute a demerit?
Ok, then. Try it.
For the next six months, give yourself just $10 a day after basic expenses (rent, utilities), and be grateful that you've got that much. Your $10/day budget will have to buy you gas, food, entertainment, and anything else you want to spend money on beyond only the most basic of necessities. Your gym membership will need to come out of that budget, too.
I've lived on a budget like this one. I know a few other folks on HN have similar backgrounds. That's why I tend to participate in threads like this one, because there are an astounding number of people that come out of the woodwork claiming that they understand a complex situation better than the people living in it.
I'm not ignorant of the science and biochemistry behind nicotine use. I'm telling you that the only things that people like this really have are cigarettes, booze, and junk food (and heroin or meth, depending on the region), and you want to take those things away from them too, and for their own good in your opinion.
For the next six months, give yourself just $10 a day after basic expenses (rent, utilities), and be grateful that you've got that much. Your $10/day budget will have to buy you gas, food, entertainment, and anything else you want to spend money on beyond only the most basic of necessities. Your gym membership will need to come out of that budget, too.
I've lived on a budget like this one. I know a few other folks on HN have similar backgrounds. That's why I tend to participate in threads like this one, because there are an astounding number of people that come out of the woodwork claiming that they understand a complex situation better than the people living in it.
I'm not ignorant of the science and biochemistry behind nicotine use. I'm telling you that the only things that people like this really have are cigarettes, booze, and junk food (and heroin or meth, depending on the region), and you want to take those things away from them too, and for their own good in your opinion.
> I'm pretty sure medical science would say she is smoking because she's addicted.
Maybe. How many cigarettes a week would be needed for that assessment? Because I'm pretty sure she's not nursing a pack-a-day habit.
I suspect that avoiding heavy labor is just as likely to reduce her heart attack chances. For that matter, a healthy balanced diet would likely do even more to help.
And where is she supposed to work? Let's see, poor education, limited access to bathing facilities, history of health problems, well into the age range where the college educated tech industry folks on HN complain about ageism and the difficulty of getting hired. Oh, and in a region of the country that's suffered from massive job and industry loss. I'm sure things will improve as soon as she stops smoking.
Maybe. How many cigarettes a week would be needed for that assessment? Because I'm pretty sure she's not nursing a pack-a-day habit.
I suspect that avoiding heavy labor is just as likely to reduce her heart attack chances. For that matter, a healthy balanced diet would likely do even more to help.
And where is she supposed to work? Let's see, poor education, limited access to bathing facilities, history of health problems, well into the age range where the college educated tech industry folks on HN complain about ageism and the difficulty of getting hired. Oh, and in a region of the country that's suffered from massive job and industry loss. I'm sure things will improve as soon as she stops smoking.
> Not drinking soda/eating junk food every day and walking are quite free if I recall...
Even if we ignore for a moment that healthy food can be more expensive than soda and junk food, you have to take into account the necessary time investment. Those things take more time and time is money.
One might reasonably argue that someone on disability payments should have more time than money, but habits like smoking and eating junk food were probably acquired when they were not on disability and needed to work as hard and as long as possible to make ends meet. No time for healthy cooking and exercise.
Even if we ignore for a moment that healthy food can be more expensive than soda and junk food, you have to take into account the necessary time investment. Those things take more time and time is money.
One might reasonably argue that someone on disability payments should have more time than money, but habits like smoking and eating junk food were probably acquired when they were not on disability and needed to work as hard and as long as possible to make ends meet. No time for healthy cooking and exercise.
Don't forget economies of scale (or lack thereof). Many of these folks are in small towns shopping in small stores and paying high prices.
If I have the storage space and cash, I can buy a 20 pound bag of rice on sale for $7 or less and use it over time - or I can go to Costco and get a 50 pound bag and maybe even make a little money dividing it up and selling it to my neighbors. If I'm living in a tiny shack with $1.50 to spend, I can instead pay $1+ for a pound bag of rice. A lot of other staples are like that - if you can get a little bit ahead just for a little while it can start a cycle that lets you keep getting a little bit better off as time goes by. That'll last until the emergency, which will put you right back down there gathering roots for $0.20/your. Oh, and the emergency that started this for some folks is birth, and there's no place they can even get to that has bulk items like that to start with.
If I have the storage space and cash, I can buy a 20 pound bag of rice on sale for $7 or less and use it over time - or I can go to Costco and get a 50 pound bag and maybe even make a little money dividing it up and selling it to my neighbors. If I'm living in a tiny shack with $1.50 to spend, I can instead pay $1+ for a pound bag of rice. A lot of other staples are like that - if you can get a little bit ahead just for a little while it can start a cycle that lets you keep getting a little bit better off as time goes by. That'll last until the emergency, which will put you right back down there gathering roots for $0.20/your. Oh, and the emergency that started this for some folks is birth, and there's no place they can even get to that has bulk items like that to start with.
I will explain if you care to listen. Imagine you have no energy and are in pain all the time. A cup of coffee or a cigarette gives you a TINY respite. A few hours of feeling LESS worse. Then like all addictions you need more or you feel even worse. Suddenly it takes 5 cups of coffee a day just to not feel sicker and nobody wants to feel sicker when everything else about their life is horrible.
Now extrapolate that to pain pills, sleeping pills, risky behavior of any sort. When you live day to day and have no safety any pleasure or escape has an immense draw. There is also an element to "who cares I am screwed anyway" that we face every single day. In the end you are judging people on some sterile, elevated point of view and it's not real life.
Now extrapolate that to pain pills, sleeping pills, risky behavior of any sort. When you live day to day and have no safety any pleasure or escape has an immense draw. There is also an element to "who cares I am screwed anyway" that we face every single day. In the end you are judging people on some sterile, elevated point of view and it's not real life.
This is probably the last post I will make lest I be accused of spamming...and I am probably wasting my breath...but I want to put a human face on this.
I am middle aged. I was strong and healthy and worked multiple jobs serving the community. I paid taxes and believed that if I needed help it would be there. I was ruined by unneeded and poorly done surgery I was scared into having and since then everything had rotted and faded as systems failed me and people turned on me. I live in severe pain daily with no healthcare beyond an income based primary care clinic for once or twice a year nonsense. I live trapped in the middle of nowhere with no public transport with the last people who will offer a bed and they did so to lord it over others and resent me daily. My meager partial pension covers my food and medication and the big expenses like a CT scan or surgery I have put off for years are ignored. I eat Walmart branded canned goods and cheap fresh stuff. I don't even have a computer anymore as mine and the backup from when I had a life gave up. Once someone donated an old one to me but it had issues and cost too much to fix. I use an external HD on a borrowed laptop I have irregular access to just to get online and have some exposure to the outside world. BTW the internet here is 1mpbs and irregular so add that to the mess. Imagine thinking daily of ending your life or deciding to run away to a cheaper place knowing it will be a dead end too sooner than later but you have no other hopes.
Now...if you read all that. Imagine living that way. With nothing but scraps. Imagine seeing no hope. Imagine years go by losing more and more. Now imagine how buying some junk food or a beer or a lottery ticket or some other "waste of money" brings you just a tiny little escape or joy or moment to not suffer and hate everything. Imagine when you DO that people jump all over you judging you and making you feel worse. I don't know if you even can truly imagine living like that...but I hope you do and reconsider. We are human beings and not abstract objects. We want lives as much as you do. Please consider this next time you encounter this topic or someone you are put off by...despite what you probably think it could be you next.
I am middle aged. I was strong and healthy and worked multiple jobs serving the community. I paid taxes and believed that if I needed help it would be there. I was ruined by unneeded and poorly done surgery I was scared into having and since then everything had rotted and faded as systems failed me and people turned on me. I live in severe pain daily with no healthcare beyond an income based primary care clinic for once or twice a year nonsense. I live trapped in the middle of nowhere with no public transport with the last people who will offer a bed and they did so to lord it over others and resent me daily. My meager partial pension covers my food and medication and the big expenses like a CT scan or surgery I have put off for years are ignored. I eat Walmart branded canned goods and cheap fresh stuff. I don't even have a computer anymore as mine and the backup from when I had a life gave up. Once someone donated an old one to me but it had issues and cost too much to fix. I use an external HD on a borrowed laptop I have irregular access to just to get online and have some exposure to the outside world. BTW the internet here is 1mpbs and irregular so add that to the mess. Imagine thinking daily of ending your life or deciding to run away to a cheaper place knowing it will be a dead end too sooner than later but you have no other hopes.
Now...if you read all that. Imagine living that way. With nothing but scraps. Imagine seeing no hope. Imagine years go by losing more and more. Now imagine how buying some junk food or a beer or a lottery ticket or some other "waste of money" brings you just a tiny little escape or joy or moment to not suffer and hate everything. Imagine when you DO that people jump all over you judging you and making you feel worse. I don't know if you even can truly imagine living like that...but I hope you do and reconsider. We are human beings and not abstract objects. We want lives as much as you do. Please consider this next time you encounter this topic or someone you are put off by...despite what you probably think it could be you next.
Thank you for posting all of these.
I am well off by most standards, and though I've made quite a few good decisions, there is no doubt that luck played, by far, the biggest part.
The one positive thing I have to say to you is this: I hear you, and quite a few others hear you too, though we may well be a minority. We know that the foolish, smug attitudes displayed by many are largely attributes of genetic and environmental history.
The only advise I can give you is straightforward: life will always be surprising, often in bad, but sometimes in good ways. It's virtually impossible to know what's coming up. So hang in there, if only to play the entire game that is, though unknown, before you.
I am well off by most standards, and though I've made quite a few good decisions, there is no doubt that luck played, by far, the biggest part.
The one positive thing I have to say to you is this: I hear you, and quite a few others hear you too, though we may well be a minority. We know that the foolish, smug attitudes displayed by many are largely attributes of genetic and environmental history.
The only advise I can give you is straightforward: life will always be surprising, often in bad, but sometimes in good ways. It's virtually impossible to know what's coming up. So hang in there, if only to play the entire game that is, though unknown, before you.
If you can, drop me a line (email in profile) - if nothing else I may be able to hook you up with an old but functional laptop or two.
This article makes plain that she, and everyone she knows are, economically speaking, dead-men walking. And there is a certain dignity offering someone a smoke before they accept their doom.
The question that plagues me is: can I give her a job? What could this woman do, online or off, that would be valuable to society? Is Mechanical Turk, marketed to the rural poor, a solution?
The question that plagues me is: can I give her a job? What could this woman do, online or off, that would be valuable to society? Is Mechanical Turk, marketed to the rural poor, a solution?
This is why West Virginia, North Dakota, Nevada, and other low-education states are magnets for call centers coming back onshore.
They may be dumb as a brick in American terms, but they're able to function at a higher level than the average Indian call center employee, at a comparable salary, and they have the right accents.
They may be dumb as a brick in American terms, but they're able to function at a higher level than the average Indian call center employee, at a comparable salary, and they have the right accents.
Need AFFORDABLE internet connections first.
The call center can afford an internet connection; it's cheaper than the people they'd be hiring.
Really?
A T-1 around that area is almost $700/mo.
A 100Mbps symmetric connection is several thousand dollars per month.
A T-1 around that area is almost $700/mo.
A 100Mbps symmetric connection is several thousand dollars per month.
Minumum wage in the US is $7.25/hr. In West Virginia specifically it's $8.75/hr.
That means that a full-time minimum-wage employee in West Virginia costs about $1460/month (assuming they get paid for 50 weeks a year and take 2 weeks of unpaid vacation; if they get paid for 40 hours every week, that's $1517/month). That's just for their salary. Employers also have to pay half of the FICA tax (7.65%), unemployment taxes (several percent, typically; no idea what it's like in West Virginia), provide the actual space to work, etc.
So you can get 2 T-1 lines easily for the cost of a single minimum-wage employee. Assuming your "several thousand dollars" is less than $10k, that corresponds to about 5 minimum-wage employees.
And maybe, just maybe, there might be an incentive structure that involves wages above minimum wage for people who do a good job.
That means that a full-time minimum-wage employee in West Virginia costs about $1460/month (assuming they get paid for 50 weeks a year and take 2 weeks of unpaid vacation; if they get paid for 40 hours every week, that's $1517/month). That's just for their salary. Employers also have to pay half of the FICA tax (7.65%), unemployment taxes (several percent, typically; no idea what it's like in West Virginia), provide the actual space to work, etc.
So you can get 2 T-1 lines easily for the cost of a single minimum-wage employee. Assuming your "several thousand dollars" is less than $10k, that corresponds to about 5 minimum-wage employees.
And maybe, just maybe, there might be an incentive structure that involves wages above minimum wage for people who do a good job.
So, why would anybody want a call center in WV if bandwidth and minimum wage are more expensive than Florida, for instance?
...and all employees would pay state income tax
...and all employees would pay state income tax
How do the real estate prices compare?
But yes, in general the answer may be that they wouldn't put such a thing in WV.
But yes, in general the answer may be that they wouldn't put such a thing in WV.
Three seconds of Googling shows you're oh so wrong.
Oh so wrong about what, exactly?
A call center will spend $700/month on toilet paper. It's no big deal.
On 24 employees?
In spite of hold times, most call centers are hundreds and hundreds of people, operating 24 hours a day. Not sure where you get 24 people.
You assume they have the resources to do online work, like an internet connection capable of doing so and the capital to get that connection before doing the work. Also a computer or phone capable of doing the work.
Not sure why you got a downvote, because those are excellent points. However, I'm assuming the hopeful case where we can think of something valuable, in which case the capital cost of equipment and operational cost of connectivity would be an easy sell.
For example, would you accept this woman as a remote personal digital assistance, willing to pay for her phone, internet, and an extra $100/mo to do stuff for you? What is the quality of the work you might expect? What sorts of work would she do? Answer the phone? Argue with your credit card company? Keep an eye on your projects? Are people that capable really hiding in the countryside?
For example, would you accept this woman as a remote personal digital assistance, willing to pay for her phone, internet, and an extra $100/mo to do stuff for you? What is the quality of the work you might expect? What sorts of work would she do? Answer the phone? Argue with your credit card company? Keep an eye on your projects? Are people that capable really hiding in the countryside?
How would she connecto to the internet?
Super expensive LTE or satellite connection, or overpriced Shentel cablemodem, or DSL, where upload will be less than 1Mbps.
Super expensive LTE or satellite connection, or overpriced Shentel cablemodem, or DSL, where upload will be less than 1Mbps.
I bet a lot of them could make crafts that could be sold online, if there were someone there with a computer & internet to do the actual selling, and perhaps to purchase materials.
In some cases, they'd be preserving authentic folk art.
In some cases, they'd be preserving authentic folk art.
Hmmm. Smoking is more cost-effective than eating in many parts of the USA. Plenty of research exists as well on the self-medication benefits of nicotine use (ADHD, depression, etc.)
Welcome too late stage capitalism
Just so you know, you're being downvoted not because of your views on capitalism(a critique of which was the point of this post), but rather because of the lack of substance your comment contained. In the future, your comments will be better received if you state the reasoning behind your viewpoint so that we may learn from and discuss it.
Edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain why? Because I'm just trying to maintain the productive, thought-provoking culture that HN contains.
Edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain why? Because I'm just trying to maintain the productive, thought-provoking culture that HN contains.
[deleted]
[deleted]
So why can't we invest enough time and money in these people to make them engineers and technicians? Then they might be able to start shops that make and distribute the tourist trinkets mentioned by another poster. Why is the only solution that a large company that someone else creates moves in and provides low skill jobs?
Have you personally ever tried to train a low skilled laborer into something they have little to no experience in or desire to do?
This is the same argument that I've heard from people (mainly young tech workers) that losing 1.5M truck drivers will just require "re-training". The reality that we can simple "turn a knob" and re-train people is extremely myopic.
This is the same argument that I've heard from people (mainly young tech workers) that losing 1.5M truck drivers will just require "re-training". The reality that we can simple "turn a knob" and re-train people is extremely myopic.
I said "invest time and money", nowhere did I say it would be easy or cheap or fast. The only reason I am upper middle class is because I got an enormous amount of investment growing up, from books to nutrition to upper middle family friends/role models to just plain good adv8ce. If you took my talents and plopped them in a working class family in rural wherever, I would be driving truck and getting high until it all apart, just like the people in the article.
Well, I think you've just answered your own question then. The reason no one has invested time and money is because it isn't cheap/fast and there is no economic motivation (by anyone, government or otherwise) to do so.
What makes you think these people wouldn't already have jobs as engineers and technicians if they were capable of that? It even mentions in the article that the one lady lives down the road from her nephew who has a nice house with trucks and a boat. He was pulling down 100k at a coal related job, that might mean in a labor role but there's a good chance he's the type of person you're talking about; someone capable of filling a sort of lower-level engineer/technician role.
Edit: That's not to say there aren't a few capable folks that fell on rough times or came from a rough background and never quite got a good enough opportunity to make something of themselves. Certainly it would be nice to have programs to help those folks reach the full extent of their capabilities. But that's definitely not a solution for the broad majority of people in this situation.
Edit: That's not to say there aren't a few capable folks that fell on rough times or came from a rough background and never quite got a good enough opportunity to make something of themselves. Certainly it would be nice to have programs to help those folks reach the full extent of their capabilities. But that's definitely not a solution for the broad majority of people in this situation.
One obvious answer to your question is that they lack affordable access to training, which is what the OP purposes to address. Of course it's entirely possible that providing said training is economically infeasible or that most of these folks (as you seem to presume) aren't a good fit for this type of work.
I am amazed by the pervasiveness of the assumption that most of the human race is inherently just too stupid to become upper middle like us.
If every low-wage worker could start writing software, then writing software for an employer would also become a low-wage job. We're not paid well just because we have useful skills. We're paid well because the demand for our kind of skills hasn't been swamped by supply.
Yeah, especially if you're rural or inner-city.
Well, half of the population has an IQ of less than 100. Also, if everyone tries to achieve greater education, then what's considered "upper middle" will shift. Just look at the devaluation of associates and bachelors degrees today.
The sad truth is that there will always be lower and lower-middle class jobs, because not everyone is capable of joining the upper-middle class. Should those people continue to experience a declining quality of life just because they haven't been genetically or socioeconomically blessed?
The sad truth is that there will always be lower and lower-middle class jobs, because not everyone is capable of joining the upper-middle class. Should those people continue to experience a declining quality of life just because they haven't been genetically or socioeconomically blessed?
It's tough not to have that feeling, if you exist outside of bubbles of well-educated, high-IQ people. Shit, half the kids I grew up with were so LD they struggled mightily to learn how to read and do basic arithmetic, and another quarter were so low that they were labeled as MR. They don't have the capacity, no matter how much training and money and lamentations you spend on them.
It's sad that people like that can't have a little dignity and make a living doing what they're capable of, but that's where we're headed.
It's sad that people like that can't have a little dignity and make a living doing what they're capable of, but that's where we're headed.
It's not stupidity, it's a combination of factors.
1) Lack of knowledge of options. Let's say you wanted to get into the oil business. Without Googling anything, what job would you want? What skills and credentials would you need to acquire to get that job? How would you go about getting those?
2) Lack of education - Imagine trying to learn how to program without knowing what variables are. And then let's say you struggle and become capable of doing junior web dev work. What happens when you encounter even an easy interview question like "Write a program to find the first n prime numbers"
3) Lack of time - Most adults don't have time to focus full time on training, even if they aren't working. Children and elderly family members can suck up a lot of time.
1) Lack of knowledge of options. Let's say you wanted to get into the oil business. Without Googling anything, what job would you want? What skills and credentials would you need to acquire to get that job? How would you go about getting those?
2) Lack of education - Imagine trying to learn how to program without knowing what variables are. And then let's say you struggle and become capable of doing junior web dev work. What happens when you encounter even an easy interview question like "Write a program to find the first n prime numbers"
3) Lack of time - Most adults don't have time to focus full time on training, even if they aren't working. Children and elderly family members can suck up a lot of time.
1) Without googling anything, I'd need... presentable clothes, good hygiene, and to be able to make sense when I talk and respond sensibly to questions. Get into the oil business? Everyone's got a mail room, janitorial staff, etc. Get a job doing that and show them that you can show up for work on time and do a good job at the mundane stuff with a friendly attitude, no complaining, and not causing drama. That goes a LONG way. The other items follow this one.
I have been trying to find a way to earn and live remotely for a long time amidst constant instability, more medical issues, more costs, and people in general making it worse. Vocational rehab programs are a joke. Despite common belief "everyone" isn't on disability in America and many like myself are in fact rejected. I have no health coverage. No safety. I am expected to do things I cannot do just to live or create some business or job from the ether but nobody can say how except flighty nonsense like "so and so's son makes Android apps and is successful" as if that means its as simple as "learning and doing that" while totally ignoring survivorship bias, my age, my lack of resources or all of the other relevant and real issues.. I am close to giving up on life entirely as I am so far down and have no feasible plan.
the trinket economy is a race the bottom. if you get a high enough profile or successful design suddenly shipping containers start arriving filled with nearly exact copies for 1/50th of what you were charging.
and what you were charging was almost $5/hr for your labor. maybe more if you can invest in capitol equipment like a water jet.
skilled technical labor (machinist, welder, cabinetry, jewelry, etc) isn't much of a growth industry either. but people are still hiring if you already have experience
smt rework is a thing, but that seems like its inherently limited in volume.
i think its pretty tough for someone in a garage to make it work..if anyone has any ideas though..
and what you were charging was almost $5/hr for your labor. maybe more if you can invest in capitol equipment like a water jet.
skilled technical labor (machinist, welder, cabinetry, jewelry, etc) isn't much of a growth industry either. but people are still hiring if you already have experience
smt rework is a thing, but that seems like its inherently limited in volume.
i think its pretty tough for someone in a garage to make it work..if anyone has any ideas though..
Imagine if you as a programmer suddenly woke up at age 30 to find programming as a career was dead due to AI. The government is willing to invest time and money...into you retraining as a professional juggler, in the hope you would start your own street performing job, because the wave of the future is tourist performances.
Juggling was the farthest thing from your mind growing up, and you aren't particularly talented or skilled in manual dexterity. So for you to try to be one, you need to put in a LOT of effort, and it may be for something that you aren't good at, and will lose the few permanent positions as a employed juggler to some kid at age 20 who has made juggling his whole life and has the talent for it. You might also need to accept that you might be a contract juggler even if you do manage to retrain, and that it might all be wasted because you might be too old to be hired, or that they taught you to juggle pins when you needed to constantly update your repertoire and juggle chainsaws.
This is what retraining for STEM looks like for someone who has never considered it. Most programmers never really get that they in essence like juggling, and that's what enabled them to do their career...there is so much winnowing out even at the college level that STEM has selected for people who not only like STEM and have a lot of talent for it, they willing spend their off time working on STEM related stuff, often for free. If you don't have that powerful motivation from a young age, and need to learn or retrain for it, it's a lot grimmer, even if you are intelligent or successful in other areas. I use juggling because for most people, it's probably about as hard to be a professional at as computing is for non-STEM inclined.
Juggling was the farthest thing from your mind growing up, and you aren't particularly talented or skilled in manual dexterity. So for you to try to be one, you need to put in a LOT of effort, and it may be for something that you aren't good at, and will lose the few permanent positions as a employed juggler to some kid at age 20 who has made juggling his whole life and has the talent for it. You might also need to accept that you might be a contract juggler even if you do manage to retrain, and that it might all be wasted because you might be too old to be hired, or that they taught you to juggle pins when you needed to constantly update your repertoire and juggle chainsaws.
This is what retraining for STEM looks like for someone who has never considered it. Most programmers never really get that they in essence like juggling, and that's what enabled them to do their career...there is so much winnowing out even at the college level that STEM has selected for people who not only like STEM and have a lot of talent for it, they willing spend their off time working on STEM related stuff, often for free. If you don't have that powerful motivation from a young age, and need to learn or retrain for it, it's a lot grimmer, even if you are intelligent or successful in other areas. I use juggling because for most people, it's probably about as hard to be a professional at as computing is for non-STEM inclined.
> STEM has selected for people who not only like STEM and have a lot of talent for it, they willing spend their off time working on STEM related stuff, often for free.
No, that's not true of STEM in general, and actually AFAICT not particularly true of programming outside of the startup scene and top tech firms; the spare-time programmer is much less common, AFAICT, in the legions of programmer outside of those places, and the parallel phenomenon is no more common in non-programming STEM fields than in non-STEM fields.
No, that's not true of STEM in general, and actually AFAICT not particularly true of programming outside of the startup scene and top tech firms; the spare-time programmer is much less common, AFAICT, in the legions of programmer outside of those places, and the parallel phenomenon is no more common in non-programming STEM fields than in non-STEM fields.
The article indicates that at least some of the people doing this are well below any normal education level; and in fact, some are below functional mental health levels.
This would need to be an education process beginning with encouraging birth control + providing quality education for the children who are born in these regions... and providing enough family financial support so the children didn't have to quit school early just to help their parents survive.
This would need to be an education process beginning with encouraging birth control + providing quality education for the children who are born in these regions... and providing enough family financial support so the children didn't have to quit school early just to help their parents survive.
Even if my cousin/sibling was retarded/whatever the word du jour is today I think I'd give them a glass of water from inside rather then generously limit them to the garden hose.
I don't understand your metaphor.
You should look into our extensive federal retraining programs, which have this goal.
Oftentimes, the problem is age. Older people just finishing training still won't get a job.
Other times, the problem is that they refuse to relocate to another part of the country to get the job they trained for.
It sounds great in theory, but it requires a lot of flexibility that not everyone can have.
Oftentimes, the problem is age. Older people just finishing training still won't get a job.
Other times, the problem is that they refuse to relocate to another part of the country to get the job they trained for.
It sounds great in theory, but it requires a lot of flexibility that not everyone can have.
If you are getting TANF, they generally kick you off after a year of training, and disallow getting an AA much less going to college. It takes a lot more than that to make up for a semi literate, etc., growing up.
Re-skilling is a great solution for any one person when their coal job went away. You don't see pictures of those people in articles about American poverty.
Re-skilling the entire mid-west is impossible. Jobs are currently a game of musical chairs. There isn't room in our economy for 15 million engineers, technicians, and shopowners.
Re-skilling the entire mid-west is impossible. Jobs are currently a game of musical chairs. There isn't room in our economy for 15 million engineers, technicians, and shopowners.
It takes years and a huge amount of money to train a skilled worker, all of that on top of the drive needed from the worker in question. Once you're north of 30-40 with no real skills, you're up shit creek.
Not. Everyone. Needs. To. Be. An. Engineer. Jesus. Christ.
I survived this long on a partial pension from my job, a large savings since I lived frugally, and occasional assistance from others. My health has worsened, problems and needs have piled up, the occasional assistance has tricked off mostly, and I have no hope.
Most people ignore me, some give useless advice that makes them feel like they did something, and nothing changes. In the end it comes back to victim blaming and me not trying hard enough. People who have health, security, and lives and cannot imagine what it's like to live in so much pain and have no real options love to judge.
I have tried and considered all the usual advice like "learn to code" or "just do content writing" that comes along to disabled and isolated people. At my age and with the stability issues I have it's not realistic. People don't seem to get that. I should be getting assistance but this country doesn't do it like the rest of the first world so I am expected to suffer more just to stay alive in pain. I am moving abroad to a cheaper country to try and stretch my pension but I won't survive there either without earning and I cannot find any feasible way to earn that doesn't make things worse. Seeing people talk about people like me here in terms of "usefulness to society" enrages me. I served society...I did good in the world...that life was stolen and society rejected me. We are legion.