The large parts of America left behind by today's economy

> "Lately"

I'm originally from Missouri and would say it hit critical level over 10 years ago. The state has been in decline in terms of personal income, GDP growth, and a host of other economic indicators since 2009.

This includes the metro areas of KC and STL, who represent the lion's share of the upside of growth numbers. Take those away, and the rural areas are disastrous -- just as the chart shows. Stark differences when viewed on a county basis, but it's been on this trend for a long time.

I can't speak to the rest of the country, though. As always, your mileage may vary.

Maybe you should get out more. I'm pretty sure a cross-country trucker would agree the towns off the main interstates are crumbling. I just visited my mom's hometown, Lamar, Colorado. They clearly surf the same internet you do, they are trying to mimic the same patterns of behavior, but the town is falling apart.

I think the policies you cite as bad ideas do in fact enjoy broad support in the areas that enact them. "Hearts and minds" campaigns led by outsiders are notoriously difficult and prone to failure. Can you suggest a way to start the conversation about these policies in a way that you think is likely to succeed?

I personally think that the issue is orthogonal, but correlated.

Liberal policies in the US are highly correlated with high population density. Even in red states, the cities are mostly outposts of blue politics; even in California, the rural landscapes are dominated by red politics.

Communities seem a bit like ponzi schemes, or are at least creatures of inertia. If the community is growing, it exudes promise and hope and more people are interested in moving there. Growth leads to job openings, which leads to more growth. The inverse is dire. When cities go bankrupt or when rural areas lose residents faster than they replenish them, it becomes a downward spiral and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Rural areas don't sustain themselves. Urban or "hip" suburban areas have a much better chance at sustaining. College towns constantly have fresh blood (so long as the college stays out of bankruptcy).

I think cities thrive despite the friction created by more socially liberal policies and higher taxation. It's far easier to pivot your business and there are more serendipitous events in densely populated areas with highly educated people. I suspect people would prefer to move to a place with a reasonable social safety net as religious institutions lose the prestige they once had in the US. Perhaps in liberal areas people don't have to fear the social darwinism of the similar situation in a state+county with no funds to help the poor/homeless.

The obvious counter-example to "liberal policy places thrive" is Detroit. Detroit had very liberal policies in a state with very strong labor laws. After car manufacturers moved their manufacturing to cheaper labor areas (the US south and other countries), Detroit's population collapsed to less than 50% of it's peak.

The human capital attraction by socially liberal policies can easily outweigh the fiscal policy burden of liberal tax policy.

On a macro scale one of the republican arguments is that corporate tax breaks will revitalize corporations in these areas, giving these people jobs and livelihoods.

> and "appeals to traditional values" do not seem to be improving the lives of these people very much.

There's a few things going on here:

1) Many in these communities see success and virtue as intertwined. The idea here is that a person with the correct traditional values plus hard work and faith will have a good economic outcome. If God is present, and God commands us to act in certain ways, surely he will reward us for our faith in all aspects of our life (including the economic dimensions).

2) A person living in an economically depressed area won't have money to hold onto, and his life is usually just a few ticks away from financial ruin, losing his home, losing his car, major health episode, etc. It's an ugly and chaotic state. Traditional values provide constancy and a psychological anchor. I may be in a chaotic state but God is in control, even if things go horrifically bad. The trade-off here is that God sets the rules that everyone has to abide by.

The book Democracy for Realists opened my eyes.

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsi...

TLDR: People vote based on identity (self image), then adjust their beliefs (positions) as needed.

This thinking runs contrary to the fact that cities like Detriot, Chicago are debt-centers. California (also reliably blue) is far 'in the red' as far as debt goes.

No, liberal tax policies are not the answer. The piper must be paid eventually.

I actually agree with you on this. But unless there is some kind of consensus among different countries, including those that have free trade agreements with the US (e.g. NAFTA) to change the terms, it seems rather unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Besides, I wonder how much more expensive that alone would make manufacturing in other countries. AFAIK a significant reason for labor being cheap is COL being cheaper in other countries.

> I find it ironic how the GOP voters who seem to be disproportionately living in economically distressed areas are the ones most likely to vote for politicians pushing the dog-eat-dog economic model.

I don't. In many cases, people aren't voting for a party because they agree with all its policies, but because they agree with it on one or two policies they don't want to compromise on.

So perhaps one of the GOP's social policies (as much as they're disliked by the left) might just generally be more popular and held as more important than their economics ones.

With the US two party system, you can either vote somewhat more left wing social policies and economics policies, or somewhat more right wing social policies and economics policies, assuming you want to make a difference.

If this changed, then I suspect you'd see a very different picture in regards to what politicians are voted for.

That's simple psychology- take the poor and downtrodden, give them a scapegoat for their problems (liberals), someone to feel morally superior to (everyone but poor, downtrodden GOP voters), and sprinkle the whole thing with Prosperity Gospel Christianity and poof instant voter base.

I can see believing that if you're only familiar with Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. You might find it surprising to hear that there are many other vibrant urban areas in Canada that have jobs without the absurd housing costs.

It appears they have one of the highest education rates in the country too "Education in Minnesota" on @Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Minnesota?wprov...

I feel this advantage should also extend to states like New York then? This map at least seems to show that it can’t be the only factor?

You don't do one thing to fix something like job scarcity, you need a roundup of changes over decades to fix it. You need programs that push people into higher education so the communities have something to offer. And people can't study at college or university if they have children from unintended pregnancies, so you need to have good social programs to help people from when they enter high school to when they leave grad school. You need healthcare to prevent health issues before they happen and to get people back to work as soon as possible when they do fall ill. You need welfare programs so if shit happens (And it does) you don't have your life completely destroyed and you and your family put on the street.

Are any of those policies ones that the Republican party stands for? Sex education, socialized healthcare and education, and welfare are on the GOP hit-list. Democrat states have had these things for decades now, which is why they are the prosperous ones.

You can't force change on people who distrust you and all your ideas.

The problem is that GOP get elected by saying Government is broken then proceed to fulfill the prediction by breaking it further (look at Kansas).

The Dems need to go back to the 50 state strategy and just "show up" at a number of uncontested races preparing to lose but win the 2nd or 3rd time - the problem is that the establishment wing of the Democratic party cock-blocks that and actively advances "their person" into such races and proceeds to lose them (blaming the grassroots candidate in the process), while ignoring large swathes of winnable races.

Arguably Obamacare has been great for adding jobs to the healthcare industry.

That said, I'm not entirely sure what the executive branch can be expected to do here aside from tweaking interest rates and actively hiring people directly.

Democrats have long had plans for retraining programs for those affected by economic change. On most trade agreements, Democrats are the ones pushing for retraining programs for those who's jobs would be displaced by the agreement. Hell, Secretary Clinton had a whole plan written up on retraining programs for those in economically distressed areas. They actually had ideas and plans beyond "Let's bring back coal."

Southern, lower-middle to lower class, white southerners have voted against their own interests since the moment the Civil War ended.

Could you be more specific? (what policies were implemented, who implemented them, and how did they affect the polulation?)

The children didn't, but their parents did nothing to fix the problem and in most cases voted to continue to pass these same problems on to their children. Public school is scary-bad because them damn liberals are teaching our children to think and those judges prevent us from force-feeding our preferred cultural indoctrination, so let's starve the schools in the guise of cutting taxes and promoting "choice." Then let's all act surprised when our children get a shit education, when they lack qualifications/skills for jobs and continuing education, and businesses have to expand elsewhere to find an educated workforce. Then we can blame the failure upon the schools, greedy teachers unions, and administrative "bloat" and not admit to our own greed and short-sightedness. Of course the children of the elite will do just fine in private school, where they will get an education that might, almost, be as good as what any kid in Minnesota gets from public school.

When I was a midwestern public school kid of the 70s and 80s, Kansas was on par with the rest of the midwest in terms of general public education. After Brownback and his ilk have finished raping the state anyone with a child under the age of 14 should probably consider moving to a another state for the sake of their own child's future. This is not a problem that goes back generations, and the cause and solution are blatantly obvious.

Seriously, the one word response to your attempt to absolve them of any agency or responsibility for this situation is "Kansas."

I think the point is they frequently vote against their own interests. For just one example, one need only look at the Kansas experiment to see what unchecked conservative tax policy can do to a state.

It was not an attempt to spread a meme or feel a sense of superiority.

My comment was an observation of a cultural difference that is not even really confined to the south. It’s more about rural and urban differences. I can only speak about the south because it is what I have experienced.

A culture that is at its root regressive, anti-science and anti-intellectual should not be surprised when it does not succeed in a modern world.