Hacker News Reader

Comment by pm90 | Hacker News Reader

I don't really see how this can be remedied, besides there being a revival of traditional industries (unlikely) or current workers retraining in massive numbers (again, unlikely). It almost seems like this is a post-industrial great migration, where people from distressed areas would need to move to the few areas that are thriving.

It doesn't help that the republican dominated political parties in many of the distressed states are more concerned with cutting taxes on the rich (Kansas) or trying to pass ridiculous and unnecessary laws (bathroom bills in NC, Texas etc). This has got to stop.

Accepting Medicaid expansion, as I see it, is probably one way to immediately kickstart many of these distressed states. The federal money that comes in might just help create jobs in the healthcare sector (or fund existing ones better) that might somewhat mitigate the affects of economic duress. Not to mention better healthcare for the people.

View on HN

I think this reality has to be frankly talked about. If liberal tax policies are so destructive to business and innovation, why are the most successful counties often times (as shown in this map) run by more liberal / progressive / dare I say socialistic governments? People often criticize this line of inquiry and call it divisive or inappropriate or callous, but I cannot see how it is unrelated nonetheless.

Tax breaks, gender discriminative bathroom laws, climate protection deregulation, and "appeals to traditional values" do not seem to be improving the lives of these people very much.

> 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.

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?

This is an extremely good question and very difficult to answer, to say the least. There has been quite the disinformation program going on in many conservative states; actually not simply disinformation, but demonization, so that its difficult to even get many people to listen to liberals.

But I think Al Gore probably has the best solution to this, which he talks about in his new documentary: if you focus on real economic benefits of certain "liberal" ideas, then you seem to have a chance. e.g. if wind energy is shown to be cheaper than natural gas, people will adopt it.

Democrats (and fact-believing republicans) really need to include more economics in their messages. Like how expanding Medicare actually helps small businesses and rural communities. Like how higher taxes on the rich help fund education and infrastructure projects that lead to greater prosperity.

I understand it is a somewhat skeevey way to do it, because if you're a democrat, you probably also believe in other non-economic democratic values (e.g. diversity, womens' reproductive rights etc.) and to win the support of people who don't believe in these things might seem uncouth.

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.

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

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 story of Detroit is far more complicated than what you describe, especially when you choose to gloss over decades of racist violence and humiliation that preceded its collapse.

And its economic collapse was also the product of broader right-wing attack on the political/economic power of working class people in the US. Under the guise of “free trade,” they were forced to compete with labor of poorer countries, while the wealthy and their administrators were largely exempt from the same pressures.

Cities like Seattle get municipal tax dollars from companies like Amazon whose business disrupts small towns across the US. States receive the sales tax but there's no compensation for the larger disruption effects.

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.

> California (also reliably blue) is far 'in the red' as far as debt goes.

California has significantly below average, for a US state, combined state and local public debt to GDP ratio.

Which piper is getting paid? The wealthy who made their fortunes in society but don't want to contribute back with their fair share of taxes to keep society running?

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.

The problem is that this just doesn't work. Look e.g. at Kansas https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/opinion/finally-something...

But there's zero evidence to show that this works. Generally the opposite is true; the business pockets the tax break, and does nothing new.

Making offshoring of manufacturing more expensive would be a big start. Require that companies only offshore with countries with the same environmental and worker protections the US has or better.

Companies offshore manufacturing because the labor is cheap and the environmental regulations are slim.

Automation has taken a large chunk of the manufacturing jobs of the 1970s, but bringing even automated manufacturing back would boost auxiliary businesses in the towns.

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.

> 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.

Yes, Trump is trying to renegotiate NAFTA. Not sure the details or what he's trying to do with it. It does show it can be done though. I'm fairly suspicious of all our trade agreements. I'm sure they have a lot of US industrial influence in them and not a lot of worker influence.

>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.

That's a good question. I would assume the cost of putting environmental regulations in place would be substantial, but not sure about the labor rights.

What I do know is you can buy a hunk of land for real cheap in the middle of nowhere in the US as long as you don't mind:

  1. No water
  2. No electric
  3. No sewer
  4. No road
  5. No nearby hospitals
  6. No nearby grocery stores

In other words, I think our infrastructure has a lot to do with our COL.

> Yes, Trump is trying to renegotiate NAFTA. Not sure the details or what he's trying to do with it. It does show it can be done though.

No, trying to do it doesn't show it can be done.

It can be done and he is doing it. Mexico and Canada don't have to accept it though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/trump...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer...

And I'm certainly not saying the renegotiated deal will be any better for middle America. Trump seems to be moving towards a traditional GOP pro-business at all costs stance.

I'm not sure how economists can say it didn't hurt or barely hurt American workers when we have so many plants in Mexico today.

This is the Perot v Gore debate on NAFTA. I think Perot was right.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/02/nafta-debate-1...

> It can be done and he is doing it. Mexico and Canada don't have to accept it though.

If Mexico and Canada don't accept it, a renegotiation has not actually been done, only attempted and failed.

I think you are trying to mince words. Renegotiating and finalizing aren't the same thing. Just because the renegotiation failed doesn't mean there wasn't any renegotiating going on. Just because I didn't accept an offer doesn't mean I didn't negotiate.

Maybe you are right, but what's your point?

My point is that it is incorrect to point to Trump's effort as demonstrating anything that minimizes the upthread comment about the need for consensus among trading partners (and implying such a consensus is unlikely) to achieve the kind of change that was being discussed when that comment was offered. Since Trump's efforts to date neither render moot the need for consensus nor demonstrate that such consensus is within reach.

Doesn't the term negotiate or renegotiate imply the consensus of more than one party?

As far as "can be done," meaning it is legally possible to renegotiate, which it is.

> Doesn't the term negotiate or renegotiate imply the consensus of more than one party?

No, it implies trying to reach such a consensus, not the existence of such a consensus. The practicality of attempting to find consensus is different than that of actually finding it.

> As far as "can be done," meaning it is legally possible to renegotiate, which it is.

Then that was a stupid and pointless response to the comment about the need for consensus, which raised an issue of pragmatics, not legal possibility.

>Then that was a stupid and pointless response to the comment about the need for consensus

Hah. Pot, meet kettle.

America needs to stop with the "land of opportunity" bullshit narrative. It's not the 1920's anymore, not everyone gets to be Elon Musk.

We can either be like Germany and tackle these problems together - which will involve massive capital and wealth redistribution. The course we're on - "winner takes all" - is not sustainable - there will be riots on the streets before long.

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 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.

"...but because they agree with it on one or two policies they don't want to compromise on."

The book Democracy for Realists calls this "folk theory of democracy".

"With the US two party system, you can either vote somewhat more left wing ... right wing..."

You're ignoring the polarizing effect (hyperpartisanship) of gerrymandering.

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.

With regards to rural health care, this investigative series about "rural communities wilting after their hospital closes"[1] just published recently. A quick Google search reveals a number of different outlets publishing similar pieces since at least ~2012.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rural-hospitals-closure-...

I think their metric is suspect. It only uses where new companies are being created as a major metric to categorize "distressed" economies. Pooling of resources around major urban areas is very typical of how economies grow. You can't expect companies to just rise up in the middle of nowhere

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.

hrm. I'm not denying small towns are dying. I'm saying it's not unusual that they will die out as the economy moves towards increased efficiency.

> It almost seems like this is a post-industrial great migration, where people from distressed areas would need to move to the few areas that are thriving.

Except, at least in Canada, people increasingly can't afford to live in the cities where the jobs are. The alternative might be a movement of people moving back into the bush - if you are going to live in poverty, you might as well have freedom and spare time rather than working three part time jobs just to pay rent, grocery, and utility bills.

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.

Are you asserting that the housing affordability index is unchanged in most of Canada in the last 20 years?

I'm saying your claim that "people increasingly can't afford to live in the cities" is an easily refutable, broad stroke statement that fails to acknowledge regional nuances. The same would be true of any single, monolithic measure that attempts to quantify such a claim.

Moreover, if you take the time to drill into the actual numbers, you'll find housing affordability is about average relative to historical figures (in terms of percentage income spent on housing) in most urban areas, with the exception of a few major centers (Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto) that are pulling up the national average:

http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-h...

> is an easily refutable, broad stroke statement that fails to acknowledge regional nuances

While it does vary by region, according to this we are at a 20 year high nation wide. I guess it all depends on which propoganda you read.

http://business.financialpost.com/real-estate/rbc-says-housi...

"Home affordability in Canada worst in almost 30 years, Toronto’s worst ever, says RBC"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com