After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America

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.

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.

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.

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).

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 didn't see as much of a political problem as I saw a human problem.

Somehow America's dirt poor aren't as exciting or trendy as the exotic overseas dirt poor.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where do you suppose they would live? Under a bridge in San Francisco? Unless you are going to host them.

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.

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.

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.

How does health insurance/care work for these people? Do you automatically qualify for the government programs (MA?) if you are even partially disabled?

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.

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...

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 hn@ycombinator.com.

At the moment, two of the three are no longer dead.

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.

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.

For someone to have "done" something, I'd want to see some kind of difference in the before and after pictures.

I'm not sure coal can compete with fracking so the coal jobs are moot.

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.)

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???

She didn't campaign on a jobs program, or at least not one that would matter like a jobs guarantee.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Super expensive LTE or satellite connection, or overpriced Shentel cablemodem, or DSL, where upload will be less than 1Mbps.

In some cases, they'd be preserving authentic folk art.

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.