>It sounds like you're saying that something there is important to them, so they choose to stay. We all make choices and live with consequences.
Yes, I guess that's basically my point. Many in this thread are talking about "options" and "choices" but really what we're talking about is an option that's better for these families than the status quo. No one cares that there's a million things that could make these families worse off, we're here figuring out what could make their lives better. What I'm saying is that for most of these families the option: "moving to Nebraska" belongs in the million pointless worse off options bucket and not in the life-improving options bucket. Even when you speak of "consequences" you mean the negative effects of their decision not to move to Nebraska, but I'm saying that not moving to Nebraska doesn't have that many negative consequences because moving to Nebraska is a totally shit option for most people.
>How can anyone be sure of that? But let's say it's true that moving anywhere else would make their situation worse. Then what are they upset about? They're already in the best place, aren't they?
You don't understand why someone trapped in the cycle of poverty would be upset? Why someone who has to go to a food bank every week to get by would look at the incredibly wealthy citizens of the city they inhabit and be a bit peeved? Are you familiar with poverty? Are you human?