Hacker News Reader

> I'm convinced a factor in opiates getting a toehold in these areas was due to people going on disability to try to stay economically afloat, and getting prescribed painkillers as cover for faked injuries or in recovery for real but unneccessary surgeries (I have no proof, just anecdata).

IME it's less about disability fraud and more about treatment of the physical injuries sustained from blue-collar work. Those faking it are the ones with enough foresight to sell their pills to others.

But you are otherwise right from what I've seen; the opiates are addictive, the demands of the job do not lessen (they only increase) and the rest writes itself.

Of course you are right. It can be hard work and takes a toll on the body. I know this directly. I didn't mean to imply it was all fraud, and apologize if it came off that way.

The people in those regions you mentioned are largely conservative. By that measure, isn't their issue with the Free-Market system which they prostrate themselves at the altar of? Conservatives also cite laws as being something that should be left up to the states. And they say that marginalized groups should simply move if they don't like the laws of the state they are in. So isn't the system working as they desired since people are leaving places they don't find suitable?

The free market only works within nations where the mobility of labor is on par with the mobility of capital.

It never is and never has been. But that doesn't stop people from invoking it in modern society repeatedly. And I would argue that people leaving these economically dead zones IS representative of labor meeting capital in terms of mobility.

The Rust Belt didn’t need to be an economic zone, politicians made it that way.

They were union and democrat, and when the jobs left, they looked for someone to blame. I think most people can agree it's a complicated situation. But a lot of them really, really hate NAFTA and there's a reason for the post-Clinton shifts in the midwest. At this point, you have people stewing in partisan radio or tv all day. It takes a very strong person to resist that influence. Most of us wouldn't.

Almost everyone just wants to be safe, happy, economically secure, and the same for their kids. That transcends nationality, religion, or party. I think trying to frame it around economic policy reversed the way the mindset was bootstrapped.

The function of both parties is to convince their constituents to believe in policies against their own interests.

As someone not steeped in it, I think the charitable interpretation is that these people like working a job for the dignity of supporting themselves. The jobs went away, but the desire for that dignity hasn't. So social welfare policies remain uninteresting. In fact any top-down analysis sets off their "government handout" detectors, so they're left pining for the age before the need for labor dried up.

IMO a lot could have been done (and perhaps could still be) by decreasing the definition of full time work. With technological progress, offshoring, and women entering the workforce, full time employment should be around 10-15 hours per week. It's a radical departure from the status quo, but that's due to progress being held back so long. Instead we're stuck between a rock and a hard place with an economy tuned to force people into working 40+ hours a week, but little actual work to do.

(BTW the work in cities is more about communication, so the same trend manifests itself as the creation of non-producing bullshit jobs. There is less financial pain, but similar existential pain)

> the president did little, if anything to help their situation and channeled that resentment for his own benefit.

False claim

Provide a counterpoint.

Trade war with China.

I think the result of the trade war is not that great. Trade deficit with China actually went up.

Trade deficit increased > 50%... Bad execution as usual.

I think Obama's strategy of a trading block with Asia was much smarter/efficient.