Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us

In states that have much lower rates of regulation, house prices are still up off the charts, yea, still way lower than California, but they have pushed prices out of reach of the people that live there, so there has to be multiple pieces occurring (for example low interest rates for a very long time).

What shortages are there in the US?

We already shovel in far more tax dollars maintaining infrastructure for a handful of remaining occupants even when the economic activity no longer justifies the spend. What further burden, exactly, do you think the rest of the world owes ex-rural communities that have deindustrialized like this?

I’ve been to places like this around here, where mining towns have dried up and there’s only a few early-20th-century dams marking anything at all. You have to drive into unmarked, un-google-mappable state land through the fire roads (the kind of thing that gets people killed-by-GPS out west) to even get there etc, and there used to be a whole town there once for the mines. Serious/honest question, what does the broader public really owe that miner?

America needs to have some hard talks about what to do in these (extremely frequent) situations, because infrastructure can’t be an indefinite commitment once the communities that sustain it wither and shrivel away. And it sucks for the handful of holdouts who don’t want to leave, but the community itself is really already dead. If there are 30 people who don't want to leave their homes, do we keep paving roads and delivering US mail and maintaining hundreds of miles of power lines for the 30 people who won't leave?

That's maybe viable when it's a rare situation, but it's not, anymore - America is folding back inwards after over-expanding during the railroad and industrial eras. There are a lot of "railroad towns" where the trains no longer stop, so to speak. And once "the mine dries up", and those arteries stop pumping, people move on. What do we do about the ones who won't? Society is probably "in the hole" (net economic activity) to the tune of millions of dollars of infrastructure per resident, perhaps tens of millions in some cases, over their lifetime.

A lot of these places literally have population density of sub-1-person-per-sq-mile, there are whole regions with sub-10. It's gauche to say it, but at the end of the day everyone knows there is a number when it's worth it and a number when it's not - just like statistical value of life. And at some point, if the taxpayer is kicking in tens of millions of dollars of artificial subsidy, it's becoming a lifestyle choice that we choose to subsidize. By all means offer them a great deal to buy their property and bulldoze it... but at the end of the day we can't keep paving roads onto mountains just because 10 people don't want to move. That is an economic termite right there - and they would use far less charitable terms to describe the situation, if the tables were reversed.

I feel for people who have to leave their lives behind etc, but infrastructure isn't a suicide pact either. It's not a permanent, lifelong commitment even when the fundamentals on the ground totally change - and not everyone is a legacy homeowner to begin with.

http://travelthemitten.com/landmarks/redridge-steel-dam-an-e...

https://99wfmk.com/redridge-michigan/

> Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

> Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

> The high and lonely hills stretch far away.

Either you spend your time working for someone to increase the value of their asset. You get paid a salary, sometimes a very decent one. This is what society trains you for.

Or you own assets.