Why Northern England is poor • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Northern England is poor

#61

Post by spacebanana7 » Sat, Jan 25, 2025, 7:57 PM UTC

The very success of Northern England in the nineteenth century may have also precipitated a great deal of its subsequent failures.

The rail, coal and manufacturing industries crowded out other forms of enterprise economically. The related union / capitalist disputes crowded out other political activity.

Similarly the great agricultural “successes” of the Scottish Highlands in the 17th & 18th century crowded out everything else, leaving it something of a backwater ever since.

Perhaps something similar will happen to London when the time of finance comes to an end? Then finally the South West will take its turn being the heart of the British economy.

Re: Why Northern England is poor

#62

Post by okeuro49 » Sat, Jan 25, 2025, 7:58 PM UTC

thereticent wrote: post #17

okeuro49 wrote: post #5

[flagged]

From a long-time HN user: please provide a high quality source when making claims connected to a people group. This place works better when we avoid culture wars and demographic-based blame.

https://www.thefp.com/p/muslim-grooming-gangs-cover-up-keir-...

Re: Why Northern England is poor

#63

Post by spacebanana7 » Sat, Jan 25, 2025, 8:00 PM UTC

tetris11 wrote: post #3

We also shifted largely into a service based economy, shutdown a lot of mines and mills (for better or for worse) which were primarily more north based. More than 2/3rds of my graduating physics class went straight into banking, as there was no relevant industry to pick them up... and as someone with several postdoctoral degrees, yet no house or meaningful assets... who could blame them for going into banking in this…

> More than 2/3rds of my graduating physics class went straight into banking

This is why I advise people to never study physical sciences or non-software engineering. There just aren’t many jobs for it in the UK. And even fewer that pay well.

Re: Why Northern England is poor

#64

Post by bryanrasmussen » Sat, Jan 25, 2025, 8:04 PM UTC

casenmgreen wrote: post #13

James_K wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process is quite simple and fairly obvious. Government policy is the bedrock of all economic development. Government officials will always have the most knowledge about the capital, so all policy is tailored to it. It's no surprise that they don't make policies that benefit the North given that they don't live there.

Berlin is not like this, though. If Berlin were removed from the map, Germany as a whole would economically (loss of people, loss of income) be on average better off. If this is the mechanism, why is Berlin not doing better?

how many generations from a city becoming the political center does it take for the effect to be noticeable?

Re: Why Northern England is poor

#65

Post by Ekaros » Sat, Jan 25, 2025, 8:05 PM UTC

Cumpiler69 wrote: post #27

EarlKing wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a consequence of companies outsourcing to countries where they can get away with slave labor and a complete lack of environmental regulation. There's nothing natural about it.

It's basically a modern form of economic colonialism replacing the old style of colonialism with ships, guns and slaves in chains. The brutal hard work gets done off-shore for poor pay and the spoils(profits) get shipped to the western finance capitals of the world where people who put in little effort get the cream. It's still dependent on rich countries having historical leverage (economic, political and especially…

Or how trade made places rich... Well you always have the buyer and seller. And less they get and more they pay worse is it for them... Trade has value generation, but also exploitation and extraction...

Re: Why Northern England is poor

#66

Post by threatofrain » Sat, Jan 25, 2025, 8:10 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #35

matt-p wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a certain extent, would making the productive parts of manchester, even just 2X more productive not fix this over time in the same way that it has in London? If you look back even say 30 years ago in London, you'd of said the same thing about places like Hackney, as you do now about Tameside. Today it houses some of the most desired and valuable real estate not only in London, and by extension the UK, but in the w…

Simply displacing a population can make an area more wealthy but it does little for the overall population. So, I don’t think we care about land here but rather people.

> but it does little for the overall population.

Not sure about that.

Re: Why Northern England is poor

#67

Post by LexGray » Sat, Jan 25, 2025, 8:11 PM UTC

marssaxman wrote: post #43

renewiltord wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither Albany, NY not Sacramento, CA feel like the centers of their states.

Having spent my teen years in backwater Sacramento, I can confirm that it did not feel much like the center of anything. Adding a few more examples to your list, neither Olympia (WA), Salem (OR), nor Carson City (NV) are economic or social centers of their respective states.

This may stumble on a solution to the problem. London combines government and financial centers. Axe parliament and 10 Downing Street and rebuild government infrastructure from scratch in some inland port where it can drag influence north.

Sacramento may not be exciting, but it is self-sustaining with fairly high property costs and a huge commuter population. I think one of the things that makes California successful is the government is in a boring city with few distractions.

Re: Why Northern England is poor

#68

Post by matt-p » Sat, Jan 25, 2025, 8:56 PM UTC

fsckboy wrote: post #46

matt-p wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a certain extent, would making the productive parts of manchester, even just 2X more productive not fix this over time in the same way that it has in London? If you look back even say 30 years ago in London, you'd of said the same thing about places like Hackney, as you do now about Tameside. Today it houses some of the most desired and valuable real estate not only in London, and by extension the UK, but in the w…

> 30 years ago in London, you'd of said the same thing about places like Hackney...[and] today it houses some of the most desired and valuable real estate are you saying that gentrification of Hackney did not simply entail wealthier people moving in and displacing the local population, but rather soaring incomes for the people who lived there?

Emphasis on 'to a certain extent' :)

Educational outcomes need to be improved yesterday, no disagreement on that.

There's some displacement, yes. However anyone who isn't in privately rented accommodation would be choosing to leave, perhaps even with some decent money from selling their house.

Many people stay, if you'd like proof, take a walk down to hackney.

Re: Why Northern England is poor

#69

Post by matt-p » Sat, Jan 25, 2025, 9:12 PM UTC

dambi0 wrote: post #58

matt-p wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What policy would benefit the north, without (even further) subsidising it? If we could invest £10Bn and get £20Bn back for the economy with our money back over time then not a single politician would turn that down, there's actually been a load of support over the past ~5+ years for "levelling up" (AKA investment in the north) but we've not invested much because the returns are abysmal. Meanwhile there's a whole sta…

Interesting. If we look at the idea of subsides between region, and we accept that this the right way of thinking about it and assume it's factual and that simple. Then I think one of the questions worth asking is effectively do we want to try reduce that inequality or do we want to perpetuate it. Neither is obviously right or wrong, but I think that's the core question. If we are believe to the idea in the article t…

I think most people would agree that some imbalance is natural, perhaps even good but the current level is bad.

Bad, that the only net positive part of the entire UK comes from London and it's dependent, the SE.

It's clearly caused societal issues and apart from everything else means we're putting all our eggs in one basket. Transporting goods, energy and people into London from all over the UK is clearly worse than if we spread it around a bit.

Re: Why Northern England is poor

#70

Post by wink » Sat, Jan 25, 2025, 9:15 PM UTC

taffer wrote: post #57

casenmgreen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Berlin is not like this, though. If Berlin were removed from the map, Germany as a whole would economically (loss of people, loss of income) be on average better off. If this is the mechanism, why is Berlin not doing better?

Germany is the only Western European country with an Eastern European capital. As a result, Berlin was poorer than the rest of the country, but this is no longer the case. Since reunification, Berlin has had the fastest growing economy in Germany and is now close to Hesse in terms of GDP per capita.

Berlin is odd... for several factors. Just looking at the last 100 years, I fail to see any capital (that was not directly a war zone) be: not capital, capital, divided, part of 2 countries, an exclave...