Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Future of Coal Country

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 97 posts

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#11

Post by sp332 »

WalterBright wrote: post #4
phil248 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditionally in this country, people readily migrated for job opportunities. Maybe that's just a fairy tale, though it happened more than once in my family and with plenty of people I know. Perhaps people in resource extraction and one-factory towns no longer want to migrate for opportunity. Or maybe that's never been a majority inclination to begin with.

It's not a fairy tale. California became a populous state due to the gold rush.

That doesn't explain the ghost towns around the mines.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#12

Post by opportune »

ticviking wrote: post #10
opportune wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm originally from an area not in coal country, but right by it and heavily influenced by it. I couldn't agree with you more. Both my home state and the federal government are already essentially subsidizing these people to live in these communities simply because it's where they were born. There is no infrastructure for jobs because there are no industries other than coal and growing marijuana / making moonshine (a…

How is this different from the narratives of "welfare dependence" and "inter-generational poverty" advanced by republicans to advocate for deep cuts to urban welfare? If there are more people in a city than it provides opportunity for it seems to me to be a similar cruelty to incentivize them to stay in one place because they have "roots" there or something equally vague.

The main difference is that there are at least jobs in cities. They may not all be >$50k solid middle class jobs, but they are there. There are actually almost no jobs in these areas.

I would even agree with urban relocation if one city had a disproportionate number of people trapped in inter-generational poverty and another had extra jobs. I don't think "deep cuts" to urban welfare are ever the solution. I do think that the welfare system should prioritize setting its recipients up for success.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#13

Post by mmanfrin »

jdmichal wrote: post #9

So, when I look at what Norway has done with its oil money, I wonder what prevented communities like these from doing the same thing. Removal of the coal from the ground generated excess value, otherwise the mines would have lost money and been closed already. Where did this excess value actually flow? Did the community actually capture enough of the value flow to change its fate? Or did it only capture enough to sur…

That excess value was captured by a select few, rather than by the government (as in Norway).

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#14

Post by rfrank »

opportune wrote: post #12
ticviking wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this different from the narratives of "welfare dependence" and "inter-generational poverty" advanced by republicans to advocate for deep cuts to urban welfare? If there are more people in a city than it provides opportunity for it seems to me to be a similar cruelty to incentivize them to stay in one place because they have "roots" there or something equally vague.

The main difference is that there are at least jobs in cities. They may not all be >$50k solid middle class jobs, but they are there. There are actually almost no jobs in these areas. I would even agree with urban relocation if one city had a disproportionate number of people trapped in inter-generational poverty and another had extra jobs. I don't think "deep cuts" to urban welfare are ever the solution. I do think…

> The main difference is that there are at least jobs in cities.

There just aren't any houses, so their quality of life takes a greater hit than staying put in the form of huge commutes and dramatically increased cost of living. See service workers or teachers in San Francisco.

1. https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/20/15834514/rent-transportatio...

2. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607957/the-unaffordable-u...

3. http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-lee-spend-44-million-sf-teac...

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#15

Post by acchow »

philipkglass wrote: post #2

Shutting the mine could eliminate more than seven thousand jobs, in a county of thirty-seven thousand people. “Greene County will become a ghost town,” the neighbor wrote. Isn't that the normal fate of towns built around resource extraction after the resource is economically exhausted? The American West is littered with ghost town remnants around depleted mines. It doesn't make much more sense to stay in a coal minin…

How do other countries deal with this? Or do they have the same problem of local communities extracting federal subsidies for their unsustainable, selfish, local desires?

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#16

Post by nemo44x »

philipkglass wrote: post #2

Shutting the mine could eliminate more than seven thousand jobs, in a county of thirty-seven thousand people. “Greene County will become a ghost town,” the neighbor wrote. Isn't that the normal fate of towns built around resource extraction after the resource is economically exhausted? The American West is littered with ghost town remnants around depleted mines. It doesn't make much more sense to stay in a coal minin…

Don't forget those logging towns in the Pacific Northwest were able to luckily benefit from global trade expansion. Many of those cities became port towns creating a lot of opportunity and wealth where many other places suffered. Factor in they haven't had to deal with the USA's past like places in the Midwest and Appalachia. They're living high on the hog today by simple luck.

You don't just reinvent the economy and deal with the baggage of your past (due to ancestors and norms of the time but have effects today) overnight. I mean, what can they do? They won't fall into the lap of becoming a port town with extreme growth due to the proliferation of global trade.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#17

Post by digi_owl »

mmanfrin wrote: post #13
jdmichal wrote: post #9

So, when I look at what Norway has done with its oil money, I wonder what prevented communities like these from doing the same thing. Removal of the coal from the ground generated excess value, otherwise the mines would have lost money and been closed already. Where did this excess value actually flow? Did the community actually capture enough of the value flow to change its fate? Or did it only capture enough to sur…

That excess value was captured by a select few, rather than by the government (as in Norway).

And Norway was basically warned about the problem by an Iraqi that had experienced it once before.

Not that the oil fund is perfect. Using it can drive the currency haywire.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#18

Post by hiram112 »

ticviking wrote: post #10
opportune wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm originally from an area not in coal country, but right by it and heavily influenced by it. I couldn't agree with you more. Both my home state and the federal government are already essentially subsidizing these people to live in these communities simply because it's where they were born. There is no infrastructure for jobs because there are no industries other than coal and growing marijuana / making moonshine (a…

How is this different from the narratives of "welfare dependence" and "inter-generational poverty" advanced by republicans to advocate for deep cuts to urban welfare? If there are more people in a city than it provides opportunity for it seems to me to be a similar cruelty to incentivize them to stay in one place because they have "roots" there or something equally vague.

Good point.

I know folks on the right screamed about the 'welfare queens' living on the tax payers' dime in the inner cities for generation after generation. In reality, this was a coded attack against blacks, and the majority of the claims were hyperbole.

But now the left has begun making the same mean-spirited attacks on uneducated whites from Appalachia, the Midwest, and the south.

Both types of stereotypes are annoying to hear repeated again and again.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#19

Post by opportune »

hiram112 wrote: post #18
ticviking wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this different from the narratives of "welfare dependence" and "inter-generational poverty" advanced by republicans to advocate for deep cuts to urban welfare? If there are more people in a city than it provides opportunity for it seems to me to be a similar cruelty to incentivize them to stay in one place because they have "roots" there or something equally vague.

Good point. I know folks on the right screamed about the 'welfare queens' living on the tax payers' dime in the inner cities for generation after generation. In reality, this was a coded attack against blacks, and the majority of the claims were hyperbole. But now the left has begun making the same mean-spirited attacks on uneducated whites from Appalachia, the Midwest, and the south. Both types of stereotypes are an…

I'm not making a mean spirited attack. In fact, I think in the long run moving would even be beneficial for these people

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#20

Post by acchow »

phil248 wrote: post #3
philipkglass wrote: post #2

Shutting the mine could eliminate more than seven thousand jobs, in a county of thirty-seven thousand people. “Greene County will become a ghost town,” the neighbor wrote. Isn't that the normal fate of towns built around resource extraction after the resource is economically exhausted? The American West is littered with ghost town remnants around depleted mines. It doesn't make much more sense to stay in a coal minin…

Traditionally in this country, people readily migrated for job opportunities. Maybe that's just a fairy tale, though it happened more than once in my family and with plenty of people I know. Perhaps people in resource extraction and one-factory towns no longer want to migrate for opportunity. Or maybe that's never been a majority inclination to begin with.

Any studies on how effective it would be for the government to subsidize moves?
Post reply on HN