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

After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 346 posts

Re: After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America

#11

Post by mmirate »

logfromblammo wrote: post #2

That is so depressing. No wonder suicide rates are up. You know there's a difference between "give a man a fish" and "teach a man to fish", but what do you do when the fish are just gone ? It was mentioned in the article, but not extensively discussed. I think maybe the largest distinct segment of the economy in ex-coalcountry regions is now pharmaceuticals, legal and illegal. There's the legal root and mushroom hunt…

> If all you ever knew is coal mining, that's your condition that prevents you from finding gainful employment.

Why can they not expand their knowledge?

And if they truly cannot, then ...

What productive purpose can we possibly expect them to have? Or in other words: why should we evaluate them as non-negligible?

Re: After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America

#12

Post by banned1 »

ams6110 wrote: post #9
logfromblammo wrote: post #2

That is so depressing. No wonder suicide rates are up. You know there's a difference between "give a man a fish" and "teach a man to fish", but what do you do when the fish are just gone ? It was mentioned in the article, but not extensively discussed. I think maybe the largest distinct segment of the economy in ex-coalcountry regions is now pharmaceuticals, legal and illegal. There's the legal root and mushroom hunt…

> what do you do when the fish are just gone? Move to where the fish are. The economy isn't terrible everywhere.

This is the Hacker News' equivalent comment of "Let them eat cake". I hope things are going well in The Capitol.

Where do you suppose they would live? Under a bridge in San Francisco? Unless you are going to host them.

Re: After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America

#13

Post by lg »

hpcjoe wrote: post #10
tdb7893 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One good thing about a true basic income is that there wouldn't be conditions for receiving it so it would significantly lessen the penalty for working legitimately (obviously there would still be tax reasons to have income you don't need to report). My hope for basic income is that by simplifying how we give aid it can take out much of the ridiculous bureaucracy of it but I'm obviously no expert

The concern I have with this will be inflation. People now have money, sellers can now raise prices. Which eventually gets us right back to where we were. You can give them more money, but then you are accelerating the cycle.

sellers who raise prices will need to compete with ones who don't.

Re: After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America

#14

Post by mrskitch »

24gttghh wrote: post #6

> She lit a home-rolled cigarette and, getting to work with a mattock, tried to ignore the weather. She had lately been telling herself that she had to stop taking these risks. They were more than an hour from the nearest hospital, and what if she had another heart attack? Yeah...she seems to be ignoring the heart-attack risk she is pumping into her lungs while she says that. I get that it's an addiction that is hard…

I can relate to this sentiment, but you've got take into account the whole story:

- Failing health, already has nearly died. - No safety net. - Risks life every time this voyage is made. - Doesn't have access to many resources.

Here you have someone who doesn't have (what appears to be) working plumbing. Doesn't even have a _kitchen_ (just a hot pad). No assets or finances to speak of. Likely no support network. On top of all of that you want them to tackle a nearly impossible task of giving up addiction? I'll note that many many people with all the resources in the world cannot break addiction, let alone someone with nearly no resources.

Definitely not wise for her to continue with her habits as they are. But given the amount of stress and pressure, along with impending doom, some semblance of mercy should be exercised. It's not like she already doesn't have other major problems requiring her attention

Re: After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America

#15

Post by ianai »

hpcjoe wrote: post #10
tdb7893 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One good thing about a true basic income is that there wouldn't be conditions for receiving it so it would significantly lessen the penalty for working legitimately (obviously there would still be tax reasons to have income you don't need to report). My hope for basic income is that by simplifying how we give aid it can take out much of the ridiculous bureaucracy of it but I'm obviously no expert

The concern I have with this will be inflation. People now have money, sellers can now raise prices. Which eventually gets us right back to where we were. You can give them more money, but then you are accelerating the cycle.

Not quite. Inflation isn’t the outright awful thing people assume it is. Further, the concept is to give people just enough to survive. That creates demand for only the basics. The basics are largely standardized items. When was the last time there was a shortage in corn, cotton, flour? They’re all commodities. If anything modern prices for these goods and services are likely to be indifferent to the increase in demand from simple basic income.

Another example is the cost of additional real estate outside the city. Building costs in rural America are essentially linear with demand. There’s no shortage of land out there and basic income would allow people to live in such areas.

Re: After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America

#17

Post by hpcjoe »

ams6110 wrote: post #9
logfromblammo wrote: post #2

That is so depressing. No wonder suicide rates are up. You know there's a difference between "give a man a fish" and "teach a man to fish", but what do you do when the fish are just gone ? It was mentioned in the article, but not extensively discussed. I think maybe the largest distinct segment of the economy in ex-coalcountry regions is now pharmaceuticals, legal and illegal. There's the legal root and mushroom hunt…

> what do you do when the fish are just gone? Move to where the fish are. The economy isn't terrible everywhere.

Assume, as the story implies, that they haven't the money to move. Moving costs money.

Exactly what should they do?

Channeling Marie Antoinette is obviously not the right answer (e.g. moving to the jobs) as they are functionally immobile, and as the article notes, they are disabled.

Note: the above question is somewhat rhetorical. There is no real answer, or rather no easy answer. Basic income may help, or it may delay eventual help.

Re: After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America

#18

Post by [deleted] »

mmirate wrote: post #11
logfromblammo wrote: post #2

That is so depressing. No wonder suicide rates are up. You know there's a difference between "give a man a fish" and "teach a man to fish", but what do you do when the fish are just gone ? It was mentioned in the article, but not extensively discussed. I think maybe the largest distinct segment of the economy in ex-coalcountry regions is now pharmaceuticals, legal and illegal. There's the legal root and mushroom hunt…

> If all you ever knew is coal mining, that's your condition that prevents you from finding gainful employment. Why can they not expand their knowledge? And if they truly cannot, then ... What productive purpose can we possibly expect them to have? Or in other words: why should we evaluate them as non-negligible?

[deleted]

Re: After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America

#19

Post by javajosh »

24gttghh wrote: post #6

> She lit a home-rolled cigarette and, getting to work with a mattock, tried to ignore the weather. She had lately been telling herself that she had to stop taking these risks. They were more than an hour from the nearest hospital, and what if she had another heart attack? Yeah...she seems to be ignoring the heart-attack risk she is pumping into her lungs while she says that. I get that it's an addiction that is hard…

This article makes plain that she, and everyone she knows are, economically speaking, dead-men walking. And there is a certain dignity offering someone a smoke before they accept their doom.

The question that plagues me is: can I give her a job? What could this woman do, online or off, that would be valuable to society? Is Mechanical Turk, marketed to the rural poor, a solution?

Re: After the check is gone: The underground economy of rural America

#20

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

logfromblammo wrote: post #2

That is so depressing. No wonder suicide rates are up. You know there's a difference between "give a man a fish" and "teach a man to fish", but what do you do when the fish are just gone ? It was mentioned in the article, but not extensively discussed. I think maybe the largest distinct segment of the economy in ex-coalcountry regions is now pharmaceuticals, legal and illegal. There's the legal root and mushroom hunt…

> And everyone is on social security disability.

I spent several years during and after university hitchhiking all around the world. After seeing most of Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa, I had a general idea of what kind of people are driving around during the day. And then I traveled across the USA .

It turns out that benefits cheats are a very distinct category there in a way they aren’t a thing in most other countries (even Canada). With so many of my drivers, conversations would go like this: "So, what do you do?" "I’m on disability.” "Are you disabled?" "No, but I fool the government into giving me a cheque". They had nothing better to do during the day than drive around, though I have no idea how how they could afford petrol.

> If you threw out the penalty for working...

Indeed, basic income might be a better solution. It would let people claim benefits and work. And people would no longer have to be lying and deceitful to get their money; the prevalence of that kind of behaviour must have some spiritual impact on the community and trust in government. On the other hand, unlike certain countries that heavily fund culture in rural areas so that perpetually unemployed people have libraries and theatres and regional chamber orchestras to spend their time at productively, people in the complete cultural vacuum described in the linked article would probably continue to act self-destructively even with basic income.

Post reply on HN