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

> I think the retraining is a neoliberal dog whistle for 'these people deserve their current lives'.

I have to agree with you here. You see this implied in comment threads like this one too, that they're making choices that are ultimately causing their own situation.

Contrast this with similar articles involving impoverished people in urban environments, especially those with other skin colors, and the difference is stark.

I think Democrats have largely written these people off, and they've lost a lot of political power because of it, and they're still running around and looking for fault everywhere else but in their own politics.

From an impoverished rural perspective, "the government will bring you jobs" and "the government will provide retraining programs" are exactly the wrong messages and goes to show how out of touch Democrats are with these voters. From these peoples' perspective, the government is the source of many of their troubles. The government gives them a disability check that isn't enough to live on, and then threatens to take it away for any of a vast number of reasons; the government shut down the companies that gave them jobs; the government provides all kinds of programs for other people, but not for them (e.g. affirmative action). The moment a politician says, "the government can fix your problems, and I represent the government", they lose this audience.

Yes, it's a strawman. Coal's present predicament has exactly nothing to do with political disfavor. Coal remains heavily subsidized [1], under-regulated [2], and enjoys entrenched support at all levels of government. And yet it still can't compete with newer more efficient alternatives.

Note that the Trump administration is now pushing to give coal massive new subsidies in the form of forced extra payments to coal-fired power plants. Also note that the money will be taken directly from us, the ratepayers; they will be charges added to our electric bills.

1. For example, the federal government has long arranged the bidding and royalty system in a way that ensures the lowest possible lease rates for coal mining, and coal companies are allowed to self-bond, so that when they go bankrupt, the public has to pick up the bills for cleanup and remediation.

2. See the TVA's recent coal ash disasters for a prime example of an under-regulated industry. Other examples abound.

> Not drinking soda/eating junk food every day and walking are quite free if I recall...

Even if we ignore for a moment that healthy food can be more expensive than soda and junk food, you have to take into account the necessary time investment. Those things take more time and time is money.

One might reasonably argue that someone on disability payments should have more time than money, but habits like smoking and eating junk food were probably acquired when they were not on disability and needed to work as hard and as long as possible to make ends meet. No time for healthy cooking and exercise.

Coal was viable as a fuel until a few years ago. Then the environmental regulations hit full force, and forced many of these companies under. I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but worth repeating. Decisions have consequences. Deciding that you will enforce a particular tax/regulation policy based upon perceived (real or otherwise) environmental harm means that the people who depend upon those industries for their livelihood, are going to suffer.

Coal is still cheaper (pre-regulations to kill the industry). Fracking is a response to a) offshore drilling restriction regs and b) OPEC raising its cost per barrel to the point where it becomes economically viable. Coal is even better, albeit a dirtier fuel, from a cost perspective. But it has been regulated into economic impracticality, by the previous administration.

OPEC tried to kill fracking, after their proxies in the US failed to get it turned off, by driving the price per barrel down to levels where it was economically infeasible to use fracking. However, they didn't count on technological development and newer field discoveries. Which actually enabled fracking to reduce the crossover to profitability point below where OPEC was aiming. While this was happening, we all enjoyed the benefit of competition and lower prices for fuel.

OPEC has since cried UNCLE and has given up this direction.

The point for coal being, that, had the regulations not been enacted, much of what is discussed in this story would not be the case. But they were enacted, because some people felt that their connection to the environment was far more important than other peoples livelihood. Yes, it really is that simple.

While I'd love to see us transition to cleaner tech over time, I recognize that there is economic momentum in existing energy tech. Losing this economic momentum means that we consign a non-negligible fraction of our neighbors to effectively an economic dustbin.

The rust belt was a prototype for this from an economic view ... it became less expensive to manufacture out of country, so we did. Manufacturing naturally flows to the lowest cost areas, to maximize profits and margins. Manufacturing employs large swaths of people who learn niche jobs, and aren't mobile to find new jobs, when old ones go away.

Generally speaking, you can't fight economics. You can distort it with regulations and taxes. But it will eventually settle on an equilibrium.

And karma is, as it were ... painful ...

It might be because my account is new...some antispam feature? But I have experienced enough avoidance and disdain irl and online simply for being in this position I wouldn't be surprised if someone flagged me for insulting their political view or something else. If it's the former then no big deal. If it's the latter it's beyond me to affect and my words are just venting for myself rather than changing anything.