The Future of Coal Country • Hacker News Board

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#21

Post by acchow » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 10:21 PM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #8

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.

My parents relocated cities 4 times before retirement to pursue job opportunities. Out of my 9 aunts and uncles, only one worked all their life in the same town where they grew up. I've lived in three different counties in my adult life. The loss of social ties was hard when we moved during my childhood; I can understand why families would prefer to stay put. But I think that long-term unemployment or underemployment…

Evidently, many of these people have decided it isn't harder.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#22

Post by jdmichal » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 10:25 PM UTC

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…

To answer the question, I would stop phrasing it in terms of jobs and instead in terms of productivity and imports / exports. These small communities require a good amount of imports, especially if they want something resembling a modern life with modern technology. They thereby need balancing exports to pay for them. There is very little opportunity for these people to do productive work and export it. So instead there is a reliance on government subsidy for the required imports.

This equation isn't typically true for urban areas, so there's no reason for people to move. (See Detroit for details on exceptions.)

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#23

Post by pasbesoin » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 10:32 PM UTC

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…

Upper Peninsula of Michigan. There's still copper. It just couldn't compete with the open pit mines, overseas, etc., at subsequently depressed prices.

Now that copper prices have risen, in recent years (not sure about at the moment), there's been intermittent talk of starting some of the UP mining back up.

Probably won't happen -- my guess. Too much investment, given current global volatility. And the relevant people are largely gone.

More recently, foreign paper products production has been inflicting a further hit. The local town near where I stay lost its paper mill (for paperboard products) a few years ago. As one example.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#24

Post by philipkglass » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 10:33 PM UTC

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 agree that people should remain compassionate. I understand why some people experience schadenfreude when it's rural Republican voters failing to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" after hearing that advice given to urban Democratic voters, but tit-for-tat shaming is not humane. These people largely don't vote how I vote but they are still my fellow citizens. They have dependent children and elders. Some degree of suffering is probably unavoidable, because relocation is painful and many of these towns don't have long term futures. I don't want their residents to experience unnecessary suffering as some sort of lesson. We should try to help the people transition to better opportunities in other regions.

If the residents refuse that sort of help and instead demand that the government somehow make the old mines profitable again, then one may indulge in some exasperated eyeball-rolling and mockery, but I'm trying not to do that preemptively.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#25

Post by maxxxxx » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 10:36 PM UTC

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.

When I grew up in Germany there was this stereotype that Americans move around a lot for jobs. Industry leaders often put this up as an example for Germans who at that time didn't want to move that much.

So I think there is something to this. Moving around probably got much harder due to rising real estate prices.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#26

Post by clock_tower » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 10:38 PM UTC

acchow wrote: post #15

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?

The latter, at least in Norway -- small settlements propped up by government spending.

http://www.idlewords.com/2010/07/mission_burfjord.htm

Search for "The social center of Burfjord" and read that paragraph and the next. Something like this might be necessary if the US government wants to keep Appalachia populated; I genuinely don't know if I'd support that goal or be indifferent to it.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#27

Post by maxxxxx » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 10:40 PM UTC

acchow wrote: post #15

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?

They do. But other countries are often not as concentrated as the US is becoming.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#28

Post by Gargoyle » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 10:40 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #19

hiram112 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think in the long run it won't matter. For the most part, the jobs they could get in the cities are starting to vanish as well. In 10-20 years, the cities will have it even worse at the lower economic end. People might as well stay where they want to live.

This economic transition will eventually effect everyone. Everyone. These people are just at the front end of it.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#29

Post by Gargoyle » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 10:42 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #11

WalterBright wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does. People migrated there when there was opportunity and migrated elsewhere when there were better opportunities elsewhere.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#30

Post by philipkglass » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 10:43 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #7

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…

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…

Making welfare/SSI contingent on moving could work, but will be absolutely terrible for those with all their wealth tied up in their house. It's a hard problem to solve, especially since a lot of these people are okay with / used to just making enough to get by.

Most of these people probably need to move if they've still working age. Maybe one way to reduce friction would be to have government buy out homes in economically distressed areas at the old valuation. Sure, that's "not fair" to people who faced similar dilemmas in the past and didn't get that sort of help. But I'd prefer that the government be inconsistently helpful over consistently unhelpful.