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

31–40 of 97 posts

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#31

Post by mandevil »

digi_owl wrote: post #17
mmanfrin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is that extractive industries drive Dutch Disease. A Sovereign Wealth Fund can fight it, but Dutch Disease will have an effect. (The other thing that can be done is to have the entire country save more, by running a budget surplus and encouraging individuals to save more as well. This is... somewhat hard to do, in practice, without incredibly strong social cohesion.)

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#32

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

And, more recently (1930s-1940s) got a got a significant (around 5-10%) population boost due to Dust Bowl-driven econonic migration.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#33

Post by LeifCarrotson »

pasbesoin wrote: post #23
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…

Lower peninsula too, though for a slightly different reason: Detroit, Flint, etc. have become ghost towns as automotive manufacturing has moved out and automated.

It's not a natural resource, but if an industry moves then it, too, leaves people behind. And when it's a ghost city not a ghost town, it can take a long time to realize the money is gone, and it can leave a lot of people in the lurch.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#34

Post by maxerickson »

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…

If there are really no jobs and the prospects for new industries are poor, offer relief by purchasing the houses.

Then tear them down.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#35

Post by maxerickson »

scottLobster wrote: post #5
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.

Not a fairy tale at all. In the 19th century De Tocqueville commented on how eager Americans were to sell land in pursuit of profit relative to Europeans at the time. It seems that in the post-war era we settled on this notion that families should largely remain rooted and stable, and that became part of the modern "American Dream". I wonder if all of that is just a long-term backlash against the forced migrations of…

I wonder how much the hectic pace of logging in the US contributed to that difference.

http://geo.msu.edu/extra/geogmich/rr-logging.html

Land purchased for the timber would be a prime candidate for disposal once it was cleared.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#36

Post by meric »

philipkglass wrote: post #24
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 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 degr…

Sorry, this is just Democratic voters tearing themselves apart. Appalachia used to be a democratic stronghold. These are people don't want to live on welfare generation after generation, and that's what they tried to vote for.

https://thinkprogress.org/appalachia-used-to-be-a-democratic...

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#37

Post by rayiner »

philipkglass wrote: post #24
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 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 degr…

Shaming is an important part of society. It's how we incentivize positive behaviors and discourage negative ones.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#38

Post by [deleted] »

philipkglass wrote: post #24
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 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 degr…

[deleted]

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#39

Post by mturmon »

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.

...and this is reflected in the state motto, "Eureka" -- I found it, the it being gold.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#40

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

Of course, there aren't a whole lot of ethical ways to get them to move

Offering people a chunk of money works quite well. If they're likely to be on welfare anyway why not offer them a few years' worth up front, to reflect the costs of their dislocation?

American society is very accounting-driven and wants everything itemized and explained, which seems awfully wasteful to me. It would be more efficient (for the state) and more dignified (for the recipient) to just offer to buy them out for (say) $25,000.

Post reply on HN