Nobody Gets Off In This Town

 

shutterstock_316792295“The Greyhound stops and somebody gets on, but nobody gets off in this town.” – Garth Brooks

Kevin Williamson recently set off the journalistic equivalent of a nuclear device at NR in his article about the travails of the white underclass. The article has been mischaracterized by many as Williamson expressing hatred for the subjects of the article, and some outlets blatantly mischaracterized the piece and tried to demonize its author. Williamson’s basic thrust is that — for those living in dead and dying small towns — the best option is to avoid self-destructive behavior and to move to where opportunity can be found. The response to the article has been intense and it raises some real questions about what can be done, if anything, for those left behind.

This is not a new problem. Towns have been dying since at least the beginning of the industrial revolution. Most towns came into being for  economic reasons: proximity to a port or railway line, access to a natural resource, to support local farms, to support workers at local factories or mills, etc. But once that economic reason is gone, the town dies.

Many, many towns have died or are in their death throes because of the mechanization of farming that began to rapidly accelerate in the Thirties (Oklahoma’s Greer County had a population of 20,000 in 1930; today’s it’s about 6,200). And it’s continuing still. It isn’t hard to imagine remotely controlled farm equipment, or the use of drones to check on cattle in distant pastures. The same is likely in store for other industries, including oil. The construction of the interstate highway system led to the death of many towns along the older highways. There are now few kicks to be had on Route 66.

So what is to be done? The answer, perhaps, is nothing. As conservatives, we must recognize that not all problems have solutions, and that grim reality must eventually be faced. There is no possible government policy that is going to bring people back to Greer County.

I’ve seen it suggested — by Williamson in fact, in a different article — that we restructure unemployment benefits so that you get paid a lump sum for getting a job before the benefits run out and/or have Uncle Sam help pay to relocate workers to where the jobs are. These aren’t solutions, but ameliorations, but they’re likely the best we can do for folks in those towns. Maintaining them there in dependency should not be in consideration.

One idea suggested by some is to prevent factories from moving overseas in order to save those jobs and towns. Should that be tried, it isn’t hard to predict what would happen: Either the factories will close because they can no longer compete, or they’ll automate their production reduce costs. Either way, it doesn’t result in new jobs.

What about protecting the industry? If we apply tariffs, it may save the local jobs for a time, but would almost certainly invite retaliation, costing jobs elsewhere. It just moves the problem to a different community, and makes us all a bit poorer into the bargain.

It seems there is no good solution, other than to do what humans have been doing forever when local resources run out: Move.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 116 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    This is a really good question to bring up, RH: it isn’t just the (white or otherwise) inhabitants of dying towns but the (black or otherwise) inhabitants of jobless inner cities who wind up being maintained-in-place via welfare rather than moving to someplace that might offer employment.

    The alternative to staying in place has always been to move—most of us are descended from immigrants who arrived here in search of jobs in addition to (and perhaps even more than) freedom. The Great Migration out of the southern U.S. to northern cities is an obvious example of intra-national migration, but there are plenty more.

    One of the objections I have to welfare-as-we-know-it is that it encourages, even demands that the jobless stay put—inertia is a built-in feature of the culture of dependence we’ve created.

    • #1
  2. Ron Harrington Inactive
    Ron Harrington
    @RonHarrington

    Kate Braestrup:

    The alternative to staying in place has always been to move—most of us are descended from immigrants who arrived here in search of jobs in addition to (and perhaps even more than) freedom. The Great Migration out of the southern U.S. to northern cities is an obvious example of intra-national migration, but there are plenty more.

    It is interesting that there is now a reverse migration going on. A lot of people are moving from northern inner cities back down to the south their grandparents fled years before. And finding opportunity.

    • #2
  3. OldDan Member
    OldDan
    @OldDanRhody

    Ron Harrington:So what is to be done? The answer, perhaps, is nothing. As conservatives we must recognize that not all problems have solutions, and that grim reality must eventually be faced. There is no possible government policy that is going to bring people back to Greer County.

    Haven’t read the article but am very familiar with the problem.  More than half of young people move away from rural areas, the population and economic base declines.  The towns that do survive do so on the creativity of one or more local entrepreneurs who are able to provide some good or service that is useful to many outside the local community, and in order to do so employ local labor.  I’ve seen it myself.  Drive through a rural area: in the prospering small towns more likely than not you’ll find a local family whose creativity and enterprise is keeping it going.

    Have you ever read James Herriot’s stories of his career as a veterinary in rural England in the first half of the 20th century?  At the beginning of his career all the farm work was done by muscle power, and much of the production was for the horses that provided that power.  That’s all gone now.  Economies change, we have to be able to change with it.

    • #3
  4. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    “It is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn’t.”
    That’s from Williamson’s article; it underscores what I’ve been thinking about how similar the Trump voters are to #BlackLivesMatter. Both groups insist they’ve been victimized by outside forces, and both are (arguably) at least as oppressed by their own irresponsible and sloppy behavior, which —again, in both groups—is enabled by government welfare programs.

    • #4
  5. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    Great post.

    I think this brings up some key issues. First off, even if slowing down trade and convincing most illegal immigrants work, the blue collar workers now hurting won’t necessarily see their lives improve.

    It’s doubtful that factories returning to the US will be eager to set up shop in towns with poor infrastructure, high taxes, and a workforce with high rates of problems such as drug abuse. This is not to denigrate those populations: even Ricochet members who own companies in these regions have complained about the problems.

    Even if jobs start “coming back” it’s likely that the people now losing out would still have to move and possibly retrain, and even then would likely start out at a fairly low standard of living. In other words, they will still take a big hit to their pride and their lifestyle, and that’s still a formula for political unrest.

    • #5
  6. Frozen Chosen Inactive
    Frozen Chosen
    @FrozenChosen

    How about we reduce the safety net so those who are able to work must work or they will be begging for food?  The problem with government welfare programs is that they always create far more beneficiaries than there would otherwise be.  If there was no SS disability probably 70-80% of those who currently on it would simply go back to work.  The government safety net has become a cushy hammock with 3 bedrooms and a two car garage – why would people get off of that?

    As to Williamson’s point about moving to a city with greater economic opportunity, he’s right – folks are welcome to move to Minneapolis where the industries are very diversified and unemployment is 4%.  If you can fog a mirror you can get a good job here.  It does get cold in the winter but they have this marvelous new invention for your home and car called heating.

    • #6
  7. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    Kate Braestrup:This is a really good question to bring up, RH: it isn’t just the (white or otherwise) inhabitants of dying towns but the (black or otherwise) inhabitants of jobless inner cities who wind up being maintained-in-place via welfare rather than moving to someplace that might offer employment.

    I’m not sure this is entirely the case. I was under the impression that Medicare Disability and several other welfare programs were also help keeping rural whites (barely) above water and keeping them from having to move.

    Kate Braestrup: That’s from Williamson’s article; it underscores what I’ve been thinking about how similar the Trump voters are to #BlackLivesMatter. Both groups insist they’ve been victimized by outside forces, and both are (arguably) at least as oppressed by their own irresponsible and sloppy behavior, which —again, in both groups—is enabled by government welfare programs.

    I’ve had the same thought. I admit to bristling every time I hear that the white working class has been “ignored by politicians”. This is a democracy! The way you get attention is at the ballot box, and if this group is so big, they definitely have the ability to be heard.

    • #7
  8. Ron Harrington Inactive
    Ron Harrington
    @RonHarrington

    OldDan:

    Haven’t read the article but am very familiar with the problem. More than half of young people move away from rural areas, the population and economic base declines. The towns that do survive do so on the creativity of one or more local entrepreneurs who are able to provide some good or service that is useful to many outside the local community, and in order to do so employ local labor. I’ve seen it myself. Drive through a rural area: in the prospering small towns more likely than not you’ll find a local family whose creativity and enterprise is keeping it going.

    Have you ever read James Herriot’s stories of his career as a veterinary in rural England in the first half of the 20th century? At the beginning of his career all the farm work was done by muscle power, and much of the production was for the horses that provided that power. That’s all gone now. Economies change, we have to be able to change with it.

    I haven’t read them, but they sound interesting. To your point about entrepreneurs, it’s ironic that the very people that can save towns (or inner city neighborhoods) are the very people Bernie Sanders targets as the enemy.

    • #8
  9. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    I have been told that the reason there are small towns at about 20 mile intervals along the Canadian prairie is because that’s the approximate distance steam trains could go before they needed to take on more water.

    When people in those towns today claim that capitalism and/or technological progress is killing their town, I can’t help but think that their towns’ original reason d’etre hasn’t applied in over a century.

    Of course, the explanation for the 20 mile interval might be apocryphal.

    • #9
  10. Ron Harrington Inactive
    Ron Harrington
    @RonHarrington

    Kate Braestrup:“It is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn’t.”
    That’s from Williamson’s article; it underscores what I’ve been thinking about how similar the Trump voters are to #BlackLivesMatter. Both groups insist they’ve been victimized by outside forces, and both are (arguably) at least as oppressed by their own irresponsible and sloppy behavior, which —again, in both groups—is enabled by government welfare programs.

    Yes, the idea of self-sufficiency that was once a bedrock belief of nearly all Americans has been seriously eroded.

    • #10
  11. Ron Harrington Inactive
    Ron Harrington
    @RonHarrington

    Mendel:Great post.

    I think this brings up some key issues. First off, even if slowing down trade and convincing most illegal immigrants work, the blue collar workers now hurting won’t necessarily see their lives improve.

    It’s doubtful that factories returning to the US will be eager to set up shop in towns with poor infrastructure, high taxes, and a workforce with high rates of problems such as drug abuse. This is not to denigrate those populations: even Ricochet members who own companies in these regions have complained about the problems.

    Even if jobs start “coming back” it’s likely that the people now losing out would still have to move and possibly retrain, and even then would likely start out at a fairly low standard of living. In other words, they will still take a big hit to their pride and their lifestyle, and that’s still a formula for political unrest.

    Kurt Vonnegut wrote a novel called “Player Piano” where everything was automated. Those with high IQ’s got trained as engineers and managers, and the rest had nothing to do. Didn’t end well.

    • #11
  12. Ron Harrington Inactive
    Ron Harrington
    @RonHarrington

    Frozen Chosen:How about we reduce the safety net so those who are able to work must work or they will be begging for food?

    The safety net should be tied to work. I could see something like an hourly wage subsidy for low income workers being effective (as a replacement for all other forms of assistance, not in addition). No one unwilling to work should get public help.

    • #12
  13. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    Frozen Chosen:How about we reduce the safety net so those who are able to work must work or they will be begging for food?

    The problem is that people have an incredibly difficult time taking active steps down the socioeconomic ladder. If somebody had a decently paying job with moderate benefits in a town where they own a house, have family and friends, etc., it’s an incredible blow to the soul to have to sell the house, move into a smaller house/apartment, take lower pay in an entry-level position at a less glamorous job, etc.

    Some people may still do it, but a lot will try to get politicians to help them avoid such a change in their quality of life.

    • #13
  14. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    Mendel:

    Frozen Chosen:

    The problem is that people have an incredibly difficult time taking active steps down the socioeconomic ladder.

    Just to add to my own comment, I think this is a big example of free market theory not taking reality into account.

    We want a dynamic economy that helps people move up. But part of being dynamic means that people will also have to regularly move down. The simplified theory assumes that people who can easily move up will expect and prepare for the fact that they might just as easily move down again, but reality shows just the opposite: once people move up, they expect to be able to stay there forever.

    • #14
  15. Ron Harrington Inactive
    Ron Harrington
    @RonHarrington

    Misthiocracy:

    Of course, the explanation for the 20 mile interval might be apocryphal.

    Probably had something to do with how far farmers could reasonably travel by wagon to get supplies and sell their products. In the US after the Land Ordinance of 1785 a parcel of land was set aside in the middle of each 36 sq. mile township for a school and a post office. Towns sprang up around those. Most of them are long gone now.

    • #15
  16. Ron Harrington Inactive
    Ron Harrington
    @RonHarrington

    Mendel:

    Frozen Chosen:How about we reduce the safety net so those who are able to work must work or they will be begging for food?

    Some people may still do it, but a lot will try to get politicians to help them avoid such a change in their quality of life.

    No question it’s tough. But sometimes our only choices are between two bad options.

    • #16
  17. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Mendel:

    Kate Braestrup:This is a really good question to bring up, RH: it isn’t just the (white or otherwise) inhabitants of dying towns but the (black or otherwise) inhabitants of jobless inner cities who wind up being maintained-in-place via welfare rather than moving to someplace that might offer employment.

    I’m not sure this is entirely the case. I was under the impression that Medicare Disability and several other welfare programs were also help keeping rural whites (barely) above water and keeping them from having to move.

    Kate Braestrup: That’s from Williamson’s article; it underscores what I’ve been thinking about how similar the Trump voters are to #BlackLivesMatter. Both groups insist they’ve been victimized by outside forces, and both are (arguably) at least as oppressed by their own irresponsible and sloppy behavior, which —again, in both groups—is enabled by government welfare programs.

    I’ve had the same thought. I admit to bristling every time I hear that the white working class has been “ignored by politicians”. This is a democracy! The way you get attention is at the ballot box, and if this group is so big, they definitely have the ability to be heard.

    I think I wasn’t clear on that first bit—one way and another (disability, unemployment, medicaid, etc) people of whatever hue get pinned in place by the government and encouraged to be angry about it by the populists.

    • #17
  18. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Mendel:

    Frozen Chosen:How about we reduce the safety net so those who are able to work must work or they will be begging for food?

    The problem is that people have an incredibly difficult time taking active steps down the socioeconomic ladder. If somebody had a decently paying job with moderate benefits in a town where they own a house, have family and friends, etc., it’s an incredible blow to the soul to have to sell the house, move into a smaller house/apartment, take lower pay in an entry-level position at a less glamorous job, etc.

    Some people may still do it, but a lot will try to get politicians to help them avoid such a change in their quality of life.

    Which is understandable, right? The American Dream is that you work hard and get ahead, not that you work hard, get ahead, and then get behind again…

    • #18
  19. Ron Harrington Inactive
    Ron Harrington
    @RonHarrington

    Mendel:

    Mendel:

    Frozen Chosen:

    The problem is that people have an incredibly difficult time taking active steps down the socioeconomic ladder.

    Just to add to my own comment, I think this is a big example of free market theory not taking reality into account.

    I think free market theory takes it into account just fine — creative destruction is a basic concept of free market theory. It’s people that don’t take it into account and very understandably resent it. Unfortunately there is no opting out of reality (unless that’s what the opioid epidemic is all about).

    • #19
  20. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Remember my happy fantasy about the Guaranteed Minimum Income? Part of the advantage of a single, yearly, lump-sum payment is that it could allow people to pay for moving expenses and set-up in a new place.

    • #20
  21. Ron Harrington Inactive
    Ron Harrington
    @RonHarrington

    Kate Braestrup:

    bit—one way and another (disability, unemployment, medicaid, etc) people of whatever hue get pinned in place by the government and encouraged to be angry about it by the populists.

    Agreed. Benefits should be tied to work so that isn’t an option.

    • #21
  22. Ron Harrington Inactive
    Ron Harrington
    @RonHarrington

    Kate Braestrup:

    Mendel:

    Some people may still do it, but a lot will try to get politicians to help them avoid such a change in their quality of life.

    Which is understandable, right? The American Dream is that you work hard and get ahead, not that you work hard, get ahead, and then get behind again…

    Which is why it’s called the American Dream and not the American Guarantee.

    • #22
  23. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Ron Harrington: No one unwilling to work should get public help.

    Agreed 100%. The problem is that bureaucracies are ill-suited to determine whether or not a person is incapable or unwilling. Rather than let some slip through the cracks they end up handing out goodies to those without need and often to the detriment of those with true needs. As a nation we have the resources and the compassion that none should go without who cannot provide for themselves. What we lack is a mechanism to keep those resources from being drained by those who would take advantage of the compassion.

    • #23
  24. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    The really destructive combination for rural whites is the same one that trashed inner city blacks—welfare dependency + a marriage-optional (which really means male-optional) definition of family. Oh, and the encouragement of emotional reasoning; that hasn’t helped either.

    Ironically—and perhaps usefully?—the crisis has come at the same moment for the same reasons. Maybe the similarities will strike more people as significant and telling? And if nothing else, we could dispense with the “race” part of the explanation, and concentrate on the others. If we figured out how to encourage rural whites toward higher function (e.g. by welfare reform), we would do the same for inner city blacks, and vice versa.

    • #24
  25. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Ron Harrington:

    Frozen Chosen:How about we reduce the safety net so those who are able to work must work or they will be begging for food?

    The safety net should be tied to work. I could see something like an hourly wage subsidy for low income workers being effective (as a replacement for all other forms of assistance, not in addition). No one unwilling to work should get public help.

    or a much- expanded earned income tax credit…?

    • #25
  26. Ron Harrington Inactive
    Ron Harrington
    @RonHarrington

    Kate Braestrup:The really destructive combination for rural whites is the same one that trashed inner city blacks—welfare dependency + a marriage-optional (which really means male-optional) definition of family. Oh, and the encouragement of emotional reasoning; that hasn’t helped either.

    Ironically—and perhaps usefully?—the crisis has come at the same moment for the same reasons. Maybe the similarities will strike more people as significant and telling? And if nothing else, we could dispense with the “race” part of the explanation, and concentrate on the others. If we figured out how to encourage rural whites toward higher function (e.g. by welfare reform), we would do the same for inner city blacks, and vice versa.

    The illegitimacy rate for poor whites is now around 50%. That’s pathological. Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart” documents it in horrific detail.

    • #26
  27. Ron Harrington Inactive
    Ron Harrington
    @RonHarrington

    Kate Braestrup:

    Ron Harrington:

    Frozen Chosen:How about we reduce the safety net so those who are able to work must work or they will be begging for food?

    The safety net should be tied to work. I could see something like an hourly wage subsidy for low income workers being effective (as a replacement for all other forms of assistance, not in addition). No one unwilling to work should get public help.

    or a much- expanded earned income tax credit…?

    I think a direct hourly wage subsidy would be more effective. They could see the benefits of work right there in their paycheck every week. It would have to be phased out slowly so as not to create a cliff which would discourage people from taking promotions or better jobs. See this from the Manhattan Institute

    • #27
  28. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Kate Braestrup: And if nothing else, we could dispense with the “race” part of the explanation, and concentrate on the others. If we figured out how to encourage rural whites toward higher function (e.g. by welfare reform), we would do the same for inner city blacks, and vice versa.

    It’s cliché, but the old Protestant work ethic really is the solution. Earlier today I climbed my heights frightened self about 75 feet up a vertical ladder to inspect a crane before using it. Why would I do such a ridiculous thing? Because they pay me to do it. My kids will eat because I did it. And I’ll do it again and again because those darn things can’t just be fed once.

    • #28
  29. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    The King Prawn:

    Ron Harrington: No one unwilling to work should get public help.

    Agreed 100%. The problem is that bureaucracies are ill-suited to determine whether or not a person is incapable or unwilling. Rather than let some slip through the cracks they end up handing out goodies to those without need and often to the detriment of those with true needs. As a nation we have the resources and the compassion that none should go without who cannot provide for themselves. What we lack is a mechanism to keep those resources from being drained by those who would take advantage of the compassion.

    I’ve thought a lot about this KP, especially since I’ve had personal experience with the federal program for disabled people, SSI. To make an unconscionably long story short, the program is officious and humiliating and so sloppy in its accounting that any recipient who doesn’t have educated, determined and dedicated advocates is likely to get casually screwed over by completely unaccountable and incompetent bureaucrats…who are being paid good salaries with benefits to make the lives of the disabled unnecessarily difficult.  We would do better—much, much better—to have disabled people get certified as such by whatever criteria make sense (two doctor’s letters? Three?) and after that, they receive their $600 a month in perpetuity with no questions asked. “So sorry you have Lupus/BiPolar/Schizophrenia/spinal cord injury! Let us know if your health improves and you don’t need help anymore; otherwise, have as good a life as you can.”

    • #29
  30. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    Ron Harrington:

    Kate Braestrup:

    Ron Harrington:

    Frozen Chosen:How about we reduce the safety net so those who are able to work must work or they will be begging for food?

    The safety net should be tied to work. I could see something like an hourly wage subsidy for low income workers being effective (as a replacement for all other forms of assistance, not in addition). No one unwilling to work should get public help.

    or a much- expanded earned income tax credit…?

    I think a direct hourly wage subsidy would be more effective. They could see the benefits of work right there in their paycheck every week. It would have to be phased out slowly so as not to create a cliff which would discourage people from taking promotions or better jobs. See this from the Manhattan Institute

    Can’t read the whole article now, but I agree a direct hourly wage subsidy would be a good idea. The problem is that unlike the EITC and the minimum wage is that it will actually show up on the federal budget, rather than being a hidden regulatory and tax break cost.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.