An important video about the city I'm from

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Ehhmm, I'm talking out of my ass, but wouldn't be better to de urbanize that place (the place had a car industry or something that collapsed, isn't it?), help poor people to move to places with jobs and center efforts in smaller areas? It seems something that cannot be solved locally.

That's the general consensus from a lot of people much smarter than me. To break it down really simply, the city needs the following to "recover":

* An industry which employs tens of thousands of people
* Which will always be needed, and cannot be automated to excess
* Which requires little to no training or expertise
* Which pays very very well

...I got nothing. You?

Robocop hasn't been in service in too long

The problem is wealth distribution. Solution: change the capitalistic system.

"

Antnee wrote:

To break it down really simply, the city needs the following to "recover":

* An industry which employs tens of thousands of people
* Which will always be needed, and cannot be automated to excess
* Which requires little to no training or expertise
* Which pays very very well

...I got nothing. You?

Maybe smaller industries? Service jobs? Maybe helping with training at the lower levels? I've heard many times that something like the EITC could help too if increased (helping labor when it comes to trade, automatization and immigration is challenging). I doubt the city is going to return to its former glory, but a smaller thing could work (a smaller public sector would reduce incentives for corruption too).

I hear what you're saying, but there's a couple problems with the EITC approach. Well, one big one. You have to have employment to benefit.

In order for service sector jobs to flourish, the immediate surrounding vicinity has to have enough money in their pocket to keep that enterprise afloat, or, it has to be on the way to a place that does.

Training is one of those things that free trade folks love to float, but really think about how impactful that would be. Train people... to do what exactly? There are no jobs there. A highly trained, but highly unemployed workforce is good for exactly nothing at all if the industry they're training in does not exist in their area.

(And who foots the bill for the training?)

And, picking up to move somewhere where those jobs do exist? I mean... who has the money for that? Who can afford to uproot their entire family- their entire support structure- and just fly across the country to a place that isn't even a guaranteed win for them? That's a tall order for even upper-middle class families. These are destitute, desperate, far below poverty level folks we're talking about here.

I really don't mean to be so negative, but there's a reason why Detroit freaks people the fuck out so badly.

"

Antnee wrote:

And, picking up to move somewhere where those jobs do exist? I mean... who has the money for that? Who can afford to uproot their entire family- their entire support structure- and just fly across the country to a place that isn't even a guaranteed win for them? That's a tall order for even upper-middle class families. These are destitute, desperate, far below poverty level folks we're talking about here.

When I shipped to basic training, I had a wife and one son. Do you think they went with me? Of course not. One day months later, I showed up in Michigan and drove them to Texas.

The answer to your question is: sometimes being a leader actually means, you know, taking the lead. And if that means setting up a commute to work from the homeless shelter, then so be it.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

And, picking up to move somewhere where those jobs do exist? I mean... who has the money for that? Who can afford to uproot their entire family- their entire support structure- and just fly across the country to a place that isn't even a guaranteed win for them? That's a tall order for even upper-middle class families. These are destitute, desperate, far below poverty level folks we're talking about here.

When I shipped to basic training, I had a wife and one son. Do you think they went with me? Of course not. One day months later, I showed up in Michigan and drove them to Texas.

The answer to your question is: sometimes being a leader actually means, you know, taking the lead. And if that means setting up a commute to work from the homeless shelter, then so be it.

In other words, world hunger doesn't exist, because you just ate a sandwich.

Good, Scrotie. I also have a 'bootstraps' story; my life is great now, but it wasn't always. I got out of it because I'm smart, and because a lucky string of fortunate events hit me in just the right way, and at just the right time.

So what, they all join the army?

What is the agriculture situation?

@Antnee: No, I understand well from where are you coming from, but at the end of the day you cannot stop progress (this days is cool to hate trade and immigration, but it's the same for automatization), and you can only help with the pain so much. It conflicts me a lot actually this stuff (I've made a thread about the subject a few weeks ago). And the answer to who foots the bill is mostly: the government. Safety nets should be less about dependency and more about aiding people to recover themselves from a bad situation, so stuff like learning a trade, treating mental illnesses or drug addiction should be financed (in a means tested way at least). I think there are papers about this subject out there, and you should be careful about how local solutions can be (training can help people find opportunities elsewhere for example; not necessarily to be a member of the glorious STEM masterrace, but to do something like being an electrician).

I mention the EITC because it actually exists and it's likelier to not be blocked (compared to implementing something like a NIT).

Funnily enough, the military is a jobs program for the poor (albeit a horribly wasteful, painful one). If you want an example of vulgar keynesianism, this is one.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Funnily enough, the military is a jobs program for the poor (albeit a horribly wasteful, painful one). If you want an example of vulgar keynesianism, this is one.

Oh, you can't really believe that "job programs" point. If you did, then how could you explain why the Democratics aren't in love with the military?

Now, when it comes to vulgar keynesianism, that's a bipartisan effort these days. Only one quarter (roughly) of US military spending is personnel, while roughly 40% is operations and maintenance, 20% is procurement, and the remaining 15% on research, development, construction and housing. It's that 75% where the real money is, because no politically savvy scam artist is going to, you know, sign up to potentially get blown up on foreign soil defending our country's freedom (are least not without an exceptionally long view). So it's that 75% where the GOP does its version of keynesianism, which some call "crony capitalism" but which, out of respect to capitalism and its strong association with pro-consumer competition, I'd rather call plain corruption.

Oh, and even though we all know the American people are being brutally overcharged for it, soldiers do need gear. It's not an unnecessary expense category.

Does corruption still qualify as a jobs programs? Perhaps technically. But certainly not of the typical leftist variety in this instance.