1. It may be very hard to interview for a job at your destination. It's disingenuous to tell someone on the poverty line "Move, start paying out a ton of cash, and hopefully pick up a job". It's even harder to do that if you don't have the family structure to help you out.
2. Many people may have equity tied up in homes in dying communities. Yeah, it's not worth very much - but it's paid for, and way cheaper than rent in a much more expensive city.
3. The skills you have may not be in demand in cities. If you're a steel worker, moving to New York City isn't going to help you out very much.
1.) If you were born in the country, you gotta have at least 1 relative that lives in a rich state. (if you don't even have that, there are lots of charities and programs in cities like LA, SF, New York that can give you some initial help). And why would it be disingenuous? If there is a good chance to get out of poverty, why not at least try once?
2.) You can sell the house or get a line of credit against it and use it to see if you can move
3.) so learn a new skill then move, or just do manual labor for a while in the big city
They are especially brutal if you move to them with little money and no connections to decent jobs. Then you have the worst of both worlds.
The work ethic in what is called "white trash" societies is very strong. Most are unafraid of manual labor. But moving everyone to cities is not the answer, since it ignores a lot of things that rural people find valuable.
Do you know what stops the very poor in such a rich country from simply moving to a better state or city with more jobs and resources? Is it fear? sadness? lack of confidence? lack of expense to move? too much attachment to the place they grew up in?
Studies have repeatedly shown that metropolises are the future. Big cities have the jobs, healthcare, education, networks to help everyone, especially the needy. Why aren't more needy people moving?