> How do we get the unemployed Midwesterners into Napa Valley?

Just a thought:

Government loans with low interest, delayed and income-contingent repayment, and forgiveness after a set period of on-time payments for relocation expenses for unemployed adults with job offers outside of their own immediate area. Getting people to where the work is good for the public fisc, good for employers, and good for the people involved.

But why move people out with large government funding? Why not move some work there?

People are easier to move than agricultural land, and employers with jobs that can be moved easily and realize cost efficiencies by doing that usually get financing to do so (though government programs to incentive moving jobs into depressed areas aren't unheard of.)

That brings up the question, why is work in the metropoli (not a word, apparently, but it should be) of America and not the heartland?

Why is the first instinct of every Democrat/Liberal to have Government subsidize everything? If the wages and cost of living were there people would come. Solve the problem, don't subsidize it and create more problems. Absolutely insane.

According to the story, it sounds like wages and cost of living are already there.

How would they get there if they have no money?

> If the wages and cost of living were there people would come

People who lack assets may not be able to afford to move, even if the wage/CoL balance would favor a different location discounting moving costs. Facilitating that through targeted lending (especially if the recipient would otherwise be drawing public benefits) is win/win/win: good for the government/public, food.for.the employer, good for employee.