I don't think it's fair to say this person is shutting down entire communities. Isn't the market doing that? The reality of the article is not every town has a flourishing future in the economy. Although the way it is phrased suggests, they are going to pick you up and walk you out of town even if you disagree.

Do we subsidize their lives as some have suggested with UBI? Do we try to revitalize industries that failed? As someone who lives in a small town, what do you think would help those towns and their residents?

In all honesty, the biggest issue particularly in the south (Hawaii as well) is that most people are content with their lives. They aren't trying to move up the corporate ladder, learn the latest tech etc... They are happy with their jobs, culture, families, and traditions. This mindset clashes with the rest of America, particularly the West coast, were having a family, culture, and traditions are seen as negative to society.

We are trying to solve regional issues from a national perspective. Local government and issues needs to become more important. Locals need to solve local issue. People in Portland, OR aren't going to to solve issues in Mandeville, LA.

Yes, that's likely the best way to solve it by tackling it locally. I grew up in a rural town in Georgia, and I am all too familiar with the "southern gentleman's pride" which is just a polite way to say my family is stubborn to a fault. I know we will need tradesmen for the foreseeable future so I always try to take that approach instead of the almost cliche "go into tech!" advice. Let's say we could change the narrative, so folks don't depend on the federal level to solve their woes. Would rural America want to change or accept the assistance?

“Having a family is seen as negative to society” is a gross mischaractetization of even the most out-there coastal liberal values.

Because once a community has lost its central economic purpose, it tends to develop all sorts of pernicious dysfunctions. If the one factory in a small town closes, the town just lost a lot of its tax-base, so it's hard to pay for services. Many people can't find other jobs, so they end up on the dole or on drugs or on the street. And anyone with options leaves. Such towns are essentially economic zombies. They died a long time ago, they just haven't fallen over yet. This is the case where I think it makes sense to shut down the community, and help the remaining residents build better lives elsewhere.

I have no quarrel with small towns per se. Some host substantial mining or logging or manufacturing operations. Some provide services for large surrounding agrarian areas. Others are bedroom communities for city workers who trade a commute for cheaper living arrangements. These are all fine. These towns have solid economic reasons for existing, and are therefore viable. No problem. But others are not so fortunate.

A lot of these discussions tend to draw contrasts between living in the middle of a major metropolis and living in the back of beyond. Neither represents even a significant minority of the US population.