I understand a lot of poor people in these regions lack the resources to move to more populated areas. Would you support a federal or state rehousing program to enable that?

It's a genuine question; should the US taxpayer pony up so poor people trapped in rural areas can move to population centres and enjoy the benefits thereof?

In most cases, people live there because that is where their lives and family are, not because they are poor per se or "trapped". In fact, many of them are not poor by any constructive definition. These populations, while shrinking and aging, have productive lives often related to resource extraction industries such as farming and mining which are not going away. People are simply choosing to remain in the areas where they built their life.

Labor shortages are a critical problem in many of these communities. Young locals often move to the cities and rarely move back, and while automation has helped support the local industries it has not nearly covered the shortfall. Much of the working age labor that does move into these areas is either illegal immigrants or ex-convicts looking for a fresh start. Due to shortages, minimally skilled physical labor often commands 3-4x minimum wage in my experience.

It is a mistake to think that people want to be rescued from these areas. Maybe some do but most have reasons for living where they live.

Show some data on this, because by and large, people in rural America are absolutely poor. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rur...

The story flips if you use the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which adjusts for cost of living: https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Focus.... Rural poverty has consistently been similar to urban poverty, and was measurably lower during the great recession. Rural areas also have lower long-term poverty (where a family was poor for two successive measurement years). About 4% in 2016 for rural areas, versus 5.5% in urban areas.

The states with the lowest SPM poverty rates are midwestern states with large rural populations, like Iowa and Nebraska: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ.... (California's poverty rate is almost double those states'.)

Sure, but during a recession no one is moving into those areas and a LOT of unemployed are moving AWAY from them. The metrics look good because they misrepresent what’s actually happening.

Actually the opposite is true: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/90556/eib-200..... There was a significant rural to urban net migration during boom economies which slowed to zero during both the early 2000s recession and the 2008 recession. And in fact there was a small migration from urban back to rural during the last recession.

The unemployment rate in Iowa peaked at a little more than half the national unemployment rate in 2009-2010.

That's objectively and measurably false.

The link you provided appears to support my assertion. The vast majority of rural lands in the US have relatively low poverty rates, similar to non-rural poverty rates. A relatively small number of regions with extremely high poverty rates skew the national average, though only by a few percentage points, and in large parts of the US the poverty rates are effectively the same across rural and non-rural populations. Most of the rural US is not Appalachia. Maybe not wealthy but definitely middle class.

As noted at your link, many of the extremely poor rural areas skewing the averages are Native American reservations. How do you propose to make them relocate to cities?

Didn't a lot of mining jobs already, to a significant extent, go away?

Here's coal mining in the US, over the last 35 years: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES1021210001

So what’s the problem then? If they have the money to pay the extra costs needed to attract labor to provide the services they want where they choose to live then the system is working perfectly fine, no?

If they don’t have the money they should move, possibly with assistance. I don’t see any case for subsidizing services in places where it really expensive to provide those services. Why that’d be like government grants to rebuild houses on a flood plain that got flooded out.

I'm not sure what you mean by that but there's a limit to how many more people you are going to attract with more money. Quality of the job in rural areas for doctors is pretty low as you don't get a lot of other specialties to help you and you don't have the same tools available either.

States could offer something like that if they need more people to work in certain sectors. It would be cool to see it tie into education system too.

I would rather this be a federal level program as often the solution would involve moving people to new states.

I absolutely would. One of the best things we can do for poor people - and for the economy as a whole - is getting them physical access to better jobs. If people are trapped in an economically dead area the few grand it would take to support them moving to a more vibrant area is a pittance, especially compared to the cost of bringing jobs and services to rural areas.

I'm absolutely opposed to forcing people to move, but if they want to I have no problem spending a bit to help them.

(For reference I tend libertarian-ish)

If you instead move a doctor to a rural area it's a much more cost effective solution because that one doctor could treat everyone in the area rather than needing to move everyone in that area out of the rural area. A new doctor in the rural area would also create jobs as they would need at least a receptionist.

That act of "creating a job" is just a money transfer from some people in the area to another. The only real thing to celebrate is the actual work being done.

Eh, I think you exaggerate.

Sure, some people are so disabled they can't travel. For those who are not disabled but are simply poor, here's what they need-- and it doesn't cost much.

- A greyhound bus ticket

- Camping gear: A tent, sleeping bag, inflatable camping mattress

- Clothes

I used to live in a tent. Sure, it's uncomfortable, but it is fully survivable.

While living in a tent in some woods, I pulled myself up by my bootstraps, applied for jobs, visited community centers for showers & food handouts.

Applying for jobs-- How long did it take?

- Blue collar jobs: Took a day to get hired, $13/hr job.

- White collar jobs: Took 3 weeks to get hired $25/hr job.

I've lived in a tent while studying and job hunting 3 times. Now I am quite gainfully employed making over $50/hr.

Should tax payers pony up? Not if you mean people other than the individuals who need to pull themselves up.

Good for you. Many people cannot do it. Are not capable of bootstrapping. They will live and die in misery because you and others like you put your ideology ahead of reality and people.

Just look at how well you wrote your words. You are functionally literate and comfortable with technology.

When you moved and lived in a tent, did your spouse and children live there too? Who looked after the children while you were job hunting, given that your social support network was back where you used to live? Where did you get your medication during that time? I guess you had a health advantage. You were also lucky nobody came looking for the money you owed them.

I was good for me-- Very good. I am stronger now because of it. I can endure more physical and mental hardship now, thanks to the hardship I went through.

Going through challenges makes people grow stronger.

Avoiding challenges makes people grow weaker.

(Which is why SJW advocacy-- such as for safe spaces, censorship of wrong think-- signals weakness in certain sections of [brainwashed] society).

Look: People who lack strategy screw themselves. That's no one's fault but their own. If they get themselves into a mess, they deserve that mess. They should have done their research-- Everyone can access the internet and find life experiences, economic research, etc.

Again-- I lived in a tent in order to put my time into something more useful than waiting tables. I reduced my work hours and bills, so I could learn web development.

My tax dollars deserve to go towards more noble causes than to fund the poor lifestyle decisions of others.

Broke & in debt? Either don't have kids, or don't come yelling for my tax dollars when you decide to make poor decisions. May they be an example for the others.

Note that there are plenty of US cities where this is illegal and the police will confiscate and destroy your tent.

Doesn't matter. There are many cities where it is legal or not legally enforced if illegal-- plenty of options. Look at Portland, Seattle, for example.

I lived in some woods in Portland for 3 weeks, applying for jobs daily from cafes, and visiting community centers for food & showers. Landed a corporate office job. Anyone who isn't disabled can do it. Claiming otherwise is a cop out.

The question is: How much do they want to succeed? How much are they willing to sacrifice comfort for success?

People take for granted their mental and physical fortitude. They give up far too easily.

sqrt(11000 miles) ~= 105 miles. If we assume the doctor is referring to a center of a square, then according to pythagoras formula, the longest distance to this doctor is 74 miles. Interesting how it matches like that.

When I hear stories about rural lifestyle and people driving for an hour to get to grocery store, it doesn't seem that out of place.

Once they move as you suggest people will say you should have moved to a country that grows food if you want to eat.

People didn't choose to live there, they have always lived there. Most people in rural US didn't pack up and move in the last few years but have been people that have been there for generations. Now it's easy to think they can just pack up and moving, but packing up and moving to an urban area is very expensive in the actual cost and with no guarantee that there's something that might be as stable as what you have in your rural area. Some of these people in those areas are the farmers that grow the foods that we eat btw, and they can't do their massive large scale farming in the city.

That kind of distance between towns is only around two states, Texas and Montana. As a rural denizen, I consider that to be desolate, not rural.

The title seems a little clickbaity to me. 11k sq miles is only 104 by 104 miles. That's about nine counties in west Kansas.

People are told they should live in places like this because the rent in more populated places is too high.

Small/cheap cities are not the same as rural.

> If you choose to live in rural US, you are signing up for this kind of lifestyle; you're on your own.

Some people don't choose, and other people do choose, but more importantly: your food comes from the rural US and you should keep that in mind before being flippant about their fate.

How much of the food is from massive corporate farms, versus independent farmers though, I wonder

Even if the farm is corporate owned, you still need people to do the farming part, and those people can't telecommute.

Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN?