The Opioid Epidemic Brings the Minority Inner City to the White Countryside

by wj

An article in the Atlantic included an interesting observation:

For many women, going it alone has meant poverty and loneliness, not empowerment. . . .

Places like Ross County that have been hit by manufacturing declines are the leading edge of the future Rosin describes. Joblessness makes men less desirable partners, theorizes the MIT economist David Autor, who investigated why marriage rates are declining in areas that have seen high shares of manufacturing job losses. In addition, there are just fewer men now in these places, which include much of the Midwest. Autor’s research shows that as men join the military, go to jail, or leave the area in search of work, women are outnumbering men. “The number of high-quality men whom you would want to marry is declining,”
[emphasis added]

Notice one thing. These factors (few men; especially fewer high-quality men] are exactly the ones which have lead to high numbers of single parents in the inner cities. That is, white working class areas in the rust belt are increasingly resembling the minority (specifically black) areas of the inner city. A rising number of men are gone, and the ones who are left are undesirable. Which means that women who want a family are having to get pregnant (without getting married) and become single mothers -- there simply isn't a viable alternative.

The interesting question becomes: Will this increasing similarity lead to increased sympathy and affinity? And if so, how long will it take for both groups to notice? My guess is that the recognition will be strongly resisted, even when it is pointed out. Which, I suspect, it will have to be, as it will not spontaneously occur to the involved.

Of course, the other question is, what can be done about it? The simplistic answer for the cities (stop locking up so many black men for drug offenses) doesn't seem likely to work -- men here are dying of drug abuse, not just going to prison for it. So what will work?

Comments

[Lurker]

Conscription?

Seriously, while such a system would remove every man from both inner cities and from rural areas for a time, it would decrease the effect of the military drawing men specifically from these areas. Namely, the service would be shorter than the current US minimum of three years, which would allow the military men to retain their ties to home better. Secondly, the military recruitment would draw men more equitably from different backgrounds, so more rural and inner city men would serve only the minimum time, returning home thereafter.

Third, the returning rate could be increased by some simple bureaucratic tweaks. For example, the Finnish military provides home leave and discharge trips only to the home community of the conscript. This means that when you are discharged or go on home leave, you get a ticket home, defined as your address before service. (There are ways to get it changed, but they require some effort.) As far as I understand, a demobilised US serviceman gets relocated where they want. It is very good HR policy but from local development standpoint, it is ruinous.

[wonkie]

NO I do not believe it will lead to empathy. Not at all. It will lead to the white people in the declining areas feeling like losers, so they will have a greater stake in trying to label someone else as a bigger loser than they are and will be come more conservative. The very last message that will have any appeal in those ares is "YOu are experiencing the same things as black people and have the some problems and are being screwed by the same politicians."

As for what will work? Liberalism, old time do-good policies will help. Fund Pell grants. Make state universities cheap. Fund infrastructure. Expand green power and green power jobs. Expand labor unions. Raise the minimum wage. HIre people for federal and state jobs on public land and for public services.

There does need to be a recognition, though, that government is not obliged to create an artificial economy to keep people in areas of high unemployment. If diary farming, soybeen farming, small ranching coal mining etc and activities of that sort are not creating jobs in rural areas, them people will have to move. I would not mind using tax dollars to help people go seek training elsewhere for jobs that do exist in some other locality. I wouldn't even mind giving start up money to people who have a plan for how they are going to live somewhere else. But there does sometimes need to be arecognition that people need to go to the jobs, ot vice versa.

[wonkie]

I think this attitude that "I am going to sit on my butt and bitch and feel sorry for myself because the sawmill closed and the government should be managing the national forest to create a job for me" is a white people thing, mostly. It is ironically also a red state conservative attitude.

[sapient]

wws, especially this:

There does need to be a recognition, though, that government is not obliged to create an artificial economy to keep people in areas of high unemployment. If diary farming, soybeen farming, small ranching coal mining etc and activities of that sort are not creating jobs in rural areas, them people will have to move. I would not mind using tax dollars to help people go seek training elsewhere for jobs that do exist in some other locality. I wouldn't even mind giving start up money to people who have a plan for how they are going to live somewhere else. But there does sometimes need to be a recognition that people need to go to the jobs, ot vice versa.

Sad but true.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that people are learning this too late. Not sure we'll ever get a liberal democracy (with small letters) back. I hate Comey, but this firing is scary as shit.

[Nigel]

but this firing is scary as shit...

Quite. I guess we'll find out just how resilient are your institutions...

[Nigel]

The White House added in a statement later Tuesday that Comey had been "terminated and removed from office."

At least it's not the other way round.

[Nigel]

Sorry, I just did the italic thing.

fixed -- wj

[wj]

Comey had been shown to have seriously misstepped in his report to Congress on Clinton.

But it is hard to avoid the suspicion that this has more to do with the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia than anything else. Could the FBI be getting close to something? Maybe who they nominate as a replacement will be revealing.

[sapient]

I guess we'll find out just how resilient are your institutions...

Our institutions are crap without people believing in them, which is what I've been (unsuccessfully) preaching from the get go.

[formerly known as cleek]

Donald Trump is a corrupt scumbag.

[in case you've been in a coma since 1984]

[russell]

"Will this increasing similarity lead to increased sympathy and affinity?"

ask Charles murray.

"I hate Comey, but this firing is scary as shit."

it's either Trump ensuring that the American people have an FBI director they can have confidence in, or there's blood in the water.

tick tock

[russell]

"Maybe who they nominate as a replacement will be revealing."

maybe one of the Trump boys could step up

[Tony P.]

"Tick tock" is right. All we need is a big LED display counting down the seconds to "Boom!"

The only hope for defusing the bomb at "00:01" is this: even (some) Republican Senators might, possibly, maybe, have enough brains left to be offended by the obvious contempt He, Trump has shown for their intelligence with his transparently, obviously, blatantly ridiculous justification for firing Comey today.

We libruls are used to He, Trump talking as if we are stupid. (Some) Republican Senators may resent Him treating them the same way.

--TP

[russell]

actually, my money's on giuliani.

gonna get freaky. buckle up.

[wj]

There might not be GOP senators willing to do the right thing this time. I suspect that there will be, but there might not.

However it seems entirely likely that there are plenty who would happily (to put it mildly) embrace the move to a President Pence.

[PhilippeO]

So Why women stay ?

Perhaps solution is encouraging these women to move. Ensuring that welfare check, child support, other children amenities (free school lunch, scholarship, etc) can be readily transferred to new destination when people move.

[Nigel]

Note to FBI/Justice Dept...
This is how you deal with politically charged investigations: keep it dry as dust:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps-statement-on-election-expenses/

[Snarki, child of Loki]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html

Even if Comey is replaced, Grant Juries can escape from their handlers and 'go rogue'. Here's hoping.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Back to the OP:
"So what will work?"

Mormonism in the rural hinterlands, Nation of Islam in the cities.

[bobbyp]

A couple of GOP senators regaining their moral bearings won't do much unless they formally announce they will henceforth caucus with the Democrats....an unlikely scenario in my opinion.

But you never know!

and what wonkie said.

[bobbyp]

Native Americans on the rez
Blacks in the ghetto
Whites in Appalachia

Similar observed social pathologies, but significantly different root causes.

[Michael Cain]

Do I have a comment caught in moderation, or did my browser eat it?

[wj]

Looks like it's your browser, Michael. At least, there's nothing new in the Spam bucket.

[Michael Cain]

Ensuring that welfare check, child support, other children amenities (free school lunch, scholarship, etc) can be readily transferred to new destination when people move.

This is a radical change in how many programs in the US work. Many are block grants with states given considerable latitude in how to spend the money. In some states, particularly those that are large geographically, decisions are devolved onto the counties. My state is one of those: we have instances where people will not move two blocks into better housing because it's across a county line and they would lose child care or tuition assistance.

[russell]

Similar observed social pathologies, but significantly different root causes.

no money, no standing, no simple path forward to either.

it's not mysterious.

[Jbird4049]

Hi,

(Going over this, I noticed it's become a large rant. Sorry.)

I'm posting here because I've noticed here, and more often in other sites, a growing pattern of blaming the victim.

The economy of this nation has been rotting away from the bottom up for at least 40 years and it has killed the working poor, the working class, the lower middle class, and finally started to nibble at the center.

It's been rotting because of almost identical economic policies of both political parties of low taxes, reduced regulations, and free trace. It seems almost all the changes in policies, regulations, and law has immiserated everyone except the top 10% and greatly enriched the 0.01% and has corrupted our political and legal system. Of course, the Democratic Party has suggested changes that tinkers slightly at the edge of this mess.

So the reason for my rant is this.

Because the economic, legal, and political systems have been destroyed, corrupted, or only dysfunctional there are large, and growing, economic dead zones full of people with no jobs, no education, no skills, no money, and no hope. What too many people are saying is that these losers should get a degree, move, and suck it up using money that they don't have, loans that cannot be discharged, away from family, friends, and whatever resources they still have. To an unknown area with no resources and with a very good chance that they will fail no matter how hard they work. Except that they will not be at home.

And if they don't do this the selfsame people are saying that the poor are useless, a waste. Further, it is all the poor people's fault

Is this correct or am I being too sensitive?

[sapient]

It's been rotting because of almost identical economic policies of both political parties of low taxes, reduced regulations, and free trade

I don't agree with the "identical economic policies" part. Nor do I agree with the "free trade" part.

What too many people are saying is that these losers should get a degree, move, and suck it up using money that they don't have, loans that cannot be discharged, away from family, friends, and whatever resources they still have.

I think encouraging education, and finding jobs where jobs are is a good thing. Finding alternatives for people who are unable to do that is also good.

There's probably a limit on how much government can do, but every time we have a substantial presence of the Democratic party in government, we do better at including poor and middle class people. It's Republican policies that have screwed people over, so please do us all a favor, and quit with the "both sides do it" argument. Get Democrats elected. Once lots of Democrats are elected, get more progressive Democrats elected. Quit electing Republicans. Not sure why this is so hard.

[Marty]

"Further, it is all the poor people's fault

Is this correct or am I being too sensitive?"

You are correct. This is what has been said here many times. As long as you understand exurbs and rural people should move to the city. That's where jobs are, and where they should be created.

If only those people would do that they wouldn't be poor or use opioid, because in the city there are no drugs or poverty.

[sapient]

The Republican tax plan. Helpful, no?

[sapient]

If only those people would do that they wouldn't be poor or use opioid, because in the city there are no drugs or poverty.

The Republican plan is to throw them into a private prison. Then they'll have a job!

[formerly known as cleek]

What too many people are saying is that these losers should get a degree, move, and suck it up using money that they don't have, loans that cannot be discharged, away from family, friends, and whatever resources they still have. To an unknown area with no resources and with a very good chance that they will fail no matter how hard they work. Except that they will not be at home.

people moving from one place to another in search of work is what people have always done, since "work" was invented.

which isn't to say that it's great. just that it isn't something new to the world.

[wj]

exurbs and rural people should move to the city. That's where jobs are, and where they should be created.

I'm trying to figure out where this came from. Yes, I've seen suggestions that people should move where the jobs are. But that's what people have been doing, of necessity, forever. How many of us here haven't found ourselves moving to take a new job?

I don't, however, see how it's limited to those outside the city. It also applies between cities, and (for big cities with poor infrastructure) within cities.

You move where you have to to get work. Or, I suppose, you can decide you'd rather be poor than make the effort to make a new home. But while I personally sympathize with the sentiment, I don't have much sympathy for those who won't accept responsibility for the consequences of their choices.

Jobs get created in particular places for a variety of reasons. Nothing says (and nobody I've ever encountered say) that those places should be in a city. To take one obvious counter example, when Silicon Valley was starting, the whole area was orchards. There was Stanford, and some subdivisions, but basically orchards. Not any more, of course, but the job creation created the city, rather than vis versa.

[jbird4049]

It's been rotting because of almost identical economic policies of both political parties of low taxes, reduced regulations, and free trade

I don't agree with the "identical economic policies" part. Nor do I agree with the "free trade" part.

There has been a consistent push to the economic right since the early 1970s with the Republican Party leading, and the Democratic Party going right behind. The mainstream political consensus is lowering taxes, reducing regulations, and unhindered free trade. One could add items like union busting, and continuous expanding war. The details, the tactics might vary, but the strategy, and end goals are alike.

It's gone from liberal to neo-liberal, then to neo-Dickensian and it seems to be going to neo-Assyrian economics with the extreme political right-wing.

Note, this has nothing to do with social issues, merely economic ones. On that they are very different. However, the social issues seem to be a combination smoke screen, and money maker. Whatever the issue, it is milked for maximum conflict creation, rather than for resolution, or at least amelioration.

The attention grabbing smokescreen is starting to lose effectiveness. If one is economically screwed, they tend to look at that, and try to find the reasons first.

Jobs get created in particular places for a variety of reasons. Nothing says (and nobody I've ever encountered say) that those places should be in a city. To take one obvious counter example, when Silicon Valley was starting, the whole area was orchards. There was Stanford, and some subdivisions, but basically orchards. Not any more, of course, but the job creation created the city, rather than vis versa.

Interesting observations. My family from the then grandparents down had to flee to the Bay Area during the Great Depression. They were fairly wealthy for the Midwest, then they weren't. Destitute actually. But so was much of the country. A near equality of misery, perhaps

But there was a great variety of jobs. Accounting, canneries, fruit orchards, farms, factories. Even buying, rebuilding, and sell houses. You could also live on the wages of those non-college required low income jobs. My parents could rent an actual albeit funky house with real full size front and backyard on their minimum retail jobs. And go to the just about free college that was a very few miles away.

Just where are such places today? Just were are the places with the economic ladders? The unions, the various jobs, the affordable housing? Or the fact, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in 1968 was about $11 an hour? Adjusted for productivity over $15? With the four dollars going to the already wealthy?

In the Bay Area you can find work easily enough, but the chances it will be enough to support one person, never mind help the rest of the family, not so much. Much of the homeless are employed. Livable housing is hours away from the jobs. The needed education is almost unattainable. Certainly the ability to pay off the non-dischargeable loans is questionable.

It sounds right. Just move! You slacker!

Fifty years, even perhaps, thirty years ago, that would have been true. Today, it means nothing, solves nothing.

The costs of moving are greater, the ability to find work that pays enough to live on much less, the chances that being far worse off than before moving so much greater.

[wj]

Much of the homeless are employed. Livable housing is hours away from the jobs

Certainly there has been serious harm done by zoning regulations, which is why affordable housing is not available. But I don't really see that as the policy of either, let alone both, political parties. Rather it seems to be a simple matter of lack of thinking through the impact of the thing. Combined with a dollop of NIMBYism.

The needed education is almost unattainable.

This is, perhaps, my greatest single irritation with the current culture. When I was growing up, the state of California made a decision to make a college education widely available and affordable. A carpenter like my father could reasonably expect that any and all of his children who wished to could go to college. We had to work (part time) to help pay for it, but it was entirely possible to do so and emerge with a degree and debt-free.

Today? We seem to have closed our collective minds to the reason that the state's economy has flourished. I can only hope that we come to our senses and soon.

[novakant]

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/america-is-regressing-into-a-developing-nation-for-most-people

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/20-years-welfare-reform/496730/