Housing & Homeless Problem

[Ernie]

Should they just pack up and move to rural western Nebraska where there is plenty of cheap housing and no zoning but they have no roots, employment prospects, or available services like local grocery stores, schools, etc.?

Actually, affordable housing, jobs, schools, and grocery stores can be found in many small towns across America. The only thing lacking for people is "roots".

[Sliceitup]

Should they just pack up and move to rural western Nebraska where there is plenty of cheap housing and no zoning but they have no roots, employment prospects, or available services like local grocery stores, schools, etc.?

Actually, affordable housing, jobs, schools, and grocery stores can be found in many small towns across America. The only thing lacking for people is "roots".

I think two of the most problematic issues of rural living would be the lack of good quality internet access (especially in post-pandemic times) and quality medical facilities.

I have a lot of family that lives in a rural middle America state. The closest ‘real’ hospital to them is 2 hours away. If you wanna have twins you can’t deliver them at the one that’s only 30 minutes away because they don’t have the ability to deal with that. If your wife hemorrhages after childbirth? 2 hours away. And if I remember correctly that person ended up getting transferred even further yet.

I’m guessing I have at 20 good high quality, full service hospitals within 2 hours of my home. When we had a medical issue with one of our children we had 3 different options within 20 minutes of our house.

[Ken]

Should they just pack up and move to rural western Nebraska where there is plenty of cheap housing and no zoning but they have no roots, employment prospects, or available services like local grocery stores, schools, etc.?

Actually, affordable housing, jobs, schools, and grocery stores can be found in many small towns across America. The only thing lacking for people is "roots".

Except that's not really true. Low-wage and low-skilled jobs, perhaps. But not the professional jobs that most Americans actually train for and do in our economy. Which is a large reason why people leave small towns in the first place.

Economies in larger cities and metro areas are by definition more diverse. That has always been the case going back to the Bronze Age. For example, if you are a nurse or any kind of medical professional or specialist and the nearest hospital or specialty clinic is 2 hours away, what kind of employment prospects do you actually have? Sure you can clerk at the Dollar General for minimum wage. Or maybe waitress at the local diner. But people leave exactly to get away from those kinds of jobs and seek more productive employment that matches your skills and interests. Same thing applies across the entire economy. If you are a software engineer, aircraft mechanic, robotics technician, biomedical researcher, CAD machinist, lab technician, etc. etc. etc.

People don't generally move to cities for the museums or restaurants or traffic. They move there because that is where the jobs and opportunities are. And employers move there because that is where the skilled labor pool is as well as all the other businesses and suppliers that they rely on.

Rural economies are the very opposite of diverse. There may be one or two lucrative local professions like agriculture, fisheries, mining, and some ancillary industries to support them. But that is about it. The rest is mostly just low-paid and low-skill service jobs. If you don't want to be a corn or hog farmer, fisherman, work in the oil fields, or a coal mine your options are often very limited.

[Josh]

I’m in a rural area with cheap land and no zoning.

I can access a world renowned facility 30 minutes away (Cleveland Clinic), or a local hospital chain 20 minutes away. All manner of specialists and specialty facilities such as a breast cancer dedicated facility, a cancer centre, or a children’s hospital are within 45 minutes away.

Of course, I’m not sure what all those hospitals can do for you if you’re homeless.

As far as “roots”, the population from SF is not one with roots. California has a huge immigrant population. If “roots” are important then we should stop all this migration which is why housing is so expensive in the first place.

[Ernie]

Except that's not really true. Low-wage and low-skilled jobs, perhaps. But not the professional jobs that most Americans actually train for and do in our economy. Which is a large reason why people leave small towns in the first place.

60% of the work force is professionals.
The assumption here is that people should always be climbing higher on the economic and vocational ladders. There is nothing wrong with choosing or accepting a low-wage, low-skill job.

[mike]

Except that's not really true. Low-wage and low-skilled jobs, perhaps. But not the professional jobs that most Americans actually train for and do in our economy. Which is a large reason why people leave small towns in the first place.

60% of the work force is professionals.
The assumption here is that people should always be climbing higher on the economic and vocational ladders. There is nothing wrong with choosing or accepting a low-wage, low-skill job.

Somebody has to mow the doctors' yards, build houses for the IT consultants, and feed the bankers.

[Ken]

Except that's not really true. Low-wage and low-skilled jobs, perhaps. But not the professional jobs that most Americans actually train for and do in our economy. Which is a large reason why people leave small towns in the first place.

60% of the work force is professionals.
The assumption here is that people should always be climbing higher on the economic and vocational ladders. There is nothing wrong with choosing or accepting a low-wage, low-skill job.

Sure, as long as it is a choice.

But we are a wealthy society. People shouldn't have to choose between pursuing their desired profession and putting a roof over their family's head. Other societies don't force that choice on people.

[Josh]

Except that's not really true. Low-wage and low-skilled jobs, perhaps. But not the professional jobs that most Americans actually train for and do in our economy. Which is a large reason why people leave small towns in the first place.

60% of the work force is professionals.
The assumption here is that people should always be climbing higher on the economic and vocational ladders. There is nothing wrong with choosing or accepting a low-wage, low-skill job.

Sure, as long as it is a choice.

But we are a wealthy society. People shouldn't have to choose between pursuing their desired profession and putting a roof over their family's head. Other societies don't force that choice on people.

… if people get high paying jobs, they can’t put a roof over their family’s head?

[mike]

Except that's not really true. Low-wage and low-skilled jobs, perhaps. But not the professional jobs that most Americans actually train for and do in our economy. Which is a large reason why people leave small towns in the first place.

60% of the work force is professionals.
The assumption here is that people should always be climbing higher on the economic and vocational ladders. There is nothing wrong with choosing or accepting a low-wage, low-skill job.

Sure, as long as it is a choice.

But we are a wealthy society. People shouldn't have to choose between pursuing their desired profession and putting a roof over their family's head. Other societies don't force that choice on people.

Should people be forced to subsidize the ability of another person to pursue any desired profession, then?

[Ernie]

I think people can find rewarding labor and sufficient intellectual stimulation in an economically viable place. But it may take some creativity and thinking outside of the box. For those who can't or don't want to do that, there are societal/governmental options.