No, Trump is the reckoning that comes for the blue collar voters who listened to right wing propaganda and decided they just want to burn it all down. Unfortunately, they'll be hurt more than anyone with what's to come.
They are going to learn a tough lesson about the modern economy and how things can get worse them for sure. The desire to burn it all down came from despair over a loss of status and economic anxiety, which was/is justified because the R/D party before Trump legitimately did not care about them at all and had fantastical notions about globalization turning everyone into winners, and ignored all evidence to the contrary.
They felt ignored and powerless and latched onto Trump and here we are. A populist movement in America was overdue, democrats could have taken control of it with Bernie but they put their thumb on the scale to get Hillary the presidency. Republican establishment looked on with despair and saw several of their favored candidates get their career ended but adapted.
>They are going to learn a tough lesson about the modern economy and how things can get worse them for sure. The desire to burn it all down came from despair over a loss of status and economic anxiety, which was/is justified because the R/D party before Trump legitimately did not care about them at all and had fantastical notions about globalization turning everyone into winners, and ignored all evidence to the contrary.
To be fair, much of the hollowing out of the rust belt/rural areas is/was as you mention (although, I'd say that Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about those folks either, they were just a means to an end), but what's unsaid is the lack of infrastructure investment by the states themselves.
Had the state governments paid attention to the lack of decent educational opportunities, broadband, transportation and opportunities for the "new economy" (as compared with the withering/now withered manufacturing economy), there would be significant investment/start ups in/of tech companies in those areas, as the cost of living and capital/real estate costs are much lower in the "rust belt" and similar areas.
But no such investment was made by those state governments, so those areas left damaged by the loss of manufacturing jobs were left to rot. Not just by the Federal government, but even more so by the state and local governments in those areas.
There were/are other factors in play too, but you rarely (if ever) hear anyone calling state/local governments to task over this stuff -- it's always the "Feds" who, in point of fact, can certainly help, but remaking areas with sagging economies is much more a state/local thing, IMNSHO.
I think part of the issue there is there's free movement in America of capital/labor so it's hard to justify investments. Eg. why have the state pay to give each member or your state elite college educations if they are going to move to another state anyway? Your global businesses are going to move as well the second it makes financial sense to?
>I think part of the issue there is there's free movement in America of capital/labor so it's hard to justify investments. Eg. why have the state pay to give each member or your state elite college educations if they are going to move to another state anyway? Your global businesses are going to move as well the second it makes financial sense to?
You misunderstand my point. Which is probably my fault. My apologies. I'll attempt to clarify:
I don't advocate for states to "pay to give each member or your state elite college educations." Rather, I was commenting on the disinvestment[0] in higher education by the states, resulting in poorer educational outcomes as well as fewer educated professionals to serve as innovators, knowledge workers and entrepreneurs in those states.
I'd posit that if many states in the rust belt invested in quality education, rather than forcing big tuition increases/student debt, more folks would stay in those states, with the positive economic benefits across those state economies improving the lots of everyone.
As for "global" businesses, they're mostly an outlier[1], at least in the US with ~15,000,000 businesses with less than 100 employees and ~170,000 businesses with more than 100 employees (of which only 45,000 or so have more than 500 employees).
And why, exactly, do folks leave such places? Why, for the better economics of states that invest in infrastructure and education. Folks wouldn't leave if they could do just as well or better in their hometowns. But (for a whole bunch of reasons, the ones I cite included), those places don't have the same economic opportunity because they don't have the infrastructure or skilled workforce to do so. If they did, companies would flock to those places as the cost of living and cost of doing business are significantly lower.
Why is Silicon Valley a hub for business?[2] Strong educational institutions, good infrastructure and a skilled workforce?
Why are prisons the highlight of six of the seven poorest counties in the US?[3] Poor or no educational institutions and a lack of skilled workers.
I hope I've clarified my point. My apologies for not doing so initially.
I just don't think it's that simple. A lot of states/regions have tried to make their own silicon valley over the past 15 years for illustration, throwing money and tax incentives at the problem, and results have been mixed. Even SF's attempt to transform itself as an tech industry city has yielded mixed results for its residents and they'd have to be considered a relative success story at a minimum on this front.
There's just too many factors outside the state's control, beyond a lack of political support for those types of investments.
I never said it was. In fact, I repeatedly said that lack of infrastructure and disinvestment in higher education were among the reasons for the lack of economic activity in the rust belt and similar.
That said, without decent infrastructure and a skilled workforce, it's much, much harder to attract new businesses, innovators and entrepreneurs. Other factors (as I noted in both the comments to which you replied) are impactful as well, but I chose to focus on two that are (IMHO, at least) rather important.
Yeah I don't see any alternative. The dream of (re)building your local economy around industries that boomed 100 years ago is a fantasy and the global economy has moved on. It's just hard me to necessarily point fingers as you have, I just see so many factors here. It takes long term vision + some acceptance of failed investment + some sacrifice, all things we currently seem to have no desire/stomach for.
> The dream of (re)building your local economy around industries that boomed 100 years ago is a fantasy and the global economy has moved on.
What industries, specifically, are you thinking about?
Because if those industries did not disappear completely but were instead offshored to arbitrage labor, then the global economy has definitely NOT moved on.
Those industries were almost entirely automated years ago.
You aren't going to bring manufacturing back to the US and get jobs on the assembly line like your grandfather had, those jobs simply no longer exist. The few jobs that do exist won't pay enough money for a home with a two-car garage like your grandfather had on the assembly line either, they will pay barely subsistence wages like working in an Amazon warehouse. And American manufactured goods won't be competitive like they were when the US could leverage its industries against a Western world that was still rebuilding after the war. No one is going to want to buy American Ladas, and Americans won't be able to afford them.
> I just see so many factors here. It takes long term vision + some acceptance of failed investment + some sacrifice, all things we currently seem to have no desire/stomach for.
