Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
Thanks Tree30Thanks

Thread: Health: the future the Republican Congress wants for America

  1. #21
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    64,164
    Thanks
    20871

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    But the crazy thing is the wealthy only amounts to a tiny fraction of the population and they are generally located in blue states. The GOP gets far more of the lower income, and no college vote than democrats. Thats quite the misfire.
    The few but powerful wealthy are joined by the many simple-minded, un-educated masses in the red states.
    The Electoral college is what gives stupidity its power in elections and the GOP knows how to con the dummies.
    Thanks from Friday13 and MaryAnne

  2. #22
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    46,121
    Thanks
    28163

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    The GOP is good at distracting people from attending to their own self-interest when they vote. They win on issues like abortion, guns, and "the war on Christmas."
    Well I know quite a few like that and they indeed would suffer in order to preserve those things. Quite a few dont trust doctors and dont go or refuse insurance. I used to go up to logging country near the Canadian border for work and it amazed me how they worked in one of the most dangerous professions and hated doctors. Some would get angry at their kids if they left to pursue another profession. It was odd.

  3. #23
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,410
    Thanks
    36954

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Well I know quite a few like that and they indeed would suffer in order to preserve those things. Quite a few dont trust doctors and dont go or refuse insurance. I used to go up to logging country near the Canadian border for work and it amazed me how they worked in one of the most dangerous professions and hated doctors. Some would get angry at their kids if they left to pursue another profession. It was odd.
    That's just identity politics. I know people who consider themselves "working class" and even though they have educations that could give them much higher incomes, they refuse to pursue anything "better" because....they are working class people. Change seems like a betrayal.

    To your previous point--it's just a fact that urban areas produce the lion's share of economic activity in the contemporary world. Maybe that could change as technology makes us even more interconnected--so knowledge workers can cooperate together even when separated by many miles all the time. Then housing costs and quality of life issues for some people might even things out. But that's a distant prospect. As it is, GOP voters tend to see a house with lots of land and services rather more distant from themselves as the ideal. Dem voters want to live closer together, with services just at hand. Maybe that's the new fault line in our politics: urban vs rural. I don't see how the urbs aren't going to ultimately win that fight, as it's the rural folks who will be the beggars in that scenario.

  4. #24
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    46,121
    Thanks
    28163

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    That's just identity politics. I know people who consider themselves "working class" and even though they have educations that could give them much higher incomes, they refuse to pursue anything "better" because....they are working class people. Change seems like a betrayal.

    To your previous point--it's just a fact that urban areas produce the lion's share of economic activity in the contemporary world. Maybe that could change as technology makes us even more interconnected--so knowledge workers can cooperate together even when separated by many miles all the time. Then housing costs and quality of life issues for some people might even things out. But that's a distant prospect. As it is, GOP voters tend to see a house with lots of land and services rather more distant from themselves as the ideal. Dem voters want to live closer together, with services just at hand. Maybe that's the new fault line in our politics: urban vs rural. I don't see how the urbs aren't going to ultimately win that fight, as it's the rural folks who will be the beggars in that scenario.
    I actually think thats exactly how we are going, urban vs rural. I travel all over New Hampshire for work and its happening here so it has to be everywhere else. Younger and middle aged workers are leaving rural and even suburban areas for the city limits. Older people in their late 50s and up are making a conscious effort to live together in quieter rural areas like those 55 plus communities growing all over here at an exorbitant rate. Immigrants typically are moving into certain already blue states and often prefer cities as well. We are seeing massive out migration all over New England as the young leave and the older people remain. I am not so sure direct politics are in play but we certainly see things like older people are less likely to vote for tax increases or giant school budgets. I find this all quite fascinating here in NH as we are but a tiny window as to how its playing out. It will be interesting to see how this works after Trump.
    Thanks from boontito

  5. #25
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,410
    Thanks
    36954

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    I actually think thats exactly how we are going, urban vs rural. I travel all over New Hampshire for work and its happening here so it has to be everywhere else. Younger and middle aged workers are leaving rural and even suburban areas for the city limits. Older people in their late 50s and up are making a conscious effort to live together in quieter rural areas like those 55 plus communities growing all over here at an exorbitant rate.
    Young people moving into cities is a pattern we've seen since the turn of the 20th century, at least.
    Immigrants typically are moving into certain already blue states and often prefer cities as well.
    Again, a pattern that can be traced to the early 20th century, after the Homestead Act stopped pulling people westward. Most immigrants voted for McKinley in 1896, which was the beginning of the Dem/GOP split that continues today.
    We are seeing massive out migration all over New England as the young leave and the older people remain. I am not so sure direct politics are in play but we certainly see things like older people are less likely to vote for tax increases or giant school budgets. I find this all quite fascinating here in NH as we are but a tiny window as to how its playing out. It will be interesting to see how this works after Trump.
    I think we will eventually have to have lots of wealth transfers (e.g., guaranteed minimum income) just because such a large portion of the population will not have the skills to gain substantial employment in the future. When that happens, we'll see a movement of people into rural areas to take advantage of lower costs of living, once the choice of where to live is less tied to employment opportunities.

  6. #26
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    46,121
    Thanks
    28163

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Young people moving into cities is a pattern we've seen since the turn of the 20th century, at least. Again, a pattern that can be traced to the early 20th century, after the Homestead Act stopped pulling people westward. I think we will eventually have to have lots of wealth transfers (e.g., guaranteed minimum income) just because such a large portion of the population will not have the skills to gain substantial employment in the future. When that happens, we'll see a movement of people into rural areas to take advantage of lower costs of living, once the choice of where to live is less tied to employment opportunities.
    Young people and immigrants always began in the cities but as soon as they married and had families, most left. Thats how suburbia began. Now that fewer are opting for children that could change. I think thats a big part of what we are seeing. Younger people are moving to cities and states with high tech options. Older people and larger families remain in the outlying or rural areas. Without large families and having two decent incomes, there is no reason for them to leave anymore. Those that dont go to college and remain closer to their parents will choose the rural areas for affordability. A home in the Greater Boston area can cost 400K and the exact home 50 minutes away is 150K. Thats enormous.

    It also is going to highly depend on our stability economically. We saw some begin home businesses or move to cheap areas after the 2008 crash. If anything like that happens again, the cost to remain in cities could be too much for some. Look how many millennials still live home today with their debt. Another massive recession could dramatically change things. I think that was a part of Trumps success, those never rebounded in certain areas, voted for him. They didnt reap any of the rewards that highly educated city people did when the economy began trending upwards.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,410
    Thanks
    36954

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Young people and immigrants always began in the cities but as soon as they married and had families, most left. Thats how suburbia began.
    Ummm..."suburbia" was a post-WWII phenomenon, created by the automobile industry.
    Now that fewer are opting for children that could change. I think thats a big part of what we are seeing. Younger people are moving to cities and states with high tech options. Older people and larger families remain in the outlying or rural areas. Without large families and having two decent incomes, there is no reason for them to leave anymore. Those that dont go to college and remain closer to their parents will choose the rural areas for affordability. A home in the Greater Boston area can cost 400K and the exact home 50 minutes away is 150K. Thats enormous.
    Of course the reason that rural areas are more affordable is because there are few employment opportunities. That's unlikely to change, so unless they find a way to have some income, the affordability won't matter. That was my point about UMI.

    It also is going to highly depend on our stability economically. We saw some begin home businesses or move to cheap areas after the 2008 crash. If anything like that happens again, the cost to remain in cities could be too much for some. Look how many millennials still live home today with their debt. Another massive recession could dramatically change things. I think that was a part of Trumps success, those never rebounded in certain areas, voted for him. They didnt reap any of the rewards that highly educated city people did when the economy began trending upwards.
    And they think that Trump is somehow going to change that for them...but he won't, because he can't. We're talking about economic and tech changes that transcend politics. People in rural areas will continue to be screwed unless, somehow, the economy changes in ways that reward being rural. I don't see that on the horizon, but you never know.

    Poverty in rural areas was the NORM for a long time. No shoes and a leaky shack was kind of normal. Then came the New Deal. Electrification. Social safety net. They could go right back to those conditions if we abandon everything for the market.

  8. #28
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    50,539
    Thanks
    36113

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    I actually think thats exactly how we are going, urban vs rural. I travel all over New Hampshire for work and its happening here so it has to be everywhere else. Younger and middle aged workers are leaving rural and even suburban areas for the city limits. Older people in their late 50s and up are making a conscious effort to live together in quieter rural areas like those 55 plus communities growing all over here at an exorbitant rate. Immigrants typically are moving into certain already blue states and often prefer cities as well. We are seeing massive out migration all over New England as the young leave and the older people remain. I am not so sure direct politics are in play but we certainly see things like older people are less likely to vote for tax increases or giant school budgets. I find this all quite fascinating here in NH as we are but a tiny window as to how its playing out. It will be interesting to see how this works after Trump.
    Baj,have you read this article? Athens is a small College town in Southeastern Ohio. Home of the oldest College. Ohio University. My Grandson chose that College because it is what he wants. For Millenials it is their first choice.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...you/734212001/

    The second is a city called Lima,in the northeast. Not that big of a city.

    There is no way you can compare Vermont to the Midwest

    We fund our schools,not much thanks to Kasich. The Republican Legislature over ruled him on cuts.

    Lebanon is a small town, but they just built a fantastic new High School. And actually had to add on before the building was finished. We approve new School levies all the time. Northmont,my area just built a new High School and Grade School.

    You have a very skewed picture of the Midwest. The recession is long gone here. Cincinnati and Dayton have actually merged with all the new companies and affluent coming in.

  9. #29
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    50,539
    Thanks
    36113

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Young people moving into cities is a pattern we've seen since the turn of the 20th century, at least. Again, a pattern that can be traced to the early 20th century, after the Homestead Act stopped pulling people westward. Most immigrants voted for McKinley in 1896, which was the beginning of the Dem/GOP split that continues today.I think we will eventually have to have lots of wealth transfers (e.g., guaranteed minimum income) just because such a large portion of the population will not have the skills to gain substantial employment in the future. When that happens, we'll see a movement of people into rural areas to take advantage of lower costs of living, once the choice of where to live is less tied to employment opportunities.
    But with the advent of networking and transportation,this is changing,too.

  10. #30
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,410
    Thanks
    36954

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryAnne View Post
    But with the advent of networking and transportation,this is changing,too.
    That's what I said. But I think this will turn out to be less advantageous to rural areas than once thought. The tech is pretty advanced right now, but we haven't seen the flight to the country many thought was likely. Airlines aren't suffering that much from "Go to Meeting" type software. People still want to be in the same room with their collaborators.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29th September 2017, 08:50 AM
  2. The Future For Anyone Who Is in The Democratic or Republican Party
    By vikingbeast in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 17th May 2013, 05:28 AM
  3. Future of Congressional Health Reform Bills
    By Chase in forum Economics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 17th December 2010, 04:11 PM
  4. The Future of America
    By Burning Giraffe in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 9th May 2007, 11:36 AM
  5. The Future of the Republican Party
    By RASTAMAN in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 1st June 2006, 06:57 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed