The large parts of America left behind by today's economy

[pbrower2a]

We are seeing the 'Brazilification' of America, with some places very prosperous and some parts  being left behind or even getting worse. Dying industries? Or simply low-tech industries (like farming) with no potential for growth?

[Bismarck]

I would dispute that some of the counties listed in Indiana are "economically distressed", but aside from that I think there is much less of a correlation between distressed areas and republican voting than other posters seem to be gathering from this data. It may line up pretty well with Trump trend though. Also to PBrower farming is a very high tech industry which is why there are few jobs in it, technology has taken away most of the manual labor.

[pbrower2a]

I would dispute that some of the counties listed in Indiana are "economically distressed", but aside from that I think there is much less of a correlation between distressed areas and republican voting than other posters seem to be gathering from this data. It may line up pretty well with Trump trend though. Also to PBrower farming is a very high tech industry which is why there are few jobs in it, technology has taken away most of the manual labor.

Farmers may use high technology, but that no more makes farming a high-tech industry than is metal processing.

[The Free North]

I would dispute that some of the counties listed in Indiana are "economically distressed", but aside from that I think there is much less of a correlation between distressed areas and republican voting than other posters seem to be gathering from this data. It may line up pretty well with Trump trend though. Also to PBrower farming is a very high tech industry which is why there are few jobs in it, technology has taken away most of the manual labor.

Farmers may use high technology, but that no more makes farming a high-tech industry than is metal processing.

I disagree with this. Farming can be a volatile business depending on what the market is doing, but many farmers nowadays are using top notch technology and are well versed in extremely complex financial products to hedge their risks. The old stereotype of farmers being uneducated country bumpkins is pretty far from the truth. 

[SoLongAtlas]

Actually farming is a very high tech industry, especially re large acreage farms. Tractors and automated pickers are now guided by GPS and have built in systems to maximize yield. The small family farms can't afford this but they are in the minority of the total percentage of US farms. Also most farms are corporate owned or partnered. It is a high risk industry depending on climate, rotation, demand, etc.

[Santander]

I would dispute that some of the counties listed in Indiana are "economically distressed", but aside from that I think there is much less of a correlation between distressed areas and republican voting than other posters seem to be gathering from this data. It may line up pretty well with Trump trend though. Also to PBrower farming is a very high tech industry which is why there are few jobs in it, technology has taken away most of the manual labor.

Farmers may use high technology, but that no more makes farming a high-tech industry than is metal processing.

I disagree with this. Farming can be a volatile business depending on what the market is doing, but many farmers nowadays are using top notch technology and are well versed in extremely complex financial products to hedge their risks. The old stereotype of farmers being uneducated country bumpkins is pretty far from the truth. 

Absolutely. Ag is a pretty sophisticated business now. Much of the livestock industry is now an oligopoly run by big businesses, and even farming is getting quite consolidated. Small family farms have to be run well if they want to survive as a business with so many powerful players in the market. 20 years ago, a DeKalb rep could just sell on personal relationships, or farmer-dealers could just sell to their neighbors who they went to church with and sent their kids to the same school as, but that's not even close to the case anymore. Farmers know what they're doing these days and they do their homework and run their farms professionally.

Even if they're not involved in the development of technologies like GM seeds/CP chemicals or modern farm equipment, they still need knowledge of things like traits, soil science, how to prepare for all sorts of risks, including climate change.

[Friend]

The real reason Hillary lost. She campaigned as if the upper atlantic to New England and California coast was all of america. The "recovery" has only happened in a few areas. She sounded completely out of touch with the rest of the country.

[Tartarus Sauce]

People have always moved for economic opportunity.  It was hard for them, but they did it so they and their offspring could have a better future.  You can stay in a place with a sh**tty economy and bitch about it, or you can run your own life and better yourself.

That's part of the problem though. Labor mobility has dramatically reduced for lower skilled workers compared to what it was in the late 19th and much of the 20th century. There are far more obstacles in place now for both entry into and exit from labor markets which are exacerbating the geographic wealth disparities.

[pbrower2a]

People have always moved for economic opportunity.  It was hard for them, but they did it so they and their offspring could have a better future.  You can stay in a place with a sh**tty economy and bitch about it, or you can run your own life and better yourself.

That's part of the problem though. Labor mobility has dramatically reduced for lower skilled workers compared to what it was in the late 19th and much of the 20th century. There are far more obstacles in place now for both entry into and exit from labor markets which are exacerbating the geographic wealth disparities.

But the glowing successes are also expensive places to live. If you could earn Atlanta pay and live with costs of southern Georgia, then you would do very well. But that is like saying that 2017 wages with a 1957 cost of living would be very good, too.

What people earn in New York, Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco, Los Angeles,  Seattle, or Houston that they don't get in cheap-rent places goes into rent. The New Economy is heavily rent collection. The real America isn't the great pay in Silicon Valley -- it is the rent that software engineers pay in Silicon Valley.  In a way, Donald Trump as a rapacious rent-collector is more of the American economy than is the high-flying innovation in electronics or cultural creation.

Places stranded in the early-industry stage of economic development, like Detroit, Flint, Milwaukee, Gary, or St. Louis are doing badly. Places still rural are getting the worst of a plantation level of inequality and working conditions characteristic of early industry.

For most of the economy life is a lose-lose proposition as the American economy takes on characteristics of a Marxist stereotype of capitalist exploitation and a reality of a Marxist-style nomenklatura among bureaucratic elites, with big land-owners acting much like lords of the manor.

About all that most of us have is the duty to suffer for elites in return for vague promises of delights in the Afterworld for those who can suffer with a smile.   

[Tartarus Sauce]

People have always moved for economic opportunity.  It was hard for them, but they did it so they and their offspring could have a better future.  You can stay in a place with a sh**tty economy and bitch about it, or you can run your own life and better yourself.

That's part of the problem though. Labor mobility has dramatically reduced for lower skilled workers compared to what it was in the late 19th and much of the 20th century. There are far more obstacles in place now for both entry into and exit from labor markets which are exacerbating the geographic wealth disparities.

But the glowing successes are also expensive places to live. If you could earn Atlanta pay and live with costs of southern Georgia, then you would do very well. But that is like saying that 2017 wages with a 1957 cost of living would be very good, too.

What people earn in New York, Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco, Los Angeles,  Seattle, or Houston that they don't get in cheap-rent places goes into rent. The New Economy is heavily rent collection. The real America isn't the great pay in Silicon Valley -- it is the rent that software engineers pay in Silicon Valley.  In a way, Donald Trump as a rapacious rent-collector is more of the American economy than is the high-flying innovation in electronics or cultural creation.

Places stranded in the early-industry stage of economic development, like Detroit, Flint, Milwaukee, Gary, or St. Louis are doing badly. Places still rural are getting the worst of a plantation level of inequality and working conditions characteristic of early industry.

For most of the economy life is a lose-lose proposition as the American economy takes on characteristics of a Marxist stereotype of capitalist exploitation and a reality of a Marxist-style nomenklatura among bureaucratic elites, with big land-owners acting much like lords of the manor.

About all that most of us have is the duty to suffer for elites in return for vague promises of delights in the Afterworld for those who can suffer with a smile.    

Which is one of the main reasons why barriers have become so high. The hottest job markets no longer allow sufficient housing stock to meet demand for living there. This is why costs have become so astronomical.

And it's not just a problem of landowners pushing land-use restrictions, renters love rent control despite the fact that is exacerbates the problems its proponents thinks it solves.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The real reason Hillary lost. She campaigned as if the upper atlantic to New England and California coast was all of america. The "recovery" has only happened in a few areas. She sounded completely out of touch with the rest of the country.

There's no singular 'real' reason for her loss. A great many things added up to cost her the election. But yes, failing to connect with the broken former middle-class was part of why she lost.