• brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    162
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Decades of talkings heads offering an explanation for rural decline, that’s how. Look back to Rush Limbaugh and his predecessors.

    The irony is rampant immigration (and our tolerance to it) was an economic miracle for the US, an envy of the world. We’d be facing a population cliff like S Korea, Japan, China or Russia without it. But now that’s coming for us too :(

    • derfunkatron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Definitely a misdirect from the corporate takeover of everything.

      I grew up in a shitty small rural town, but while I was in high school I watched the shitty “mom and pop” stores slowly disappear and the local factory vote against unionization only to be closed a few years after I moved away. You know what immediately moved in to fill the void? Wal-Mart and Dollar General.

      My dad was so focused on immigrants taking his job and other insane republican economic talking points that he lost that job when the company decided it wasn’t cost effective to operate in the US anymore.

      • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        5 days ago

        You must have lived down the street from me. We had a few mom and pop joints, two local restaurants, and “the plant”. They didn’t get Walmart but now they’ve got the world’s worst Dairy Queen, the world’s second worst Sonic, and two different brands of dollar store.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        TBH some of the points were right. Democrats took big bucks from corporations too, especially Big Tech and basically anything focused in metros.

        And it was also a distraction.

        Rural folks should have voted differently, yeah, but it was an easy trap to fall into. I blame propagandists and cowards taking money, not them.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      5 days ago

      The “population cliff” is a made up boogeyman for capitalists. That’s because they’ve relied on population growth for market growth. What’s the harm in population stagnation or even decline?

      And I don’t want to hear about young people supporting aging populations. That’s a man-made problem that has solutions. Just not the kind of solutions capitalists can abide. (and if you think about it, it’s a temporary issue anyway).

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        And I don’t want to hear about young people supporting aging populations. That’s a man-made problem that has solutions.

        Well, okay. I have a bridge to sell you.

        Look. Everything is a “man made” issue with solutions.

        It doesn’t matter what economic system we want or have; fact is something has to put a ton of work into taking care of old folks, unless you kill them off or let them rot. Hope and ideology isn’t going to fix one’s body/mind, and that has nothing to do with capitalism.

        …Will we automate the problem away some day, WallE/Star Trek style? Sure. That’s the goal. But we aren’t close to there yet. Overloading the young taking care of the old IS our short term problem, and we have plenty of land to support a growing population with room for expanding conservation, as long as we don’t do stupid shit like ranch excessively and expand oil. Then we can level off the population. But we can’t do any of that if entire counties collapse from the pressure/burden of support.


        But okay. Let’s say tomorrow, every country on the planet rises up, abandons capitalism, and embraces cooperative economics, with a magic snap of the fingers. That’d be great.

        But we continue to let populations in developed countries age.

        Then what?

        How does that change the needs of elderly folks at all? How does that change the math of young people needing to devote more and more of their energy to them?

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Reducing overconsumption and overproduction will help a ton. We do not need nearly as much stuff as we are currently consuming. In addition, there are a lot of jobs these days that are just… not necessary. Take advertising for example, or all the job positions that are all about how to fuck over the consumers the most, then all the energy and work into fixing it or counteracting it, everything that is done not because it’s efficient, but because it’s profitable

          We are far far more productive today than we ever were before in human history. It’s all about prioritization

          • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            I wouldn’t make that generalization.

            We aren’t even close to post-scarcity in, say, healthcare. Keeping people alive and healthy is expensive and labor/education intense, even without the current structural inefficiencies.

            Distributing healthy food is not trivial either, which ties into that.

            • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              You also shouldn’t overlook just how much is done because it’s profitable, and not efficient, though

              The simple example is of course enshittifying services. But it’s also things like making 30 different versions of chips and candy and so on while putting lots of resources into preventing local homeless people from stealing any of the food they need for survival. Investing lots of research in making hyper-palatable foods that are addicting instead of how to make more efficient logistics towards everyone.

              And then there’s of course the part where it being a competitive system means stopping others from making use of your research/effort and sharing things, because that means more and stronger competition, which leads to doubling of efforts and so on…

              And I mean, I could go on, but the point is that, if you look closely enough, you’ll start seeing this everywhere. Inefficiencies made in the name of competition and profit seeking, not what is actually good for society and would be considered a job done well. A restructuring of society would help massively. From paying medical specialists more and making their jobs more tolerable instead of squeezing as much profit as possible, to opening up more human resources from other areas of society which could in theory help out more either directly or in the peripherals

              We are massively massively more productive today than in the past. There is no excuse

              And yeah, of course it isn’t the be-all end-all. But I would argue it would help more than it might seem on the surface. Directing resources towards where they are needed, and not just where they are profitable

            • PutridAge@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Keeping people alive and providing healthy food is not as expensive as it’s made out to be. Socialism for the wealthy, now that’s expensive! Elon Musk could feed the entire world three times over! And there are lots of solutions, money just doesn’t back them.

              For example, Holland had two issues. College students didn’t have places to live or couldn’t afford places, and they didn’t have enough people taking care of the elderly. So they put them together, the students have a place to live and the elderly are being taken care of. It was just something they tried and the results were spectacular!

              The problem in the states is that we don’t even TRY ANYTHING! We have more resources than smaller countries and we don’t even try. We could try 50 different solutions in 50 different states, use the scientific method to measure the results, and then implement the methods that worked. We could even try thousands of different solutions by trying different methods in different counties of each state. But instead, we CHOOSE to continue to argue and bicker between ourselves. What a waste of time and energy!

              I agree that the capitalists economy is a complete scam. Americans are so used to having so much land, that we just continue to shit up as much as we want and then move on to shit up another area. The earth cannot support continued population growth, especially with climate change. And even America will eventually run out of land to shit on. Other smaller countries have to respect what land they have and how to use because it’s limited. We could learn a thing or two from these smaller countries.

    • loutr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      In France we have the “30 glorieuses”, 30 years of unprecedented economical growth. Guess who came and worked tirelessly to make it happen? And guess who waxes poetic about this blessed moment in time?

      Of course the difference is that at the time, the immigrants lived in slums outside major cities, and they knew their place if you catch my drift.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      Population decline has little to nothing to do with immigration. It’s just affordability. Anytime the lower and middle classes (most of the population) are doing well, people have more kids.