Suicide

Post Reply
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 6733
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Suicide

#1

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:40 am

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 185204.htm
One-third of US adults may unknowingly use medications that can cause depression Polypharmacy on the rise

A new study from University of Illinois at Chicago researchers suggests that more than one-third of U.S. adults may be using prescription medications that have the potential to cause depression or increase the risk of suicide, and that because these medications are common and often have nothing to do with depression, patients and health care providers may be unaware of the risk.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed medication use patterns of more than 26,000 adults from 2005 to 2014, which were collected as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. They found that more than 200 commonly used prescription drugs -- including hormonal birth control medications, blood pressure and heart medications, proton pump inhibitors, antacids and painkillers -- have depression or suicide listed as potential side effects.

Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the study is the first to demonstrate that these drugs were often used concurrently and that concurrent use, called polypharmacy, was associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing depression. Approximately 15 percent of adults who simultaneously used three or more of these medications experienced depression while taking the drugs, compared with just 5 percent for those not using any of the drugs, 7 percent for those using one medication and 9 percent for those taking two drugs simultaneously.

The researchers observed similar results for drugs that listed suicide as a potential side effect. These findings persisted when the researchers excluded anyone using psychotropic medications, considered an indicator of underlying depression unrelated to medication use.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 6978
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Suicide: Why?

#2

Post by RoadScholar » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:42 pm

Correlation doesn’t prove causation, eh?


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: Suicide: Why?

#3

Post by mmmirele » Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:00 am

Some of us use medications to relieve Persistent Depressive Disorder. In my own case, I have three I take every day. And they're to stop me from suicidal ideation.



User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 6733
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Suicide: Why?

#4

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:57 pm

I am on Cymbalta to prevent fibromyalgia pain and depression.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20384
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Suicide: Why?

#5

Post by TollandRCR » Sat Jun 16, 2018 3:18 pm

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide rates have risen in all states except Nevada (where it is still higher than the national rate). Increases are seen across age, gender, race, and ethnicity categories. The suicide rate is rising fastest among women. More men still die by suicide than do women, but suicide rates for women have steadily climbed for the past decade.

North Dakota saw an increase of 57%. The suicide rate is highest in Montana.

Nearly 45,000 suicides occurred in the US in 2016. Guns are the most frequent method for suicide. Suicides of the young are especially concerning.

Suicides are believed to be under-reported.

Something is terribly wrong.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/sui ... n-cdc-says


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 2146
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:36 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: Suicide: Why?

#6

Post by MN-Skeptic » Sat Jun 16, 2018 3:35 pm

I'm not going to look for it now, but there was a recent story about one of the (North East?) states which tightened gun laws. When they did that, suicides decreased. Shooting oneself is awfully permanent.


MAGA - Morons Are Governing America

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2636
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Suicide: Why?

#7

Post by Fortinbras » Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:04 pm

Remarkably, a good deal of the medication I take, for heart disease, aches and pains, and even for depression, contain warnings that they might have a side-effect of suicidal thoughts. It's an effed-up world when anti-depressants can trigger suicides. I asked my doctor and there doesn't seem to be any medicine with a euphoriant side-effect, just the suicidal kind, dammit.

I'd give anything for a pill that makes me feel as if Obama got elected to a third term.

I suspect that - besides the gun culture and celebrity suicides and some other contributions to the rising levels of suicides - a contributing factor has been the very ancient practice, in most of the world's civilizations, to extol and memorialize and otherwise recite to children (and to others) the stories of people who did not die in bed, of people who died relatively young, the praiseworthy deaths of heroes or martyrs, not the miserable deaths of the elderly and feeble and bedridden. Even now, in the USA, widespread worship of the those killed in the hopeless, wasteful, no-win wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and, of course, of those who died in the World Trade Center, and of firemen and Coast Guardmen and other domestic heroes. This sends a shadow of shame over those who didn't volunteer for our volunteer army, or for those who served and came back without a chestful of hero's medals. An early death, like those being memorialized, has its compensations, while the prospect of surviving as a non-veteran coward into shameful old age has its terrible downside.



User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 6978
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Suicide: Why?

#8

Post by RoadScholar » Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:21 pm

c.f “The good die young.”

(Always loathed that alleged nugget of wisdom.)


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 14635
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Suicide: Why?

#9

Post by kate520 » Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:40 am

When The Pill first came out I was in my late teens. At the urging of both my mother and boyfriend :shock: (but not in collusion :cantlook: I don’t think :? ) I tried it. It was new. It was strong. I gained 20 pounds in a month and cried about everything. It was awful. I spent the last three days in bed, unable to muster the energy to move. It was a dark month.

Then I ran out of pills and was too depressed to get more, et voila - day by day the fog lifted, I stopped crying, I was still 20 lbs heavier :roll: but it turned out to be mostly water. I never took them again. I only take BP meds because I had a stroke. I don’t like them but I do like living.

Several grandparents in my extended family seemed to be declining pretty quickly until their doctors did an elimination review of their meds and found conflicts.

Tsk. Nothing works in isolation, not meds, not chemicals (cough Scott Pruitt cough) in the environment.


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
vic
Posts: 3572
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Suicide: Why?

#10

Post by vic » Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:03 am

Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.



User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 6733
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Suicide

#11

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:39 am

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:40 am
This is a broader topic than "why" alone so I changed the title. H/T to Sugar.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20384
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Suicide: Why?

#12

Post by TollandRCR » Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:40 am

The suicide rate for people in farming, forestry, and fisheries is the highest of all occupational groups. At 84.5 per 100,000 people, it is more than five times the overall national rate.

This CDC study covered only 17 states and excluded some major agricultural states, such as Iowa. However, the results are consistent with other studies that found suicide rates to be highest and most rapidly increasing in rural areas.

The easiest explanation is that farmers are being paid about what they were paid 15 years ago. That means plummeting incomes. This has been an unequal economic expansion. But economics alone are unlikely to provide an explanation. I suspect that competition from corporate farms is part of the explanation. They can afford the expensive equipment and advanced technology.

Farming has never been easy. It has probably always been a high-stress occupation, despite our images of bucolic farm life. Weather and natural disasters can hit farmers hard. The advent of engineered seed has increased farm costs, although they may permit higher yields or less susceptibility to diseases. Not being a farmer, I am sure that I have missed other factors.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-f ... g-incomes/


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 6978
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Suicide

#13

Post by RoadScholar » Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:47 am

Scarecrow on a wooden cross blackbird in the barn
Four hundred empty acres that used to be my farm
I grew up like my daddy did my grandpa cleared this land
When I was five I walked the fence while grandpa held my hand

Rain on the scarecrow blood on the plow
This land fed a nation this land made me proud
And son I'm just sorry theres no legacy for you now
Rain on the scarecrow blood on the plow
Rain on the scarecrow blood on the plow

The crops we grew last summer weren't enough to pay the loans
Couldn't buy the seed to plant this spring and the farmers bank foreclosed
Called my old friend schepman up to auction off the land
He said john its just my job and I hope you understand

Hey calling it your job ol hoss sure dont make it right
But if you want me to Ill say a prayer for your soul tonight
And grandmas on the front porch swing with a Bible in her hand
Sometimes I hear her singing take me to the promised land

When you take away a mans dignity he cant work his fields and cows
There'll be blood on the scarecrow blood on the plow

Blood on the scarecrow blood on the plow...

Well there's ninety-seven crosses planted in the courthouse yard
Ninety-seven families who lost ninety-seven farms
I think about my grandpa and my neighbors and my name
And some nights I feel like dying like that scarecrow in the rain

Rain on the scarecrow blood on the plow
This land fed a nation this land made me so proud
And son I'm just sorry they're just memories for you now
Rain on the scarecrow blood on the plow
Rain on the scarecrow blood on the plow



Songwriters: George Green / George Michael Green / John Mellencamp


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
JohnPCapitalist
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:29 pm
Location: Wall Street
Occupation: Investment management in the financial industry. Deep knowledge of stocks, tech and economics.

Re: Suicide: Why?

#14

Post by JohnPCapitalist » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:40 am

TollandRCR wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:40 am
The suicide rate for people in farming, forestry, and fisheries is the highest of all occupational groups. At 84.5 per 100,000 people, it is more than five times the overall national rate.

This CDC study covered only 17 states and excluded some major agricultural states, such as Iowa. However, the results are consistent with other studies that found suicide rates to be highest and most rapidly increasing in rural areas.

The easiest explanation is that farmers are being paid about what they were paid 15 years ago. That means plummeting incomes. This has been an unequal economic expansion. But economics alone are unlikely to provide an explanation. I suspect that competition from corporate farms is part of the explanation. They can afford the expensive equipment and advanced technology.

Farming has never been easy. It has probably always been a high-stress occupation, despite our images of bucolic farm life. Weather and natural disasters can hit farmers hard. The advent of engineered seed has increased farm costs, although they may permit higher yields or less susceptibility to diseases. Not being a farmer, I am sure that I have missed other factors.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-f ... g-incomes/
Not surprising at all. Not just farming, but the entire rural way of life is collapsing. That's true not just in the US but globally... for the first time, half the world's population lives in cities. That trend is unlikely to be reversed, for a whole host of reasons. In the US, only about 20% of the population lives in rural areas and the number of people in those areas is about the same as it was 100 years ago. Without population increase, the economies in those areas simply will not grow. And with that, residential real estate prices won't increase, and that's the principal retirement asset of homeowners. At the same time, corporate owners with access to capital are able to pay premium prices for cropland, pricing local farmers out of the ability to expand, and potentially fueling land price bubbles that will bury locals when they inevitably collapse.

Farming is under pressure for two reasons: variable risk is increasing, with climate change, ever-broader bug infestations, the collapse of the Oglalla Aquifer that provided water for huge chunks of the western Great Plains, etc. And fixed structural problems are even more severe: competition from crops grown outside the US such as tomatoes from Mexico, grapes from Chile, etc. More importantly, concentration of large-scale buyers of crops mean that farmers get an ever smaller percentage of the price that consumers pay for food. The top 10 processed food makers control the majority of that business, and 10 grocery chains in the US control almost 60% of food purchases. This concentration of customers is even more evident in the meat industry, where ranchers and feedlot operators have seen prices fall even as consumers pay more for beef, pork and chicken. In other words, rampant corporatism has stacked the deck against individually owned farmers, and the current administration is unlikely to change that.

And lastly, one of the major stressors in rural life is the movement of kids to the city for better jobs. That weakens family structures, particular for farmers who want to retire. Few kids are going into farming, even if they inherit a farm and thus get the land for free. So a farmer who retires has to sell out the farm, potentially to corporate interests, and move into town, which can be a major disruption and stressor. Many people, particularly men, who identify strongly with their job, die within a year of leaving their job (regardless of whether they left by layoffs or retirement). Some may commit suicide, but far more die from a heart attack, a "broke heart," etc. Being a man today is very bad for longevity.

Many rural states are seeing population shifts that ultimately threaten their viability. Vermont, though not primarily an agricultural state, is small enough that it's an early exemplar. In the last 30 years, the average age in VT has gone from 33 years to 43 years, the sharpets tilt in the nation. It's now one of the highest average aged state out there, second only to Maine, which has a similar demographic problem but has somewhat bigger cities to offset some of the pressure. VT now has as many seniors as kids under 18, and a decreasing population of workers in the middle to provide a tax base. The government recently proposed $10,000 grants to get people to move into the state. There are available jobs, but not enough people to fill them. Many of the available jobs are service-oriented, either tourism or servicing the second homes of urban New Englanders, and they don't pay that well, so new service jobs aren't going to power sustainable growth.

Speaking of a service economy in rural America: a good friend has a retreat in one of the most remote corners of Maine. It's a very long way off the grid, a mile from the nearest neighbor, and completely surrounded by timberland. Gorgeous views, especially of the Milky Way at night. It's 8 hours from NY, and 3 hours from Interstate 95, so it's very hard to move goods in and out for businesses, or to get there for tourists; there are tons of scenic tourist attractions very close to the Interstate, so why spend the time to go up near the Canadian border? The camp is so remote it's only suitable for retreating from the world for a week or two at a time. An urban New Yorker like me can't move there to tellecomute because we use a generator, the Internet connectivity is satellite only (unsuitable for video conferences), and there's no cell service. So as much as I love the solitude, I can't summer there and pump money into the economy. The population of the town where this camp is located peaked at 500 people in 1900, and is around 100 today; the town government dissolved years ago. There's no chance that this town will be able to move even to a low-wage service economy catering to rich urbanites. It will become a ghost town in the next 30 years as the oldsters clinging to the place die off.

All in all, the outlook for rural America is not a pretty picture. And federal authorities are, of course, oblivious. The only real new initiative proposed by the Trump administration to help rural people is the laughable "bring back coal" initiative, which is destined to fail as nobody wants the product anymore. And if it were to succeed, it would only help save the jobs of 40,000 coal miners in the US, just over 0.01% of the population.

The net result is that we'll see a continuing move towards cities everywhere in the US. States with significant urban populations (NY, CA, FL, IL, TX, CO, GA, etc.) will continue to do well economically. States with some cities but with sizable rural populations will do OK as people move to the cities in those states (NE, IA, KS, MO, etc.). The economies that will outperform in this middle tier of states will be those with specific competence in particular industries (Hartford CT with deep expertise in financial services and high-tech manufacturing, for instance, versus Omaha whose economy is highly diffuse). Cities without significant urban areas (VT, WY, MT, AR, MS, ME, WV) could end up as failed states with economies that are essentially unsustainable.



User avatar
JohnPCapitalist
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:29 pm
Location: Wall Street
Occupation: Investment management in the financial industry. Deep knowledge of stocks, tech and economics.

Re: Suicide: Why?

#15

Post by JohnPCapitalist » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:47 am

JohnPCapitalist wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:40 am
Not just farming, but the entire rural way of life is collapsing. That's true not just in the US but globally... for the first time, half the world's population lives in cities.
Adding another thought: some cultures will cope with urbanization, others won't. A friend does development work in Kenya and pointed out that the Maasai (whom she only occasionally deals with) seem to be adapting to modernity quite well. Everyone has a cellphone and many have jobs in town, but remain committed to their traditional life as well. So far, it hasn't been a problem.
ESC_12_Masai1.jpg
Parenthetically, I'm told that cell service throughout the Maasai Mara is excellent, often better than what we experience in the US, the richest country on Earth and the one that invented cellular technology.

Oddly, I'm more optimistic that other traditional cultures will do OK but we in the US will see our "traditional" (i.e., rural) culture extinguished after a painful death.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20384
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Suicide

#16

Post by TollandRCR » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:00 am

JohnP, thanks for a really informative post.

Even in India the suicide rate has been rising for farmers. A problem is the high cost of the next year's seeds, coupled with the fertilizers and treatments that Green Revolution and later crops require. Climate change is also challenging ancient crops and farmng methods, with both temperatures and droughts being affected, Their favored method of suicide is also the only one readily available: drinking ome of the poisonous agricultural chemicals.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
JohnPCapitalist
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:29 pm
Location: Wall Street
Occupation: Investment management in the financial industry. Deep knowledge of stocks, tech and economics.

Re: Suicide

#17

Post by JohnPCapitalist » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:19 am

TollandRCR wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:00 am
JohnP, thanks for a really informative post.

Even in India the suicide rate has been rising for farmers. A problem is the high cost of the next year's seeds, coupled with the fertilizers and treatments that Green Revolution and later crops require. Climate change is also challenging ancient crops and farmng methods, with both temperatures and droughts being affected, Their favored method of suicide is also the only one readily available: drinking ome of the poisonous agricultural chemicals.
Good point about the effects in India. Same thing is happening in China as well, as jobs in the cities mean men leave the remote farms out in the hinterlands to go to work assembling iPhones or sewing t-shirts for the export trade. The women left behind may have trouble managing the farms, may be lonely, may struggle raising a kid, or for a thousand other reasons, may become despondent. There, too, drinking pesticide is a common method for suicide. A painful social problem on a massive scale in China and India.



User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: Suicide

#18

Post by mmmirele » Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:58 pm

Suicide is the leading cause of death for youth 10-17 in Utah.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/health/2018 ... design-it/

The article is depressing because interventions were identified in the 1990s and shown to reduce recidivism, which plays into this. But the legislature declined to keep funding it after 2009 and youth suicide rates went up. The same thing happened with an opioid intervention program in Utah. Shown to work, funding dried up now opioid abuse is on the rise.

I think the researchers also want to get to the bottom of whether LGBT youth in Utah are more prone to suicide.



User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3847
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Suicide: Why?

#19

Post by DejaMoo » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:09 pm

JohnPCapitalist wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:40 am

Not surprising at all. Not just farming, but the entire rural way of life is collapsing. That's true not just in the US but globally... for the first time, half the world's population lives in cities. That trend is unlikely to be reversed, for a whole host of reasons. In the US, only about 20% of the population lives in rural areas and the number of people in those areas is about the same as it was 100 years ago. Without population increase, the economies in those areas simply will not grow.
Then again, just as there are variations in urban areas, there are variations in rural areas, too:

The 3 Rural Americas Not all rural areas are declining: Some are thriving, while others are undergoing significant transitions.
The notion of a deep divide between thriving, affluent, and progressive urban areas and declining, impoverished, and conservative rural areas has become a central trope—if not the central trope—in American culture, especially since Donald Trump was elected. But not all of rural America is in decline. In fact, significant parts of it are thriving, while others have economies in transition. Understanding these distinctions is crucial to understanding the places that truly are in decline.

Chronically poor rural areas
Taken as a whole, this group of places lost nearly 14 percent of its population between 1990 and 2015, which is far worse than the 27-percent population gain of the nation as a whole...
Their median income is far below that of the nation as a whole, $30,000 versus $54,000...One in five adults does not have a high-school diploma...These persistently poor rural counties suffer from chronic joblessness as well... Drug addiction and abuse are more pervasive. Overall, the situation of these places is comparable to distressed and persistently poor inner-city neighborhoods.

Politically, these are the places that most closely conform to what we think of as Trump-voting rural areas. Sixty percent of the people living in chronically poor counties voted Republican in 2008, and 70 percent did so in 2016 (in rural communities overall, the numbers are 53 and 62 percent).

Transitioning rural areas
Deindustrialization has hurt these once robust, blue-collar, middle-class places, which were centered on agriculture, resource-based industries, and manufacturing. But, in contrast to the population loss of their chronically poor counterparts, transitioning rural counties have seen population growth—11 percent between 1990 and 2015...The median income in these communities is more than $51,000, just slightly lower than the national median. About a fifth of children live in poverty, also roughly the same as the country broadly.

Amenity-rich rural areas
These places are bestowed with natural amenities like mountains, lakes, and coastlines. As other research has confirmed, such natural advantages have allowed some rural communities to attract more affluent and educated residents and build more stable economies...Amenity-rich rural counties watched their population grow by nearly 20 percent between 1990 and 2015. And they actually gained adults between the ages of 25 and 34 over that period...These places’ median income is close to $46,000, which is lower than the national average and also that of transitioning places.
A very good comment on the article:
The authors are overcomplicating the issue. Jane Jacobs provided the framework for understanding the fate of rural areas over 50 years ago. If the geography in question is dependent on creating wealth by increasing the productivity of natural resources (land, mines, etc) then it is bound to depopulate over time. Her point was that in those circumstances, "rural economic development" is a contradiction in terms.

If, however, the geography has a set of assets that promotes economic diversification - such as educational institutions or tourism assets - then it can prosper by apply labor to leverage those assets. It can in fact grow.

That is the true division between rural and urban America. You basically urbanize or die.



User avatar
JohnPCapitalist
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:29 pm
Location: Wall Street
Occupation: Investment management in the financial industry. Deep knowledge of stocks, tech and economics.

Re: Suicide: Why?

#20

Post by JohnPCapitalist » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:43 pm

DejaMoo wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:09 pm

Then again, just as there are variations in urban areas, there are variations in rural areas, too:

The 3 Rural Americas Not all rural areas are declining: Some are thriving, while others are undergoing significant transitions.
  • Chronically poor rural areas: in other words, places that are screwed no matter what. Think: huge swaths of Appalachia. Once coal moves out, there is absolutely no reason for anything to move in to replace it. For example, why on Earth would I put a factory in Pikeville, Kentucky, heart of a major coal area? It's two hours from the nearest interstate, and 4 hours from the nearest major metro area. Don't even ask about scheduled jet air service, essential to getting highly skilled workers in and out. I could put the same factory an hour outside of Cincinnati, paying a little more up front for real estate but a lot less for transportation, a cost I have to pay every day that factory is open.
  • Transitioning rural areas: I'd be interested to see what percentage of rural population lives in these areas. It sounds like this is a bright spot but the cynic in me smells a rat. I bet a good chunk of these areas are gaining population as workers get squeezed out of nearby urban areas. One example are the rural counties in NE Pennyslvania in the Poconos that have lots of cheap subdivisions for people who commute 2 hours each way down Interstate 80 to jobs in New Jersey along the Interstate 287 corridor. The fact that wage growth is close to the national average suggests these are the new exurbs. Likely fate for this sort of place looks like that of Putnam County NY, north of Westchester County, and 50 miles north of the Bronx. Tons of blue collar folks such as ironworkers and pipefitters who worked in NYC moved up to new houses here in the 1970s and 1980s. There's no significant industrial base, and all the new residents demanded new schools. Residential property taxes are ludicrous, pushing housing prices down. When the economy goes down, foreclosures hit harder first at the edges of the urban area than closer in. Some of the examples they cite, like the Pac NW and New England are likely to be fueled by telecommuters who can work at home 3 days a week and commute into Portland, Boston or wherever once or twice a week -- far enough from the city to get cheap housing, but close enough to go in for a big meeting and cultural life when necessary. Not gonna happen in places like central Kansas, where there's not enough of a nearby urban area to capture population priced out of the city.
  • Amenity-rich rural areas: The tell here is that population is soaring but wages still lag materially behind the national average. In other words, rich people are buying second homes or highly paid knowledge workers are buying primary homes, and there are a lot of people working $10 an hour service jobs to take care of them. With the population growth, housing prices in those areas go up, squeezing the workers particularly hard. Even surgeons can't afford to live in Aspen any more. And baristas can't afford Moab, Durango, Sedona, and on and on and on. I would bet the relatively close parity in wages in these areas are due to telecommuters pulling the average up while service workers continue to struggle. And there just aren't that many counties with world-class tourism and residential amenities that haven't already been well developed. So I am far less sanguine on the prospects for these two segments than the article suggests.

A very good comment on the article:
The authors are overcomplicating the issue. Jane Jacobs provided the framework for understanding the fate of rural areas over 50 years ago. If the geography in question is dependent on creating wealth by increasing the productivity of natural resources (land, mines, etc) then it is bound to depopulate over time. Her point was that in those circumstances, "rural economic development" is a contradiction in terms.

If, however, the geography has a set of assets that promotes economic diversification - such as educational institutions or tourism assets - then it can prosper by apply labor to leverage those assets. It can in fact grow.

That is the true division between rural and urban America. You basically urbanize or die.
Yep, if you bring in tourism, you can grow. Business owners will prosper in tourist towns, and there will be jobs created for workers, but there's still enough labor pricing power that service workers aren't going to get rich. If that statement was from 50 years ago, it doesn't account for the labor pricing monopsony we're seeing today -- the economy is at full employment yet wages aren't growing as they have in every single expansion over the last hundred years. The deck has been thoroughly stacked against wage growth over the last 20 years and people are just now starting to realize that even with a tight skilled labor market, they're not getting raises. So the tourism-centric strategy is viable, but probably overstated.

The last sentence should be writ large, and should be required reading for all those coal miners who shun all those free state training classes in solar energy installation, computer repair or whatever, preferring to wait for their mining job to start up again.



Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”