[Surge0001]

I've been thinking about this lately, the rural poverty is a hold back for the state. There are two clear pockets of a severe poverty in Alabama, the western black belt, which encompasses the non metro area between Mobile, Tuscaloosa, and Montgomery. The other is the eastern black belt which encompasses the areas between Dothan, Auburn, and Montgomery. How would you solve the problem?

[k7baixo]

Heck, some of the smartest people in the US - just ask them - have been waging a war on poverty for years. In some parts of the country, the impact is negligible.

If I had the power, I’d offer incentives to at least finish high school and insure everyone has easy access to birth control. Insure there are mentors who can big buddy them through school also. Then, I’d encourage them to join the service and earn the GI Bill. It worked for me so there’s exactly one data point. Lol

[harry chickpea]

I wouldn't.

People want to live as they live. I've moved multiple times to better myself. One might as well suggest "How does one improve bars for alcoholics?" or "How does one convert a broker from Merrill Lynch into a egalitarian?"

The concept of gentrification denies the real issues of inequality. Gentrify rural areas and WTF do you do with those who live there???

Bluntly, the "problem" is one of rich News Yorkers thinking that everyone has to live THEIR lifestyle.

If you want to improve education in those areas, great. But don't pull that "I'm better than you!" crap. I ran into that in rural Vermont, where some of the most honest and down to earth people were passed over. I could tell you of real community and values that would make you weep. The destruction from drugs is an entirely different issue.

[Surge0001]

^some interesting responses


I've come up with an idea that may help with the western black belt. Although it may require throwing money at it until it works, so might not work out in the eyes of the generally conservative. I like the idea of having two corridors that are like Northwest Arkansas, a line of smaller cities that function intermittently without a specific dominant city. These two corridors would be Jackson-Pine Hill-Thomasville corridor and a Demopolis-Uniontown-Selma corridor. Both these corridors already have bones for growth, they just need to be utilized. Lucky both have a growing geographically center city: Pine Hill and Uniontown that can be utilized. Jackson-Pine Hill-Thomasville already acts like a NW Arkansas. Improving the infrastructure would likely be a big economic boost. I-14 creation and Highway 84 expansion are big projects that need to be done for access to Northwest, Southeast (as well as allow more commuter capabilities for Chotaw and Monroe counties) as well as direct access to Tuscaloosa (and therefore Birmingham) as well Montgomery. The state can also stimulate growth by having more government operations happen in the area or by providing more tax breaks for new companies that locate there


Demopolis-Uniontown-Selma may be a little harder to create that mini cities working together vibe given several reasons. The distance is pretty significant, as well as Selma being in the sphere of influence of Montgomery. Frankly you could just leave out Selma. Demopolis-Uniontown growth would be a significant improvement for the area, the growth of this area is very important as these two cities have spheres of influence within 2 of the 3 poorest counties in the state and a handful of less but still high poverty states. With the possible future I-14 as a possible heartbeat for the area. This area would also require some more spending money until it works kind of deal. Once again put more government contracts into the area as well as provide tax cuts as incentives for companies to move it.

[MinivanDriver]

Take the Federal government's Medicaid expansion money for one. The lack of rural healthcare is appalling in this state, and the fact that Alabama government won't take untold millions to help rural Alabamians is equally so.

Second, incentivize junior colleges in rural counties with an incentive on technical training. Given that we're likely at the beginning of a reshoring boom in this country, a lot of that industry coming back to the country will need trained workers.



Third, target specific industries well suited to rural locations for heavy recruitment. Counterintuitively, automation makes it now cheaper to produce textiles in the United States than it is in Bangladesh.


Beyond that? Not much else can be done. It's not like you can reverse a long, long demographic trend overnight.

[dijkstra]

I would either do absolutely nothing because you can't help those that won't help themselves. On the other hand we could stop enabling them to not help themselves. W could put caps on length of time you can be on government assistance programs including food stamps and government housing. If you stop giving them a crutch to lean on, they will walk without it.

It is really pointless to debate though because the millennial generation is all about trying to give hand outs and make everyone equal. They are the participation trophy generation. As they become the ones influencing policy more over the next decade or two, there are going to be more government assistance and then higher taxes to pay for them. The easier policies and programs make it to get by without having to work for it, the more people will be on it and stay on it. We are already starting to see the beginning of that culture now.

[EscAlaMike]

You have multiple generations of people who have lived without a traditional family structure or a work ethic, and dependent on government funds. The pop culture materialism that pervades those communities is also a big problem.

You have to somehow incentivize the strengthening of the nuclear family and eliminate free government money programs.

[Surge0001]

Originally Posted by dijkstra

I would either do absolutely nothing because you can't help those that won't help themselves. On the other hand we could stop enabling them to not help themselves. W could put caps on length of time you can be on government assistance programs including food stamps and government housing. If you stop giving them a crutch to lean on, they will walk without it.

It is really pointless to debate though because the millennial generation is all about trying to give hand outs and make everyone equal. They are the participation trophy generation. As they become the ones influencing policy more over the next decade or two, there are going to be more government assistance and then higher taxes to pay for them. The easier policies and programs make it to get by without having to work for it, the more people will be on it and stay on it. We are already starting to see the beginning of that culture now.

Yea I’m beginning to think you don’t have an actual grasp rural/generation poverty

[Surge0001]

Originally Posted by EscAlaMike

You have multiple generations of people who have lived without a traditional family structure or a work ethic, and dependent on government funds. The pop culture materialism that pervades those communities is also a big problem.

You have to somehow incentivize the strengthening of the nuclear family and eliminate free government money programs.

The issue is that these counties don’t have jobs and they don’t have the money to move. I’m not sure how much actually receive government money, but I’m sure it would detrimental for them not to have it, if they can’t find a job in these rural counties

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by k7baixo

Heck, some of the smartest people in the US - just ask them - have been waging a war on poverty for years. In some parts of the country, the impact is negligible.

If I had the power, I’d offer incentives to at least finish high school and insure everyone has easy access to birth control. Insure there are mentors who can big buddy them through school also. Then, I’d encourage them to join the service and earn the GI Bill. It worked for me so there’s exactly one data point. Lol

Excellent suggestions!