Trifecta of opioids, alcohol and suicide are blamed for the drop in U.S. life expectancy

[91 seconds]

It's when you have to mix for a fix is the death nail. They send people to jail just enough to get rid of their tolerance and be clean. The first thing they do is go back to mom and dad's because the have no other place to go. They soon relapse and the tolerance level is not what it used to be. I've seen the death of a few friends and I'm in rural America.

 

[Lord Coke]

First off, many of the solutions your own article cites as helpful here are things Democrats support(promote education, boost support for children and families, invest in distressed communities, and strengthen healthcare and behavioral health systems ).

Second, when it comes to talking about the pathology of the urban black community many conservatives boil the issue down to culture. Do you think its possible culture is at fault here too? Its not exactly a secret that alcohol and opiods are bad for you and yet they can't break the cycle.

I don't think the Dems are really serious about addressing these issues in rural white America. Obama and Clinton were not exactly huge advocates for the working man. They may play lip service to helping out the working class but let's be honest what did they really do? Culture can't be that big of a componet of this. What really happened is bunch of drug pushes decided to act under color of authority as doctors and pharmacists to get a lot of people addicted to opiates while their buddies lobbied congress to send their jobs overseas. I really think is is a concerted effort to break their traditional culture and keep the rural white American down and dependent on government. And the Dems did just as much as anyone to make sure that happened.

You should watch "The Trade" it is a documentary on Showtime about the heroin trade. It horrible. It documents how the Mexican cartels take advangtage of our open borders to ship drugs into our streets and then shows the impact of heroin in Ohio.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

Interesting points;

Liberals have made quite a few policies that have impacted rural communities in negative ways.
While being portrayed as, and driven by a morality, the rational portions of these policies are quite questionable:

For example: An overzealous and rushed commitment to climate change has seemingly skipped the R&D process and strategic planning in creating a renewable energy infrastructure large enough to replace coal and instead, forced actions have occurred harming rural communities
-(in terms of job opportunities, an increased cost to energy bills, etc.).
Many actions taken by the liberals were premature
(such as completely attacking the coal industry through regulations, as opposed to a graceful paradigm shift out of the industry)
-Why rush to cease use of coal when the renewable, green energy infrastructure has not proven to be large enough yet to replace coal?
The Coal mining industry has an average age of 45, an industry that is relatively old and set to be obsolete and yet not quite ready to be fully replaced.
--Climate change is an issue but this should have been managed much better, the rushed energy regulations have left a major employment void in areas like W. Virginia, which have been linked to the opioid crisis.

With respects to the federal minimum wage policy, that is arguably more of a detriment than a benefit to the local rural communities.
A state-wide minimum wage can more easily factor in local municipalities, and their respective costs of living much better than a grand scale federal minimum wage increase can.
*State rule over Federal rule is a staple in Republican Policy*
-Increased wages to unskilled labor = increased labor costs> fewer jobs & increased cost of living
These grand scale, federal policies sound admirable but are only feasible major urban areas, and prove that many liberal policies are geared more around urban impoverished, as opposed to a holistic solution.

While many liberal policies seemingly make an attempt to address poverty and the hourly/work obsolescence; the spending is too widespread and seemingly futile as the funds are not used to address root causes of these issues (not enough relevant skills held by US Citizens)
-some ideas for skill growth and aiding in citizen self-sustainment are, major public education reform; subsidizing state schools to better compete with the private ones, etc.)... while just ideas, both parties need to commit to this.
I will say Both parties are accountable to fine tune their plans during this transition phase
-But the safety net, will seemingly exacerbate a culture of dependency due to being more of a band-aid, symptom fix... the additional spending of these safety nets will only take away from the long term federal capability of aiding its citizens(debt interest payments rise, healthcare gets more expensive, etc.)
--I'd rather do a big investment on a true solution.

Trump and the GOP has made efforts to bring back and maintain corporations in America; making the corporate tax rate competitive, and publicly calling out businesses for implementing foreign worker investment as opposed to domestic ones. I imagine a policy of domestic employment will be implemented and incentivized

As for marginalization of rural people; I can tell you from much of my experience, many in the NE have truly negative opinions of Rural America.
Also, take a look at the MSM voices, poor rural whites are the butt of most jokes.
-Higher education has become a social currency to which anyone without a college degree is simply viewed as a lower status citizen of little value. This prejudice is omnipresent and even being spoken out loud in the current political forum ("basket of deplorables" - H. Clinton).

Most states, including those that are largely rural, have a minimum wage that surpasses the Federally mandated minimum of $7.25.

The tilt away from coal has been naturally driven, not by legislation and not by promotion of green energy as much as a natural gas surge (Natural gas and renewable energy production also employ folks in largely rural areas.) Coal is dying on its own, hence why Trump hasn’t been able to deliver on his promises to the coal industry.

Really, your post is almost all “phooey.”

 

[HIMBOB]

The Stream Protection Rule (2017)- recently removed by Trump. had a "rigorous" associated actions
-"'requires companies to restore streams and to return mined areas to the uses they were capable of supporting prior to mining activities, and to also replant these areas with native trees and vegetation,' the Interior Department had said. Companies would furthermore have to test and monitor the conditions of streams that might be affected by the mining activity"

Various regulations have led to increased EPA Permit requirements; the permit process has become arduous with no significant effects to improving mining(in terms of public health)

Coal ash waste regulations - the EPA's overzealous attempt to reduce exposure of coal ash to surface water though no effects were found in nearby residential areas.
-"Coal combustion Products (CCPs) represent a valuable resource to our economy and environment. The beneficial reuse of CCPs annually adds between $6.4 and $11.4 billion in economic benefits to our economy. On the environmental front, recycling of CCPs reduced U.S. GHG emissions by 11 million tons, reduced energy consumption by 162 trillion BTUs, and reduced water consumption by 32 billion gallons in 2007. Government regulators and scientists have stated repeatedly that regulation of coal ash as "toxic" or "hazardous" under Subtitle C of RCRA is "unwarranted.”

As far as renewable energy being cheaper; in the future it will be and coal is a dying industry; but sharp increases in costs (via regulations) will only speed up the process, costing jobs, when better management of this transition is needed.
-That's the real point in my statement. I'd rather a domestic spending program focused on growing the renewable energy sector and hiring hourly workers in doing that.

Mine site remediation is very common and requires miners to absorb the costs associated with their mines rather than externalism them to the tax payer. It's not punitive it's a roll back of tax payer assistance.

Protecting water sources is again not punitive it's a pollution control. I am a firm believer in the concept that pollution should not be free.

As to CCP, "

• The majority of CCPs are landfilled, placed in mine shafts or stored on site at coal-fired power plants. About 43 percent of CCPs were recycled for "beneficial uses," in 2008, according to the American Coal Ash Association.[2] The chief benefit of recycling is to stabilize the environmental harmful components of the CCPs such as arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum,selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds.[3][4]"

I can see a need for controls in anything that involves arsenic, lead and mercury entering the water table.



I appreciate the information you supplied but it dies not change my opinion that Obama's regulations were a roll back of coal miner tax payer assistance. If the industry quickly collapses without a tax payer prop up it means that the industry has been on life support for a long time.

If you want to support the adoption of clean renewables a good first step is not subsidising the costs of its competitors.

 

[panamaican]

Interesting points;

Liberals have made quite a few policies that have impacted rural communities in negative ways.
While being portrayed as, and driven by a morality, the rational portions of these policies are quite questionable:

For example: An overzealous and rushed commitment to climate change has seemingly skipped the R&D process and strategic planning in creating a renewable energy infrastructure large enough to replace coal and instead, forced actions have occurred harming rural communities
-(in terms of job opportunities, an increased cost to energy bills, etc.).
Many actions taken by the liberals were premature
(such as completely attacking the coal industry through regulations, as opposed to a graceful paradigm shift out of the industry)
-Why rush to cease use of coal when the renewable, green energy infrastructure has not proven to be large enough yet to replace coal?
The Coal mining industry has an average age of 45, an industry that is relatively old and set to be obsolete and yet not quite ready to be fully replaced.
--Climate change is an issue but this should have been managed much better, the rushed energy regulations have left a major employment void in areas like W. Virginia, which have been linked to the opioid crisis.

With respects to the federal minimum wage policy, that is arguably more of a detriment than a benefit to the local rural communities.
A state-wide minimum wage can more easily factor in local municipalities, and their respective costs of living much better than a grand scale federal minimum wage increase can.
*State rule over Federal rule is a staple in Republican Policy*
-Increased wages to unskilled labor = increased labor costs> fewer jobs & increased cost of living
These grand scale, federal policies sound admirable but are only feasible major urban areas, and prove that many liberal policies are geared more around urban impoverished, as opposed to a holistic solution.

While many liberal policies seemingly make an attempt to address poverty and the hourly/work obsolescence; the spending is too widespread and seemingly futile as the funds are not used to address root causes of these issues (not enough relevant skills held by US Citizens)
-some ideas for skill growth and aiding in citizen self-sustainment are, major public education reform; subsidizing state schools to better compete with the private ones, etc.)... while just ideas, both parties need to commit to this.
I will say Both parties are accountable to fine tune their plans during this transition phase
-But the safety net, will seemingly exacerbate a culture of dependency due to being more of a band-aid, symptom fix... the additional spending of these safety nets will only take away from the long term federal capability of aiding its citizens(debt interest payments rise, healthcare gets more expensive, etc.)
--I'd rather do a big investment on a true solution.

Trump and the GOP has made efforts to bring back and maintain corporations in America; making the corporate tax rate competitive, and publicly calling out businesses for implementing foreign worker investment as opposed to domestic ones. I imagine a policy of domestic employment will be implemented and incentivized

As for marginalization of rural people; I can tell you from much of my experience, many in the NE have truly negative opinions of Rural America.
Also, take a look at the MSM voices, poor rural whites are the butt of most jokes.
-Higher education has become a social currency to which anyone without a college degree is simply viewed as a lower status citizen of little value. This prejudice is omnipresent and even being spoken out loud in the current political forum ("basket of deplorables" - H. Clinton).

I'm going to shrink your post down to it's bare basics - Because liberals have a perceived disregard for the flyover states and their population, you are not going to analyze the entirety of the economic crisis facing rural America.

Your entire post points to things the liberals supposedly have done to the detriment of rural America without a moment's attention to the decades of GOP policy and its effects. Of course, if you look at some specific liberal policy then liberals deserve some blame. But if you look at specific GOP policy and the GOP policy foundation and their intended policy direction, they deserve the vast majority of the blame.

To equate the two is a false equivalency.

I like the umbrella GOP policy direction and I don't particularly care that it hurts rural communities or inner city communities because I think those communities need to evolve. But whenever I see people claim that liberal policy is the cause of rural community failings just because liberals don't like rural America, I know that I'm reading a childish argument that has no relationship to the actual economic policies of the country.

What do you think hurts rural America more - The end of factories or climate change legislation? Before you answer, think about how many different types of factories left and why they left then think about what would have made them stay.

Do you really think that minimum wage legislation hurts rural communities? Before you answer think about what outsourced labor makes in some 3rd world country and how low our wage floor would have to be in order to compete with that.

Do you really think rural America would turn down their medicare, medicaid and food stamps if the trade off was the liberals started saying nice things about them?

It's economics, not a popularity contest. Who cares if they like you if they're screwing you over and who cares if they don't like you, if they're protecting your general economic position?

 

[K1levelgrappler]

White rurals voted for Trump hoping for healthcare legislation that would cut funding for dealing with the opioid crisis because they lust for the sweet release of a fentanyl overdose.

Shrug. Maybe it's for the best. These people are too dumb to live.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't think the Dems are really serious about addressing these issues in rural white America. Obama and Clinton were not exactly huge advocates for the working man. They may play lip service to helping out the working class but let's be honest what did they really do?

Part of Obama's strategy in moving the US away from fossil fuels was retraining programs offered to coal communities. However, these communities did not take to them too well because they possessed a sense of entitlement generated by the coal jobs of their forefathers and so they crossed their fingers and hoped coal would come back. Trump of course was playing right to them but are his solutions good long term ones? Seems like retraining for the fields of the future would be better but you know what they say, you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink

Culture can't be that big of a componet of this. What really happened is bunch of drug pushes decided to act under color of authority as doctors and pharmacists to get a lot of people addicted to opiates while their buddies lobbied congress to send their jobs overseas. I really think is is a concerted effort to break their traditional culture and keep the rural white American down and dependent on government. And the Dems did just as much as anyone to make sure that happened.

You should watch "The Trade" it is a documentary on Showtime about the heroin trade. It horrible. It documents how the Mexican cartels take advangtage of our open borders to ship drugs into our streets and then shows the impact of heroin in Ohio.

If you don't think culture is an issue problem here do you feel the same about urban poverty? If not, what's the difference?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Population density is an issue. I have made that argument before, but I would disagree with the claim that urban areas are poorer than parts of Appalachia, where some live without running water.

I didn't claim that urban areas are poorer, I claimed that they have higher inequality. Even if the floor is higher the ceiling in the cities is exponentially higher given that's where most wealth is generated. Inequality correlates with violence more than poverty.

What do I think is the reason for the violence in urban areas vs rural areas?
Obviously, poverty and population density are part of it, as well as certain cultural factors that keep the cycle of violence alive. Families are broken, both by their own choice(single mothers get more $ if no father lives in home) and because of fathers being incarcerated for their crimes, which leads to young boys looking for role models and a sense of family. They find that in gangs, which are by their nature, extremely violent.

Do you think cultural factors also help explain the cycle of poverty in rural America such as in Appalachia?

 

[Lord Coke]

Part of Obama's strategy in moving the US away from fossil fuels was retraining programs offered to coal communities. However, these communities did not take to them too well because they possessed a sense of entitlement generated by the coal jobs of their forefathers and so they crossed their fingers and hoped coal would come back. Trump of course was playing right to them but are his solutions good long term ones? Seems like retraining for the fields of the future would be better but you know what they say, you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink

If you don't think culture is an issue problem here do you feel the same about urban poverty? If not, what's the difference?

read Thomas Sowell. The current nature of the welfare state is the direct cause of black poverty. It destroyed the black nuclear family and created the culture that we see right now. Not the other way around.

Blacks were better off in the 1950s. Their women did not have their current obesity problems and
http://yourblackworld.net/2013/03/0...rse-off-today-than-in-the-1960s-report-shows/

In 1950, 17 percent of African-American children lived in a home with their mother but not their father. By 2010 that had increased to 50 percent. In 1965, only eight percent of childbirths in the Black community occurred out-of-wedlock. In 2010 that figure was 41 percent; and today, the out-of-wedlock childbirth in the Black community sits at an astonishing 72 percent. The number of African-American women married and living with their spouse was recorded as 53 percent in 1950. By 2010, it had dropped to 25 percent.

The nuclear family is the core of a functioning society If you don't have a strong man to lead the household everything falls a part. Socialism in its current model replaces the husband with the state for financial stability. The drug laws do much of the rest by putting young black males in jail at the age where they should be learning a trade. All the while they are not forced to work so they themselves can get by on some benefits.

I am not per se against social welfare of some sort but the current model has been proven to fail.

The problems in rural America are different than in the urban black community but there are similarities.

 

[Islam Imamate]

read Thomas Sowell. The current nature of the welfare state is the direct cause of black poverty. It destroyed the black nuclear family and created the culture that we see right now. Not the other way around.

Blacks were better off in the 1950s. Their women did not have their current obesity problems and
http://yourblackworld.net/2013/03/0...rse-off-today-than-in-the-1960s-report-shows/


The nuclear family is the core of a functioning society If you don't have a strong man to lead the household everything falls a part. Socialism in its current model replaces the husband with the state for financial stability. The drug laws do much of the rest by putting young black males in jail at the age where they should be learning a trade. All the while they are not forced to work so they themselves can get by on some benefits.

I am not per se against social welfare of some sort but the current model has been proven to fail.

Okay so its not about culture but government policy, specifically the welfare state and the War on Drugs. I can agree with some of that I suppose. I also think the waning of manufacturing hit the urban black community hard and I do find it odd that those who lament the effects globalization have had on American manufacturing and the communities dependent on it don't invoke the case of the urban black community more often.

 

[Higus]

read Thomas Sowell.

 

[mixcontactsport]

lol, You don't have to speak for the poor Majority White people, they can speak for themselves. White People have this thing called a platform, you know, some race don't even have it..

 

[ManCityFC9]

Most states, including those that are largely rural, have a minimum wage that surpasses the Federally mandated minimum of $7.25.

The tilt away from coal has been naturally driven, not by legislation and not by promotion of green energy as much as a natural gas surge (Natural gas and renewable energy production also employ folks in largely rural areas.) Coal is dying on its own, hence why Trump hasn’t been able to deliver on his promises to the coal industry.

Really, your post is almost all “phooey.”

My point on Minimum wage is the democrats agenda for federally mandated $15 an hour... too broad of an approach, and more of a tactic to garner votes... only the urban impoverished can attain that.

As far as coal, the two examples of regulations I listed have attacked coal in a harmful way.
-I agree natural gas is cheaper and is the main replacement of coal, but why add regulations that are false in their research, and speed up the transition of coal obsolescence, as oppose to aiding in job training programs to those affected areas of america?

bad mismanagement of risk and an overzealous Environmentalist agenda IMO

 

[ManCityFC9]

Mine site remediation is very common and requires miners to absorb the costs associated with their mines rather than externalism them to the tax payer. It's not punitive it's a roll back of tax payer assistance.

Protecting water sources is again not punitive it's a pollution control. I am a firm believer in the concept that pollution should not be free.

As to CCP, "

• The majority of CCPs are landfilled, placed in mine shafts or stored on site at coal-fired power plants. About 43 percent of CCPs were recycled for "beneficial uses," in 2008, according to the American Coal Ash Association.[2] The chief benefit of recycling is to stabilize the environmental harmful components of the CCPs such as arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum,selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds.[3][4]"

I can see a need for controls in anything that involves arsenic, lead and mercury entering the water table.



I appreciate the information you supplied but it dies not change my opinion that Obama's regulations were a roll back of coal miner tax payer assistance. If the industry quickly collapses without a tax payer prop up it means that the industry has been on life support for a long time.

If you want to support the adoption of clean renewables a good first step is not subsidising the costs of its competitors.

For renewables, "not subsidizing its competitors" - seems like a common sense first step but for an industry like Coal I disagree with current tactics(regulations)
-Initially the larger scale approach for renewables was geared toward the demand side(energy efficient bulbs, insulation techniques and devices/products, and tax breaks for "getting cleaner", for a lack of a better term)
-my issue is that piling up regulations and speeding up the obsolescence of Coal(which is currently getting replaced by natural gas), does not result in a complete solution
--the demand for coal is naturally subsiding, but how are you assuring that those employed in that industry are receiving training and finding other jobs within the (energy) sector?

Basically the regulations are coming too early and are not even providing conclusive evidence in their justification. It would behoove the US to begin training programs for these areas which are also gaining in renewable energy investment.

Investment in renewable energy is the strategy to take.
AND it has been taken; I only call for a more balanced approach for this transition.

I ran into this article on a program that is aiding W.VA and Wyoming('coal country') move into the future.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/business/energy-environment/coal-alternative-energy-jobs.html

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

LOL WHAT??? they talk about it all the time on msnbc and npr. It's all over buzzfeed, mtv, gawker, vox. It's absolutely everywhere. You're just not paying attention

I don't think rural white people read buzzfeed, gawker or vox. Or listen to npr.

 

[Der Eisbär]

I don't think rural white people read buzzfeed, gawker or vox. Or listen to npr.

Public radio has a large presence in the midwest. I've done extended periods of work in ND and Nebraska, so I can attest to that.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Its an urban issue more so because urban areas are more dense and have higher inequality so of course they also have more violence. But I'm curious, what do you think the problem with urban areas is?

Its actually the opposite, there are fewer reasons for rural communities to be violent than urban ones which is why they are. Population density and income inequality are factors that influence violence and cities have them in spades compared to rural areas.

There are also a lot of rural black communities and poor white urban areas, but I can't find meaningful data about their violence levels. I think it's a bit stupid to compare Detroit with some hillbilly town, but maybe somebody can find a better comparison by checking the data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...African-American_majority_populations_in_2000
Check the places with fewer than 25,000 people


All in all, I don't think the opioid crisis has anything to do with economics, it's just that doctors started to prescribe it for everything and that causes addiction and people then go for illegal opioids and self medicate. It's also important to note blacks still die sooner than whites, while latinos live longer, while being poorer than both. Which means given enough time the USA will be latino like the rest of the continent.

 

[ManCityFC9]

I'm going to shrink your post down to it's bare basics - Because liberals have a perceived disregard for the flyover states and their population, you are not going to analyze the entirety of the economic crisis facing rural America.

Your entire post points to things the liberals supposedly have done to the detriment of rural America without a moment's attention to the decades of GOP policy and its effects. Of course, if you look at some specific liberal policy then liberals deserve some blame. But if you look at specific GOP policy and the GOP policy foundation and their intended policy direction, they deserve the vast majority of the blame.

To equate the two is a false equivalency.

I like the umbrella GOP policy direction and I don't particularly care that it hurts rural communities or inner city communities because I think those communities need to evolve. But whenever I see people claim that liberal policy is the cause of rural community failings just because liberals don't like rural America, I know that I'm reading a childish argument that has no relationship to the actual economic policies of the country.

What do you think hurts rural America more - The end of factories or climate change legislation? Before you answer, think about how many different types of factories left and why they left then think about what would have made them stay.

Do you really think that minimum wage legislation hurts rural communities? Before you answer think about what outsourced labor makes in some 3rd world country and how low our wage floor would have to be in order to compete with that.

Do you really think rural America would turn down their medicare, medicaid and food stamps if the trade off was the liberals started saying nice things about them?

It's economics, not a popularity contest. Who cares if they like you if they're screwing you over and who cares if they don't like you, if they're protecting your general economic position?

I think your basics of my points are a bit off; in my response to the OP, I did say SOME of the blame has been on liberal policies;
I'd hate for you to think that you are engaged in a childish discussion, if you feel that way, then you simply shouldn't respond.
-My disposition on the distaste liberal voters have on rural America does not change though;
(just too many examples, from the media, comedic-political pundits, and personal experience)... while trivial in your opinion, this distaste does influence how much help is provided to rural America.
Is it better to give healthcare and food stamps, rather than get these people to some state of employment and self sustainment?
Personally, I am not a proponent for growing and maintaining the welfare state.

Now to address your points:
Both factory closures and overzealous climate control policies have hurt rural America. Natural technological evolution plays a part in this too.
-The trade deals have lead to many factory closures, and the latest regulations have been speeding up the obsolescence of these industries without enough focused efforts to get these same employees into different industries or a different part of the same (energy, in this case) sector.
'Permanent Normal Trade Relations' (Bill Clinton's agenda 1998) is argued to be the single most, detrimental piece of legislation (it was a mod to the Trade act of '74) for manufacturing/factory in the US.(Manufacturing is one of the top 4 jobs outsourced today)

As far as outsourcing services(call centers, human resources, and IT are the examples I'll use (3 of the top 4).
While you may hope shareholders to be empathetic, the fact of the matter is the multi-national prospects' of a larger, global, market share, leads many "U.S." companies to outsource to these other areas, as well as the cheaper labor. Taxing corporations will NOT stop this and will lead to headquarter movement.
-I'll say that if there is somehow an "acceptable" legislation, that won't lead to more companies leaving the US, I'm all for it, but these types of jobs are just too hard to compete with (i.e. India and China's Cost of living are too low, compared to the US)
--Caps on H1-B visa's(significant to the IT industry), and reforming the skill set of Americans via education are two (1 short term, 1 long term) solutions, for some of this outsourcing.

The aforementioned points were to further my disposition on how liberal policies over the past 2 decades have led, IN PART, to today's issues. I reiterate, both parties are to blame, but each have their own broader objectives that are hurting rural America (Corporate profits and globalization (leading to unbalanced trade agreements and costly visa programs))

I always find that many discussion lead to an education and skill set deficiency in the US;
in this particular instance, affordable 4+ year college education in these rural regions may not be a viable solution, but job training, certificate programs, etc. in various job sectors that are growing in these rural regions is what is important here, and my overall point. Slow down the regulations for the interim.

As far as IT and outsourcing... America's skill set has to grow, followed by some clever legislation to incentivize hiring domestically.
-A high, federally imposed, minimum wage will not help.

 

[lifelessheap]

read Thomas Sowell. The current nature of the welfare state is the direct cause of black poverty. It destroyed the black nuclear family and created the culture that we see right now. Not the other way around.

Blacks were better off in the 1950s. Their women did not have their current obesity problems and
http://yourblackworld.net/2013/03/0...rse-off-today-than-in-the-1960s-report-shows/


The nuclear family is the core of a functioning society If you don't have a strong man to lead the household everything falls a part. Socialism in its current model replaces the husband with the state for financial stability. The drug laws do much of the rest by putting young black males in jail at the age where they should be learning a trade. All the while they are not forced to work so they themselves can get by on some benefits.

I am not per se against social welfare of some sort but the current model has been proven to fail.

The problems in rural America are different than in the urban black community but there are similarities.

Welfare is poison. It destroys families, and then that destroys communities which then destroys the entire culture. It has been most destructive for black people who were directly targeted when they were most vulnerable. It is tragic, and perhaps the worst part is politicians refuse to even talk about the problem. You are called a "racist" if you address the issue of the failed nuclear family in black communities.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

There are also a lot of rural black communities and poor white urban areas, but I can't find meaningful data about their violence levels. I think it's a bit stupid to compare Detroit with some hillbilly town, but maybe somebody can find a better comparison by checking the data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...African-American_majority_populations_in_2000
Check the places with fewer than 25,000 people


All in all, I don't think the opioid crisis has anything to do with economics, it's just that doctors started to prescribe it for everything and that causes addiction and people then go for illegal opioids and self medicate. It's also important to note blacks still die sooner than whites, while latinos live longer, while being poorer than both. Which means given enough time the USA will be latino like the rest of the continent.

Actually, poor white urban areas have been pretty much done away with. I guess you can find some small pockets here and there but they're mostly gone. White urban poverty was a thing until about the mid-20th century. Then they were slowly replaced by minorities of all colors, first black, then brown.

White poverty is almost strictly a rural phenomenon now. Suburban at most.

As for the latino health thing, it's puzzling and has been researched by public health experts for years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_paradox

The bad news? These relatively high levels of health start deteriorating as they assimilate more and more into American society. So the foreign-born have good health, less so the 2nd generation, and even less so the 3rd generation and on.

So immigrants actually improve the overall health of Americans. Being in the US actually drags them down.

(In before the "Good, since they have such good health, they should stay in their countries then!" comments)