I think the most important thing here is the difference in outlook. The people in this story lived their lives with the assumption that they will live the same lives as their parents. This hasn't been true since the industrial revolution (>80% of people working in agriculture shrunk to ~2%). This reminds me of British coal-workers striking over layoffs, even though they would receive the same paycheck for life if they were laid off. Their rationale is that they were striking for their children's future jobs in the coal mine. That just struck me as depressing, that parents just assumed that their kids' lot in lives would be a coal miner just like them. Maybe this is the immigrant mentality that people talk about, but
Cheering the deal might check a political box for the president, but getting hired by the buyer would probably mean making $11 an hour, he said, a wage he last made in his early 20s. “It would be back to square one after 25 years in the plant,” he said.
Rick seems to be following the same line of thinking. The notion of working in a different industry just doesn't seem to be considered.
This is probably one of the best times in recent history to start looking for a job. Unemployment is at record lows, and growth is fairly strong. I think the biggest issue here isn't layoffs, it's people putting their sense of identity into their job instead of viewing it as a transaction. 80% of employees at the beginning of the 20th century worked in industries that are either non-existent or drastically smaller by the end of the 20th century. I see no reason why we should expect the 21st century to be any different. Rick's assumption that he would work in the same industry as his father for the entirety of his life seems to be the biggest culprit here, not NAFTA.
Part of it is an identity thing, part of it is an age thing, but part of it too is a location thing. When plants like this out in the literal middle-of-nowhere close, entire towns die. You might suggest that people just move, but what if they have a mortgage on a house that's suddenly worthless? And that's not even factoring in the "soft" costs of losing your community and possibly moving away from family. Given the U.S.'s aversion to social welfare, people end up stuck without any options.
Entire towns disappearing is a normal state of affairs.
Hundreds of workers have already transferred. His nephew packed up his family and moved to Flint. The alternative, working on natural gas wells in Pennsylvania, paid him $13 an hour, about half what he was making at G.M.
You might suggest that people just move, but what if they have a mortgage on a house that's suddenly worthless?
Then he should blame his situation on his own gamble on real-estate speculation, and not NAFTA.
And that's not even factoring in the "soft" costs of losing your community and possibly moving away from family.
My whole point is, the emphasis on these "soft" factors are what's holding him back. When you move, you don't "lose" community, you swap them out for a different one. Moving away from family may be challenging, but it's probably worse to not have a job.
Given the U.S.'s aversion to social welfare, people end up stuck without any options.
I don't think lack of welfare is an issue here:
G.M. is a lifeline for Mr. Marsh, too. It will pay him a pension, a rare thing in today’s economy. He may have given up raises, but he gets a share of the company’s profits — last year, about $10,000. Under the union contract, he gets payments to supplement his unemployment check, and his family still has health insurance
Ohio unemployment benefits pay half of weekly wages up to $424. Rick would be receiving $424 if $26 per hour was his wages while he was employed. So he's getting $22,000 per year in unemployment plus $10,000 from his GM pension on top of that. Is getting $32,000 per year in pension and unemployment benefits considered bad welfare? He's getting about 2/3 of his income while he was employed in unemployment benefits. Probably more if you take taxes into account. And health insurance. And the "payments to supplement his unemployment check" that the article doesn't explain in detail.
There's a good chance that abundant welfare is why he isn't looking for work. If he took the $13 and hour job in Pennsylvania he may lose more in benefits than he'd be gaining in wages. I wouldn't blame him if this were the case, but the fact that our welfare system is actively discouraging people from seeking employment is the messed up part of this situation. Not the fact that manufacturing jobs are moving because of globalization.
Then he should blame his situation on his own gamble on real-estate speculation, and not NAFTA.
Not everything is SV property greed. What if this person bought the home so he could just have a place to live? Not everybody buys a home with the intention of making money. Some just want a stable home for their kids.
My whole point is, the emphasis on these "soft" factors are what's holding him back. When you move, you don't "lose" community, you swap them out for a different one. Moving away from family may be challenging, but it's probably worse to not have a job.
In general your family is always better than a job. When you are on your death bed I can guarantee you that your boss won't be there holding your hand.
I wouldn't blame him if this were the case, but the fact that our welfare system is actively discouraging people from seeking employment is the messed up part of this situation.
Then how do you explain our current low unemployment numbers? If anything it appears working is preferred over our welfare system. Many people want purpose and want to work.
Not everything is SV property greed. What if this person bought the home so he could just have a place to live? Not everybody buys a home with the intention of making money. Some just want a stable home for their kids.
If you're buying a home on credit, then you're speculating on real estate. Whether or not your intent is to turn a profit is besides the point. If someone wants a home, then can rent or buy a home that they can afford with cash. You don't need to buy a house on credit to find a home.
In general your family is always better than a job. When you are on your death bed I can guarantee you that your boss won't be there holding your hand.
If you don't have a job then it's hard to provide a good life for your family. You won't have anyone holding your hand on your deathbed if you can't provide for you family and your wife and kids have to leave you to find a man that can. The strain of having to move away from cousins, aunts, etc. is drastically less than not having a job - at least in my view of things. The example in the article isn't even moving very far - literally the neighboring state. Rick and his family could easily see their extended family on the holidays if they wanted to.
Then how do you explain our current low unemployment numbers? If anything it appears working is preferred over our welfare system. Many people want purpose and want to work.
Unemployment tracks people who are looking for work but cannot find a job. If people stop looking for work, then they are no longer counted as unemployed. This is consistent with the fact that we're seeing low unemployment but also lower labor participation rates. Granted, lower labor participation is at least in part due to other factors like an ageing population.
There are only a couple places were their daughter's condition is mentioned:
Then, when Rick Marsh got the biggest test of his life — the birth of his beloved daughter, Abigail, and her diagnosis of cerebral palsy at the age of one — his job became a central part of how he saw himself. He was her provider, her protector. That was his worth in the world.
Or he could transfer to another G.M. plant sooner, but he hates that idea. His biggest worry is for his daughter, Abby, now 14. He and his wife have spent years fighting to get her services in Ohio, aides in school and coverage under Medicaid. Moving would be wrenching.
Nowhere does it state that aides in school or overage under Medicaid would be lost if he moved. If anything I suspect that services would be better in an economically healthy town that has a better tax base.
TBH, someone at this age who has spent 25 years in a pipeline probably realizes that, unfortunately, no one in this market wants to hire older folks -- especially with no relevant experience.
"No relevant experience" is a highly pessimistic outlook. This man has demonstrated an ability to hold down a steady job for decades. That alone puts him ahead of many people that simply lack the ability to hold down a job. Working at an auto plant results in skills with with operating industrial machinery. After 25 years he's probably been put in a leadership position, or at least a mentorship position to train new hires. This demonstrates good communication and teamwork ability. He may have much better prospects if he expands his skills by learning a trade. Someone who worked in an auto plant for 25 years is probably a good candidate to become a construction worker, plumber, escalator repairman, etc.
Another big elephant in the room is location. It looks like he still lives in Lordstown Ohio. Employment prospects will be drastically better if he moves. It's harder to move with families but not impossible. I moved 3 times (each of them across national borders, no less) when I was a kid and while its hard to settle down in a new place it expanded my worldview and likely made a better person in the long run. The sort of static mentality I talk about earlier also applies to moving. People put their self-worth in their location and hamper their employment opportunities by refusing to move.
The subtext of one of the images reads: "Mr. Marsh with his wife, Lindsay, and their daughter, Abigail. The Marshes have spent years fighting to get Abigail services in Ohio. Moving would be wrenching." It doesn't actually say that their daughter's cerebral palsy is preventing them from moving. I doubt it would be harder to get services in an economically vibrant location with more tax funds for services, as compared to Lordstown Ohio. The fact that they "spent years fighting to get Abigail services in Ohio" seems to drive this home.
Overall I would be much more sympathetic if the author spent their words explaining how Rick has tried to find employment in other fields, has tried to find apprenticeships or trade school education, and is willing to move across the country but still can't find a job then I would be drastically more sympathetic. As it stands, the piece can be summed up as, "laid off auto worker who doesn't search for jobs in different fields and isn't willing to move has trouble finding employment and blames NAFTA and Democrats for his situation". It's clear the author wants to paint a sympathetic picture, but it reads like a pardoy.
This sounds like a viewpoint that doesn't wholly consider all the edge cases of what it means to lose one's career 25 years in.
"After 25 years he's probably been put in a leadership position, or at least a mentorship position to train new hires. This demonstrates good communication and teamwork ability"
This is a nice to have, but will absolutely not help a man 25 years into a career to find an equivalent salary to support his family and maintain his quality of life in a completely different field.
"Someone who worked in an auto plant for 25 years is probably a good candidate to become a construction worker, plumber, escalator repairman, etc."
No, this cannot possibly be the case, because all those listed job requirements sacrifice the body. At the age of 25 years in a career, it wouldn't be possible to be able to start again in any labor intensive work- the body is no longer there.
"It doesn't actually say that their daughter's cerebral palsy is preventing them from moving. I doubt it would be harder to get services in an economically vibrant location with more tax funds for services, as compared to Lordstown Ohio. The fact that they "spent years fighting to get Abigail services in Ohio" seems to drive this home."
Moving actually causes one to lose residency status, which means a lot of necessary social benefits are no longer available (in order to prevent people from simply moving somewhere with better state benefits). An example that people would be most familiar with would be in state vs out of state tuition. If another state had better benefits, there would be little to say that they would be able to have access fo them. If anything, Mr & Ms March would probably have to wait several years before they have to begin the several years long fight again to secure benefits for their daughter.
"Overall I would be much more sympathetic if the author spent their words explaining how Rick has tried to find employment in other fields, has tried to find apprenticeships or trade school education, and is willing to move across the country but still can't find a job"
It would be more accurate to say that a man who put 25 years into a career no longer has access to this career, has a wife and a dependent daughter, who may be trapped due to fighting a system that holds tons of bureaucracy to avoid fraud, who can no longer sacrifice his body, and is completely out of options in maintaining his quality of life, which he had built up carefully over 25 years.
Enough people like that along with enough underemployed young people saddled with crushing debt, and you have everything you need for a revolution.
People can talk about what others can or should have done, but eventually it’s going to be better and easier for them to burn this system down than try to work within it. Trump was a warning shot. What comes next after he fails to accomplish anything is going to be worse.
Historically speaking such a population is more prone to support authoritarianism than revolution. A good question to ask is: Is it in Trump's best interest for his base to advance economically, or descend further? I am quite confident that Trump and the Republican leadership knows the answer to this question.
This is a nice to have, but will absolutely not help a man 25 years into a career to find an equivalent salary to support his family and maintain his quality of life in a completely different field.
These skills are useful in any field. Equivalent salary may be optimistic, but it's still drastically better than zero slary.
No, this cannot possibly be the case, because all those listed job requirements sacrifice the body. At the age of 25 years in a career, it wouldn't be possible to be able to start again in any labor intensive work- the body is no longer there.
What you're writing is also contradicted by the article. His job at the automobile plant was also physically demanding, "The truth was, he never really liked the work. He found it boring and physically demanding. He worked in the paint shop, wearing two sets of gloves, big plastic boots and a full body apron, while he wielded a sanding tool that smoothed the primer on the surface of the cars. Every night he came home drenched and exhausted."
Moving actually causes one to lose residency status, which means a lot of necessary social benefits are no longer available (in order to prevent people from simply moving somewhere with better state benefits). An example that people would be most familiar with would be in state vs out of state tuition. If another state had better benefits, there would be little to say that they would be able to have access fo [sic] them. If anything, Mr & Ms March would probably have to wait several years before they have to begin the several years long fight again to secure benefits for their daughter.
Tuition is an exception, as it's a very high cost (often tens of thousands of taxpayer subsidy) over the course of four years. Another commenter made the same point, but did not provide evidence for this to be true when asked. If you can find identify documentation on such policies that explain that states discriminate on the basis of residency for disability services, by all means provide it. But until then, I am not inclined to trust these unsubstantiated claims.
Even if this were true, this represents a couple years of overhead cost that could still pay off in the long run. Even at minimum wage, employment would bring in probably $10k a year at least. This could offset loss of services for two years.
It would be more accurate to say that a man who put 25 years into a career no longer has access to this career, has a wife and a dependent daughter, who may be trapped due to fighting a system that holds tons of bureaucracy to avoid fraud, who can no longer sacrifice his body, and is completely out of options in maintaining his quality of life, which he had built up carefully over 25 years.
This is contradicted by the article. You say that he is physically not capable of demanding work, but the job that he lost (and would have continued working in) was physically demanding. You say that he is out of options, when he does not seem to be considering the options of moving or working in a different field. The article explains that these other opportunities do exist, "Hundreds of workers have already transferred. His nephew packed up his family and moved to Flint. The alternative, working on natural gas wells in Pennsylvania, paid him $13 an hour, about half what he was making at G.M." $13/hr is close to twice Pennsylvania's minimum wage. It's not a terrible job, and it'd at least put some money in the bank and diversify his skills.
At best, you're taking an overly pessimistic view of the situation. At worst, you're tying to rationalize the thinking that if the current opportunities aren't as good as the ones that existed in the past it's better just stay unemployed.
"The alternative, working on natural gas wells in Pennsylvania, paid him $13 an hour, about half what he was making at G.M." $13/hr is close to twice Pennsylvania's minimum wage. It's not a terrible job, and it'd at least put some money in the bank and diversify his skills."
This is overly optimistic. He is losing half his salary, with a wife and a daughter to feed. He will lose his quality of life. That's a huge deal, and is worth pointing out and have sympathy for.
This is overly optimistic. He is losing half his salary, with a wife and a daughter to feed.
This is false, or at least a misrepresentation of the situation. He has already lost his salary. And now he is unwilling to work in a job that pays half of his previous salary. He is strictly better off financially with the $13/hr job than he is now, and he will have a job to give himself a sense of purpose (which seems to be his biggest issue) on top of that. I still do not see any barrier preventing him from taking such an opportunity.
But crucially this does not require any duration of residency. Literally all that's necessary is a NJ diver's license. He doesn't need to live for years in NJ to get benefits, he just needs to stand in line at the DMV after moving there.
You have still failed to provide evidence to back up the claim that his daughter's condition is preventing him from moving due to loss of benefits (at least, not for any loss of benefits longer than 30 days). In fact, your sources show that if he moves to another state for a job then he will be able to get benefits either immediately or within a month. If anything you're disproving the claim that loss of benefits are preventing him from moving.
30 says is hardly prohibitive to you. The story is much different when someone is needing to move someone who requires medical care. It may be very prohibitive to someone else, especially given that moving is very expensive, it's well known that benefits are regularly denied the first time, and they're already in a multi-year fight that can become complicated through moving.
Also, I say that this position being made is again failing to consider that 13$/hr may not be adequate. It is not strictly better- one has to pay the cost of moving, then spiral into debt assuming 13$/hr isn't enough to cover the medical expenses and living requirements of one's family. Assuming he's an intelligent man, he will likely already have examined the economics and found it doesn't check out.
I think this position is really unsympathetic and assuming an incompetence that isnt there and is overly gatekeeping. Someone is in a situation in which there are no good options due to little fault of his own, and that sucks. That's all the article is saying.
The article mentions that it took the family years to get these services in the first place. Which indicates that they are indeed capable of living for extended periods of time without care. Your claim that the family cannot make it through 30 days without government services for their daughters remains unsubstantiated. Seriously, trying to say that 30 days of no government services is prohibitive when the article states that they lived for years without these services is grasping at straws.
Also, I say that this position being made is again failing to consider that 13$/hr may not be adequate. It is not strictly better- one has to pay the cost of moving, then spiral into debt assuming 13$/hr isn't enough to cover the medical expenses and living requirements of one's family. Assuming he's an intelligent man, he will likely already have examined the economics and found it doesn't check out.
How is he somehow going to spiral into debt with a $13/hr job, but not spiral into debt with no job? This makes no sense. You're trying to say that by making more money he is going to go into debt.
I think this position is really unsympathetic and assuming an incompetence that isnt there and is overly gatekeeping. Someone is in a situation in which there are no good options due to little fault of his own, and that sucks. That's all the article is saying.
I don't think he is incompetent, that's my whole point. He has opportunities, he is competent, but he feels like he is incompetent because there's something holding him back from taking these opportunities. And in the end, this lack of employment is eating away at his sense of self work. This man seems to have it ingrained into his identity that he is an auto plant worker in Ohio, and he will never be able to be anything but an auto plant worker in Ohio. He is aware of opportunities elsewhere. The article explains that hundreds of other plant workers have done this, "Hundreds of workers have already transferred. His nephew packed up his family and moved to Flint". I don't necessarily blame him for his refusal to accept the available job opportunities. I blame the society and culture he grew up in that hammered it into his head that he'll never be anything but an auto plant worker. Feeling sympathy for whatever it was that leads him to make his decisions doesn't mean we need to to try and justify these decisions.
Getting help is tricky. States with good programs don't want freeloaders to move in. They often require you to be a resident for a while before they will help you - the idea being if you come with the intent of not being a freeloader and something happens it is bad luck. It isn't unheard of for states to pay to move someone to a different state just so they to get that person out of their system.
I can see both sides, Mr. Marsh is caught in the middle.
States with good programs don't want freeloaders to move in. They often require you to be a resident for a while before they will help you - the idea being if you come with the intent of not being a freeloader and something happens it is bad luck.
I've only heard of this for university tuition. If a student starts university in a state school, and their parents move to the state they have to pay out of state tuition for 2 years. States with good programs are usually liberal ones with high taxes. Discriminating on the basis of origin for disability services seems like a good way to piss off liberal voters. If you can find documentation to demonstrate that someone with cerebral palsy would be denied services because they moved there from out of state, I'm all ears, but I find this claim is dubious.
It isn't unheard of for states to pay to move someone to a different state just so they to get that person out of their system.
Each state is different. There are 50 of them with different programs and rules. States are changing their rules all the time. Depending on the destination state he might or might not have problems. It is a consideration he unfortunately has to face.
"For every job, so many men, so many men noone needs." Written in the Thatcher days, inspired by the Depression, still relevant today.
These are complicated issues, which are not solved by soundbites on TV or vague, unrealistic promises to keep the status quo in eternity. I agree that some kind of job mobility is required in the long run; the real question is how much of it is needed. I hope the answer is not "a lot", especially among those who have or earn less.
Comments
I think the most important thing here is the difference in outlook. The people in this story lived their lives with the assumption that they will live the same lives as their parents. This hasn't been true since the industrial revolution (>80% of people working in agriculture shrunk to ~2%). This reminds me of British coal-workers striking over layoffs, even though they would receive the same paycheck for life if they were laid off. Their rationale is that they were striking for their children's future jobs in the coal mine. That just struck me as depressing, that parents just assumed that their kids' lot in lives would be a coal miner just like them. Maybe this is the immigrant mentality that people talk about, but
Rick seems to be following the same line of thinking. The notion of working in a different industry just doesn't seem to be considered.
This is probably one of the best times in recent history to start looking for a job. Unemployment is at record lows, and growth is fairly strong. I think the biggest issue here isn't layoffs, it's people putting their sense of identity into their job instead of viewing it as a transaction. 80% of employees at the beginning of the 20th century worked in industries that are either non-existent or drastically smaller by the end of the 20th century. I see no reason why we should expect the 21st century to be any different. Rick's assumption that he would work in the same industry as his father for the entirety of his life seems to be the biggest culprit here, not NAFTA.
Part of it is an identity thing, part of it is an age thing, but part of it too is a location thing. When plants like this out in the literal middle-of-nowhere close, entire towns die. You might suggest that people just move, but what if they have a mortgage on a house that's suddenly worthless? And that's not even factoring in the "soft" costs of losing your community and possibly moving away from family. Given the U.S.'s aversion to social welfare, people end up stuck without any options.
Entire towns disappearing is a normal state of affairs.
Then he should blame his situation on his own gamble on real-estate speculation, and not NAFTA.
My whole point is, the emphasis on these "soft" factors are what's holding him back. When you move, you don't "lose" community, you swap them out for a different one. Moving away from family may be challenging, but it's probably worse to not have a job.
I don't think lack of welfare is an issue here:
Ohio unemployment benefits pay half of weekly wages up to $424. Rick would be receiving $424 if $26 per hour was his wages while he was employed. So he's getting $22,000 per year in unemployment plus $10,000 from his GM pension on top of that. Is getting $32,000 per year in pension and unemployment benefits considered bad welfare? He's getting about 2/3 of his income while he was employed in unemployment benefits. Probably more if you take taxes into account. And health insurance. And the "payments to supplement his unemployment check" that the article doesn't explain in detail.
There's a good chance that abundant welfare is why he isn't looking for work. If he took the $13 and hour job in Pennsylvania he may lose more in benefits than he'd be gaining in wages. I wouldn't blame him if this were the case, but the fact that our welfare system is actively discouraging people from seeking employment is the messed up part of this situation. Not the fact that manufacturing jobs are moving because of globalization.
Not everything is SV property greed. What if this person bought the home so he could just have a place to live? Not everybody buys a home with the intention of making money. Some just want a stable home for their kids.
In general your family is always better than a job. When you are on your death bed I can guarantee you that your boss won't be there holding your hand.
Then how do you explain our current low unemployment numbers? If anything it appears working is preferred over our welfare system. Many people want purpose and want to work.
If you're buying a home on credit, then you're speculating on real estate. Whether or not your intent is to turn a profit is besides the point. If someone wants a home, then can rent or buy a home that they can afford with cash. You don't need to buy a house on credit to find a home.
If you don't have a job then it's hard to provide a good life for your family. You won't have anyone holding your hand on your deathbed if you can't provide for you family and your wife and kids have to leave you to find a man that can. The strain of having to move away from cousins, aunts, etc. is drastically less than not having a job - at least in my view of things. The example in the article isn't even moving very far - literally the neighboring state. Rick and his family could easily see their extended family on the holidays if they wanted to.
Unemployment tracks people who are looking for work but cannot find a job. If people stop looking for work, then they are no longer counted as unemployed. This is consistent with the fact that we're seeing low unemployment but also lower labor participation rates. Granted, lower labor participation is at least in part due to other factors like an ageing population.
The article calls out another reason. His daughter has celebral palsy I think, and they helped bring things into town for her.
There are only a couple places were their daughter's condition is mentioned:
Nowhere does it state that aides in school or overage under Medicaid would be lost if he moved. If anything I suspect that services would be better in an economically healthy town that has a better tax base.
TBH, someone at this age who has spent 25 years in a pipeline probably realizes that, unfortunately, no one in this market wants to hire older folks -- especially with no relevant experience.
"No relevant experience" is a highly pessimistic outlook. This man has demonstrated an ability to hold down a steady job for decades. That alone puts him ahead of many people that simply lack the ability to hold down a job. Working at an auto plant results in skills with with operating industrial machinery. After 25 years he's probably been put in a leadership position, or at least a mentorship position to train new hires. This demonstrates good communication and teamwork ability. He may have much better prospects if he expands his skills by learning a trade. Someone who worked in an auto plant for 25 years is probably a good candidate to become a construction worker, plumber, escalator repairman, etc.
Another big elephant in the room is location. It looks like he still lives in Lordstown Ohio. Employment prospects will be drastically better if he moves. It's harder to move with families but not impossible. I moved 3 times (each of them across national borders, no less) when I was a kid and while its hard to settle down in a new place it expanded my worldview and likely made a better person in the long run. The sort of static mentality I talk about earlier also applies to moving. People put their self-worth in their location and hamper their employment opportunities by refusing to move.
The subtext of one of the images reads: "Mr. Marsh with his wife, Lindsay, and their daughter, Abigail. The Marshes have spent years fighting to get Abigail services in Ohio. Moving would be wrenching." It doesn't actually say that their daughter's cerebral palsy is preventing them from moving. I doubt it would be harder to get services in an economically vibrant location with more tax funds for services, as compared to Lordstown Ohio. The fact that they "spent years fighting to get Abigail services in Ohio" seems to drive this home.
Overall I would be much more sympathetic if the author spent their words explaining how Rick has tried to find employment in other fields, has tried to find apprenticeships or trade school education, and is willing to move across the country but still can't find a job then I would be drastically more sympathetic. As it stands, the piece can be summed up as, "laid off auto worker who doesn't search for jobs in different fields and isn't willing to move has trouble finding employment and blames NAFTA and Democrats for his situation". It's clear the author wants to paint a sympathetic picture, but it reads like a pardoy.
This sounds like a viewpoint that doesn't wholly consider all the edge cases of what it means to lose one's career 25 years in.
"After 25 years he's probably been put in a leadership position, or at least a mentorship position to train new hires. This demonstrates good communication and teamwork ability"
This is a nice to have, but will absolutely not help a man 25 years into a career to find an equivalent salary to support his family and maintain his quality of life in a completely different field.
"Someone who worked in an auto plant for 25 years is probably a good candidate to become a construction worker, plumber, escalator repairman, etc."
No, this cannot possibly be the case, because all those listed job requirements sacrifice the body. At the age of 25 years in a career, it wouldn't be possible to be able to start again in any labor intensive work- the body is no longer there.
"It doesn't actually say that their daughter's cerebral palsy is preventing them from moving. I doubt it would be harder to get services in an economically vibrant location with more tax funds for services, as compared to Lordstown Ohio. The fact that they "spent years fighting to get Abigail services in Ohio" seems to drive this home."
Moving actually causes one to lose residency status, which means a lot of necessary social benefits are no longer available (in order to prevent people from simply moving somewhere with better state benefits). An example that people would be most familiar with would be in state vs out of state tuition. If another state had better benefits, there would be little to say that they would be able to have access fo them. If anything, Mr & Ms March would probably have to wait several years before they have to begin the several years long fight again to secure benefits for their daughter.
"Overall I would be much more sympathetic if the author spent their words explaining how Rick has tried to find employment in other fields, has tried to find apprenticeships or trade school education, and is willing to move across the country but still can't find a job"
It would be more accurate to say that a man who put 25 years into a career no longer has access to this career, has a wife and a dependent daughter, who may be trapped due to fighting a system that holds tons of bureaucracy to avoid fraud, who can no longer sacrifice his body, and is completely out of options in maintaining his quality of life, which he had built up carefully over 25 years.
Enough people like that along with enough underemployed young people saddled with crushing debt, and you have everything you need for a revolution.
People can talk about what others can or should have done, but eventually it’s going to be better and easier for them to burn this system down than try to work within it. Trump was a warning shot. What comes next after he fails to accomplish anything is going to be worse.
Historically speaking such a population is more prone to support authoritarianism than revolution. A good question to ask is: Is it in Trump's best interest for his base to advance economically, or descend further? I am quite confident that Trump and the Republican leadership knows the answer to this question.
These skills are useful in any field. Equivalent salary may be optimistic, but it's still drastically better than zero slary.
The man is at least decently well built: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/05/28/us/28lordstown-A1...
What you're writing is also contradicted by the article. His job at the automobile plant was also physically demanding, "The truth was, he never really liked the work. He found it boring and physically demanding. He worked in the paint shop, wearing two sets of gloves, big plastic boots and a full body apron, while he wielded a sanding tool that smoothed the primer on the surface of the cars. Every night he came home drenched and exhausted."
Tuition is an exception, as it's a very high cost (often tens of thousands of taxpayer subsidy) over the course of four years. Another commenter made the same point, but did not provide evidence for this to be true when asked. If you can find identify documentation on such policies that explain that states discriminate on the basis of residency for disability services, by all means provide it. But until then, I am not inclined to trust these unsubstantiated claims.
Even if this were true, this represents a couple years of overhead cost that could still pay off in the long run. Even at minimum wage, employment would bring in probably $10k a year at least. This could offset loss of services for two years.
This is contradicted by the article. You say that he is physically not capable of demanding work, but the job that he lost (and would have continued working in) was physically demanding. You say that he is out of options, when he does not seem to be considering the options of moving or working in a different field. The article explains that these other opportunities do exist, "Hundreds of workers have already transferred. His nephew packed up his family and moved to Flint. The alternative, working on natural gas wells in Pennsylvania, paid him $13 an hour, about half what he was making at G.M." $13/hr is close to twice Pennsylvania's minimum wage. It's not a terrible job, and it'd at least put some money in the bank and diversify his skills.
At best, you're taking an overly pessimistic view of the situation. At worst, you're tying to rationalize the thinking that if the current opportunities aren't as good as the ones that existed in the past it's better just stay unemployed.
"The alternative, working on natural gas wells in Pennsylvania, paid him $13 an hour, about half what he was making at G.M." $13/hr is close to twice Pennsylvania's minimum wage. It's not a terrible job, and it'd at least put some money in the bank and diversify his skills."
This is overly optimistic. He is losing half his salary, with a wife and a daughter to feed. He will lose his quality of life. That's a huge deal, and is worth pointing out and have sympathy for.
Also, if you still need evidence:
1. https://www.performcarenj.org/pdf/families/dd-residency-fact... This is proof of residency for NJ to have a NJ specific residency. 2. https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/eligibility-z-manual-ea-z/reside... This is proof of residency for DC to have food benefits. 3. https://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/idcplg?IdcService=GET_DYNAM... Minnesota requires 30 days explicitly.
This is false, or at least a misrepresentation of the situation. He has already lost his salary. And now he is unwilling to work in a job that pays half of his previous salary. He is strictly better off financially with the $13/hr job than he is now, and he will have a job to give himself a sense of purpose (which seems to be his biggest issue) on top of that. I still do not see any barrier preventing him from taking such an opportunity.
But crucially this does not require any duration of residency. Literally all that's necessary is a NJ diver's license. He doesn't need to live for years in NJ to get benefits, he just needs to stand in line at the DMV after moving there.
From this page:
An individual determine is a resident if he/she meets the following conditions:
* Is living in Washington; and
* Is not receiving comparable assistance form another state or tribe;
* Intends to remain in the state permanently or indefinitely; or
* Entered the state looking for a job or a job commitment.
If he moves to Washington State for a job, then he becomes a resident and is eligible for benefits.
30 days is hardly prohibitive.
You have still failed to provide evidence to back up the claim that his daughter's condition is preventing him from moving due to loss of benefits (at least, not for any loss of benefits longer than 30 days). In fact, your sources show that if he moves to another state for a job then he will be able to get benefits either immediately or within a month. If anything you're disproving the claim that loss of benefits are preventing him from moving.
30 says is hardly prohibitive to you. The story is much different when someone is needing to move someone who requires medical care. It may be very prohibitive to someone else, especially given that moving is very expensive, it's well known that benefits are regularly denied the first time, and they're already in a multi-year fight that can become complicated through moving.
Also, I say that this position being made is again failing to consider that 13$/hr may not be adequate. It is not strictly better- one has to pay the cost of moving, then spiral into debt assuming 13$/hr isn't enough to cover the medical expenses and living requirements of one's family. Assuming he's an intelligent man, he will likely already have examined the economics and found it doesn't check out.
I think this position is really unsympathetic and assuming an incompetence that isnt there and is overly gatekeeping. Someone is in a situation in which there are no good options due to little fault of his own, and that sucks. That's all the article is saying.
The article mentions that it took the family years to get these services in the first place. Which indicates that they are indeed capable of living for extended periods of time without care. Your claim that the family cannot make it through 30 days without government services for their daughters remains unsubstantiated. Seriously, trying to say that 30 days of no government services is prohibitive when the article states that they lived for years without these services is grasping at straws.
How is he somehow going to spiral into debt with a $13/hr job, but not spiral into debt with no job? This makes no sense. You're trying to say that by making more money he is going to go into debt.
I don't think he is incompetent, that's my whole point. He has opportunities, he is competent, but he feels like he is incompetent because there's something holding him back from taking these opportunities. And in the end, this lack of employment is eating away at his sense of self work. This man seems to have it ingrained into his identity that he is an auto plant worker in Ohio, and he will never be able to be anything but an auto plant worker in Ohio. He is aware of opportunities elsewhere. The article explains that hundreds of other plant workers have done this, "Hundreds of workers have already transferred. His nephew packed up his family and moved to Flint". I don't necessarily blame him for his refusal to accept the available job opportunities. I blame the society and culture he grew up in that hammered it into his head that he'll never be anything but an auto plant worker. Feeling sympathy for whatever it was that leads him to make his decisions doesn't mean we need to to try and justify these decisions.
Getting help is tricky. States with good programs don't want freeloaders to move in. They often require you to be a resident for a while before they will help you - the idea being if you come with the intent of not being a freeloader and something happens it is bad luck. It isn't unheard of for states to pay to move someone to a different state just so they to get that person out of their system.
I can see both sides, Mr. Marsh is caught in the middle.
I've only heard of this for university tuition. If a student starts university in a state school, and their parents move to the state they have to pay out of state tuition for 2 years. States with good programs are usually liberal ones with high taxes. Discriminating on the basis of origin for disability services seems like a good way to piss off liberal voters. If you can find documentation to demonstrate that someone with cerebral palsy would be denied services because they moved there from out of state, I'm all ears, but I find this claim is dubious.
This would help him move.
Each state is different. There are 50 of them with different programs and rules. States are changing their rules all the time. Depending on the destination state he might or might not have problems. It is a consideration he unfortunately has to face.
It isn't unheard of for states to involuntarily ship people to other states for that purpose, either.
Indeed, this is not a new thing.
"For every job, so many men, so many men noone needs." Written in the Thatcher days, inspired by the Depression, still relevant today.
These are complicated issues, which are not solved by soundbites on TV or vague, unrealistic promises to keep the status quo in eternity. I agree that some kind of job mobility is required in the long run; the real question is how much of it is needed. I hope the answer is not "a lot", especially among those who have or earn less.