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.
Comments
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.