They don’t even have to move out of flyover country. Utah, Iowa, and both North and South Dakota have extremely LOW unemployment rates. We need people to move out of the high unemployment states and regions where there are limited opportunities, and into places where they can’t get people to even work fast food. Imagine if there was a job training program to teach people from rural Pennsylvania, WV, Ohio, Kentucky, etc. in-demand jobs like dental assisting, nursing/other health care jobs (radiology, physical therapy, pharmacy tech are all big ones), or network/system admin work. Then when they’ve finished their education/training in their home state, the government gives them some block grant amount of money to move somewhere where they really need workers. There could probably even be something where these people are guaranteed a job in their new state/region upon successful completion of the program.
Really these areas need to be depopulated as much as possible. They are unsafe for various reasons (drug crime, lack of police/fire/EMT in rural areas), and a strain on state and local budgets. Get people into economically successful regions and break the cycle of poverty. |
They are “super zips” in this area because their residents all suck off of government money. |
Yes, I much prefer living in New Hampshire or Vermont (or even MA) where most people look and talk just like me. Diversity just isn't my thing. |
Let's add CT to that non-diverse but oh so liberal minded state where 'engrained prejudice' is not an issue.. |
Not true - a smart but disadvantaged kid from Podunk Arkansas where no one every applies to prestigious schools is going to have an advantage over the dozens of privileged kids who apply from GDS, who are a dime a dozen. |
And yet, that PP ended up living in the big metro non flyover cities. I never said there were no companies in flyover country. I stated that those in the blue states clearly don't want to move to flyover. Get some comprehension skills, sweetie ![]() |
Really? Stats show that those blue areas contribute way more to the federal coffers than the red areas, and per capita wise, they take less in federal money. Again, blue states are the givers and red are the takers. So who's exactly sucking off the government money? Rural areas take more than urban in federal money. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/ " rural residents (62%) are more likely than urban (54%) or suburban (53%) dwellers to have gotten help." |
The interior red states are takers, whilst the blue coastal states are makers. That really burns up Trump loyalists. |
Why don't you share with us why you think New England blue states might have better test scores on standardized educational tests and higher income earners? |
Sure. Looks like your Internet must be down. Massachusetts is typically the highest scoring state cut off every year in the National Merit Scholarship test, for example. Last year NJ beat it by a point. https://www.compassprep.com/national-merit-semifinalists-by-state/ The highest state income levels: 1. Maryland 4-7. NJ, CT, MA, NH https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income |
OP - you are seriously out of touch. Simply asking this question demonstrates your naiveté and total lack of experience with people in other parts of the country. |
Np Djt won what? Like seriously , take your own advice and stop because I can assure you a full four years of the bloated carrot and the already declining midwestern population will be further diminished. So again this is why Djt won what ? You're not as clever as you seem to delude yourself into thinking |
NP For one , its hard almost impossible to see a New England governor brag about cuts to education à la Scott walker ( flyover governor ) |
It’s almost impossible to picture them bragging about tax decreases too. |
Sure lol |