...I guarantee you don't have the money to MOVE.
I HAD a job, and I couldn't take a vacation, let alone move!

And then it won't be much. It's pretty much spent.

at rock-bottom prices(and the descendants of THOSE people are the ones still running Oklahoma today).

They had to leave because they were kicked off "their" land. The owner found it cheaper to pay a man in a tractor a salary rather than give a share of the crop to each of many families on the land. They sold most of their belongings to buy the Hudson and have money for gas to get to California.

In many ways today isn't that different, but it is more urban. "We don't need factory workers because they are cheaper overseas..."

...when they left Ohio and settled in California. My grandpa worked and they raised a big family, all of whom did well. A play is one thing, but I can point out on both sides of my family many people (from way back to currently) who had to move to find work, and the end results were good.

I'd move if I had to, but fortunately I don't have to. If I did the hard part would be there's no market here for houses, I'd pretty much have to give mine away.

the war instantly created a full employment economy throughout the country.

And my point isn't to say that individuals shouldn't move if they wished...it's that we shouldn't develop an economic structure(as we are in the process of developing now)that FORCES people to do that.

IMO, there is no hard and fast rule. Everyone's situation is different and you have to take your best shot.

Get a minimum wage job if you can even get that, live on the street to save on rent money, and save up until that job goes away and you have to migrate again.

It's easy, anyone can do it!

(Seriously, do I need the sarcasm thingy here)

Just type the word "sarcasm" with a colon on either end.

As a disconnected individual, nobody can do much of anything(unless they were rich to start with). It's about changing the structure of life in this country so that EVERYONE has the right to be rooted and have community where everyone actually wants to be...rather than having to chase after crumbs.

A lot of people hunker down and stay in small cities, towns, or urban areas that are depressed, out of jobs. Some people cannot move for various reasons. But for those who can, it makes sense to move to an area where there are more economic opportunities. A bigger city, probably. Once done, you probably won't have to move again, since you moved to an area with a diverse economy and just more jobs.

This is the common sense thing to do, IMO. You can either stay where you are and stay out of work, and when you do get work, be underpaid or underemployed. Or you can go outside your comfort zone and move to a better economy, where there is a chance at getting work. And in a larger city, the pay will be higher AND the cost of living will be less (except for New York and a few other places).

It's hard to do, and not everyone can do it. It requires sacrifice, too. Living away from family. That's what a lot of people have typically done in this country. Even on Little House on the Prairie, remember how Pa used to go away sometimes to find work? You do what you have to do, when you need a job or want a future. Doesn't mean you'll be forever traveling.

Because as you know, money to move around the country, just grows on trees.

There will always be jobs available.

then the fact that there are more people than jobs, catches up with you. Again.

Which brings up the ultimate point: when there are more people than jobs, moving around simply doesn't help. You just wind up running into a whole lot of this:

[img][/img]

which means more jobs and opportunities. You can always start a small business too and make money that way.

You do your research and find out WHICH big city has open jobs for your vocation. Then you research which cities have a diverse economy and a lower unemployment rate than the national average. Or at least lower than where you live now. Then you do research on the cost of living in those cities (there are cost of living comparisons on the internet), and salary levels for those open jobs you found.

That is what I did. That was before the internet, so it wasn't easy to do. I had to go to the library and read various newspapers. I then joined a professional organization in those cities to get access to job listings. (I'm a paralegal.)

But now the research would be easy to do. All that info is on the internet.

I moved from a city with 30% unemployment in 1985-6, to a city with an unemployment rate lower than the nat'l avg (Dallas TX). I found out it had a diverse economy, and it had paralegal jobs open. I compared it to Houston, which was closer to me, but Houston's unemployment rate was much higher than Dallas' at that time, since it was not diverse (Houston was mainly oil & gas back then). If I had it to do over, I might risk it and move to Houston, but at the time, it seemed to make more sense to move to Dallas. I wrote letters applying for jobs, and I set up several interviews. I scraped the $ together and drove to Dallas (a 7 hr drive), stayed in a seedy motel, and went on my interviews. Got two offers. Accepted one. Went back to Louisiana, then put my stuff in a U-haul, rented an apt long distance, and drove to Dallas. All by myself. 30 years old. Pregnant. But I needed a future. I had a job where I was from, but I hated it, it was very low pay, and there were no other jobs to transfer to. There were only about 10 paralegal jobs in the entire city. I moved to a city where there were hundreds of paralegal jobs.

In my case, it was a good move. I didn't get paid much at first, but I changed jobs, kept getting raises. I ended up getting paid more than I ever dreamed of, and bought a house, a new car, made some friends. I made a life.

But there are those who would've stayed in the small city, with the low wages and high unemployment. And there are those who would not have been able to move. But I wanted more of a future than what I saw in the city I came from. I wanted to make more money, have more job opportunities. Dallas was sound economically then, and it still is. The unemployment rate in Dallas in 1986 was below the nat'l average, and it still is. We have lots of law firms, headquarters of several corporations, the apparel industry, a big banking & financial industry, and oil & gas industry, as well as tons of restaurants and all kinds of foods here, and more.

You choose where you move to wisely.

There are 4 people fighting for every 1 job.

That means that for 4 people that move around the country looking for work, only 1 out of 3 will successfully find employment.

I await your proof that this math can ever possibly be wrong.

but many companies(as has been previously noted in other DU threads)now have a policy of only hiring those who are currently employed...that is to say, they are blacklisting the jobless, even those jobless who were the victims of mass layoffs(and thus bore no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that they've ended up losing their jobs).

(whether the poster we're arguing with here reads these responses or not, I think it's important that we not leave his posts unanswered. Thanks for your work in this thread).

Did you actually manage to write that with a straight face?

What about that do you not agree with?

end up not making a dime...or getting deeper into debt.

Your viewpoint is about as in touch with reality as Reagan's "It's Morning In America" ads.

Life simply isn't THAT easy for the vast majority of us.

I think I will just move to a BIG CITY and START A BUSINESS! I have so much hope that it is all going to work out fine. Plus I heard I'll get a Unicorn and a Pony.

if, by "small business" he means "meth lab".

Do you have to ruin everything? You are such a downer!

"tweakers" are a growth market.

It's not just hope and luck. Do you disagree that small businesses are getting started every day and people are succeeding? I know so many people who own small businesses and are making money... hell my wife started her's in Jan.

get screwed by this system. You're arguing for a "those who are suffering deserve to suffer/those who 'succeed' are superior to everyone else and entitled to look down their noses at everyone else" meme that is, whether you realize it or not, extremely right-wing. I'll assume that you don't realize the implications of what you are posting here.

Yes, some people succeed. That doesn't mean that the vast majority who are denied success deserve to be treated as if it's all their own fault. And the fact that some do succeed doesn't justify or outweigh the pain that's inflicted on the rest.
It's possible to have room for the people you describe to to well without immiserating everybody else or ignoring the immiseration that everyone else experiences.

Your posts in this thread all sound like Fox News talking "points". I hope that's not how you actually feel about life.

and you live in a city that has a total of 25 mechanical engineers....if you move to a city that has 500 mechanical engineers, you will have more job opportunities. You do research to make sure that city is economically diverse, has a lower than avg unemployment rate, a cost of living that's equal to or less than the nat'l avg, and you'll be in a better position to be protected financially.

It's not a guarantee. But your chances are much better than staying in a small city with 25 mechanical engineer positions and a higher than avg cost of living.

It's just a factual thing. But some people are not able to move, and some don't want to move away from family. No one has to move. But for people who can move and who want a better future, that's the logical option. Millions of graduates do just that every year. They don't move back to their parents' town. They move to places that have job opportunities for what they want to do.

Moving is probably not an option for someone over 50. But I'm over 50, and I just might move again. I'm researching the best place to retire, although I'll still work. I have certain criteria I'm looking for. I might stay where I am, but I do have the option of moving to a place where housing costs less, cost of living is same as or less than where I am, but I can still get a job and be closer to family.

In a time where there are 4 unemployed people per available job, if everyone follows your strategy and moves to a city with below average unemployment, that city won't have below average unemployment for long.

This means you fall right into the game of musical chairs and out of the 4 of you who moved to that city, 3 of you fail to find a chair and must move again.

It's just a factual thing.

That's such an odd thing to resent. Does it make you feel like you haven't done everything you could, or something like that?

Everyone should applaud someone who does something that's difficult, to improve his chances at getting a good job and having a better future. Who wouldn't applaud that?

Very odd.

Also...EVERYONE is not going to move to the same city. That's a silly statement. As I said, there are no guarantees. But there are certainly things that a lot of people can do to improve their chances. More power to 'em, if they can, and then they do. It's a hard thing to move, but it's also exhilerating, infuses a life with interest and challenges, makes a person grow in many ways, widens your horizons, and makes a person learn to deal better with tough situations. You make new friends, get exposed to new people and foods and viewpoints.

Liberals don't understand conservative southerners. One of the reasons conservative southerners are so intolerant is that many, or most, of them have never moved out of their own state or even city. They are born, raised, and die in the same area. They havenever had to learn to be tolerant and haven't been exposed to different people and viewpoints on a dail basis.

Moving is a good thing. Improving yur chances for a brighter future...that's a good thing. I applaud anyone who does anything to make that happen, instead of staying in the same place and expecting good things to come your way. That may happen. But my experience has been that it doesn't happen to me. I've had to make it happen, myself. What's that old saying? It's ironic that the harder I work, the luckier I get.

hunting for something that is in short supply.

When 4 people are fighting for 1 job, three people must lose out no matter what they do. That means 3 people just wasted their time and have just put themselves even deeper into the hole.

Again, it's all about the math.

You cannot beat the math.

It's about the process we're in now that is forcing more and more people to become lifetime economic migrants.

Of course people should work and live where they want...whether that means going other places OR staying at home. But nobody should be FORCED to relocate and keep relocating...eventually creating a totally rootless(and therefore soulless)nation in which no one but the few really has a home and in which the creation of human community is impossible(you can't build community on an economic forced march).

Moving is great...but only if YOU WANT TO MOVE. You can't grow at all if life forces you to be a permanent migrant.
Do you see the distinction?

Also, your posts keep suggesting that you have done better(or that you claim to have done better)because you've simply tried harder than those who haven't. Has it never occurred to you that a person can try just as hard as you have(or much harder in some cases)and still get screwed out of everything by this system? We don't live in a meritocracy, my friend...if we did, nobody anywhere would regard Mitt Romney as the model of a "successful self-made man".

You say people grow through moving...well yes, some do, but you haven't...you've gained no empathy at all for the lives most people are made to live in this country. You just don't get it how hard life is for people...including people who have tried just as hard as you say you have.

Your perspective is that of someone who might have followed the Joad family west in the Dust Bowl days, but, instead of having to sleep in the migrant camps, spent each night in the fanciest hotel in whatever town they passed through, eating the fanciest chow, at the highest-possible 1930's wages, in exchange for supervising the game of thugs who drove the Joad family OUT of each town the next morning. The way you romanticize relocation is a dead giveway. Only those who were born wealthy and protected and never knew anything else think that suffering really builds character.

You'd find that I said it was difficult but not impossible. It was in reponse to a poster who suggested opening a business is impossible. Everything else is your speculation and conjecture.

You said people do it all the time, which made it sound like succeeding in making money in a small business was a sure thing(with the corollary implication that, if a person couldn't manage to make money opening a small business, it basically meant they didn't try hard enough).

Your posts on the subject were Pollyanish to the point of being hallucinatory.

The truth is, the system is rigged against most of us.

Is a bit much. I know how to plan, work hard, be dedicated and I have a ton of guts, so do ALL of my friends. The only people I see who are succeeding in business where I am are trust fund kids who have $$$ to burn.

according to where I thought I'd be at my age, what my prospects were when I was young. I'm also very happy and have friends, a house, a car, no debt. Some other people wouldn't call me successful, I guess, because I'm not rich. But everything I achieved, I achieved by taking a chance (after research) in moving, working long and hard, and being frugal.

Working hard, being good at what you do, being pleasant at work, taking a few chances....these things do make a difference. There are no guarantees, that's true, though.

Not you, HangOnKids, the one you're responding to. I totally cosign on your point of view here. I'll just keep it at that to avoid my post being hidden by a jury for some mysterious "hurtful" offense.

as if nobody who ends up losing in this economy works hard, is good at what they do, was pleasant at work, or took any chances.

You can't put hard times solely on the people who are experiencing them.

I'm in awe of people who do that. I'm totally not an entrepreneurial type. I did own a business years ago, and it failed.

I will point out, though, that it helps to have a spouse who can carry you while you get your business off the ground. Most people don't have that luxury.

It's like that guy who wrote the Rich Dad, Poor Dad book. If you listen carefully to his rah-rah seminar on PBS, you will notice that he had a professional wife all while he got his businesses off the ground. So he's being a little disengenuous in telling people they can become rich by starting a business. The main reason HE was able to do that was because his wife supported him, while he went through the initial strugglling years.

New businesses rarely are profitable right off the bat. It takes time.

It's an oft repeated statistic that is common knowledge.

You have a better chance if you have someone to support you while you try to g et a business off the ground.

which is what happens to 80% of small business startups.

Perhaps THEY'RE the ones that "patience" is talking about.

was defending its sacred right NOT to give any of the locals a job, either-thus forcing those locals to become migrants, and to travel to other towns that had signs like this(plus, at times, armed militias)to drive THEM on to the next town.

This was the era the CoC thinks of as "The Good Old Days".

prophetic. Thanks for posting.

Last edited Fri Jun 1, 2012, 07:23 PM - Edit history (1)

and you can only do THAT 'til the STD's kick in.

Been to Detroit lately?

And I'm registered to vote too.

And not tied down to one frame of reference or set of attitudes and expectations. The number of people who judge aggregate reality based on whether the plant in Joesville, Anystate is hiring or laying off is an embarrassment.

I've moved myself in a minivan. I've paid people thousands to move me. Depends how much you have and how much effort you're willing to put into it yourself or how much you can afford to pay others to do the work.

How much does it cost in lost income to not have a job? Varies too obviously but I bet it's almost always a shitload more than even my most expensive white-glove interstate move.

His name is Norman Tebbit.

"I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking 'til he found it."

(a statement that nobody else who was unemployed in the Depression had ever tried to find a new job...or that nobody had tried that over and over and over BEFORE reaching the conclusion that resistance-what the Tories called "riots"-was the only chance for survival).

AND the job you moved to take, didn't disappear on you soon after.

The point is that nobody should be FORCED to.

We should not have an economy in which the 1% make the 99% scurry around the country like mice. No one should EVER have that kind of power over anybody else.

OK?

To make that happen we'd have to have every kind of employer in every place.

Far better to have a system in which the jobs accommodate the workers than the other way around. We shouldn't have to exist solely to make somebody else rich.

Having things as they are now means that the many live at the mercy of the few.

That doesn't mean it doesn't get hit by hard times. But it does mean that there's a better chance than a smaller city or w/o a diverse economy to withstand a recession.

A lot of people do this. Kids who graduate schools in towns and small cities throughout the country often move to larger cities because that's where the opportunities are.

An added benefit to increased job opportunities, is the ability to get temp work. There are people in my city who can earn a decent income for partial work, on a permanent basis, by signing up with a temp agency. Another benefit is that the cost of living here is lower than most places....increased competition for clothing and food makes those costs less than where I'm from. Economy of scale, also.

Sounds like you may be looking for an excuse not to find a job, or at least do everything you can to find a job. All I'm saying is that I've done, and a lot of other people do it every day. That's what people do, to get jobs, further their careers, have happier lives, whatever.

In my experience, moving to a city "where the jobs are" with little money meant I had to take anything that was available. And most of the time, it was a shit job that didn't pay squat and would barely cover rent and food-- that is, when a job was available. A lot of times, "jobs" were advertised in the newspaper that were not even open-- the advertisers just wanted to update their application file, in case something might become available at some time down the road. And when a job actually was open, the personnel managers would invent obstacles to weed out candidates, that is, they would make up any bullshit excuse not to hire-- ("You don't have a driver's license from this state? Too bad, we can't hire you.&quot .

As Dionne Warwick sang back in 1968, "Dreams turn into dust and blow away. And there you are, without a friend, you pack your car and ride away".

(assuming, of course, that you could afford to gas up the car and didn't have to just leave it and all your stuff behind you.)

So Dionne might have thought that everyone would at least have enough money to get out of Dodge when the job prospects fell through

n/t.

The way it played out for you is not the way it will go for most of us.

You just caught a break.

And the REAL answer is to create a system that provides jobs where the jobless ARE. We shouldn't have to settle for a situation in which the 1% have the power to consign whole regions to economic collapse just to increase THEIR short-term profits.

No one should have to scurry from state to state just to survive. That's not how a decent society is supposed to be.

The moving fairy will drop the money in your hands if you just have faith!

I wasn't saying that YOU caught a break. Apologies for any confusion there.

n/t.

(and her assistants, "The Relocation Pixies&quot .

independent of employment.

Treat food, shelter, medical care, and education like roads: utilities available to all, not luxuries gated by someone else's decisions.

If you do that, though, you do need to find some way to keep the distribution of those necessities under transparent and democratic control.

You are right, of course, that people shouldn't have to spend the bulk of their energies simply struggling to stay alive, and that we shouldn't have to hang on to the wheel of life with white knuckles just to avoid being shaken loose by the sheer momentum of the machine.

What a world we would have if people could actually use their lives doing the work they WANT to do, the things that have the deepest meaning to them. That would finally be a world in which we all could live, rather than just breathe.

What do you envision as the problems? I could imagine a rig-up in housing where a few would grab all the best dwellings, if we weren't careful to keep it honest, but I can't imagine how anyone could get more than their share of food, edu, or healthcare. What am I missing, do you reckon?

As to the benefits, you and I are definitely of one mind!

who administer the benefits and take a disproportionate share of the wealth for themselves(as happened in the USSR). Please don't take that to mean that I was implying you were a Stalinist...I wasn't and obviously you aren't...it's just about looking at the history of past alternatives and noting where they went wrong.

In hindsight, I should have phrased that as "WE need to find a way". Bad wording on my part there.

our economy to meet people's needs.

George McGovern's idea of a Guaranteed Annual Income (ca. 1972) represents a good start, imo. I'd like to see that idea make a return.

There are jobless graphic designers in Boise and in Beloit. There are jobless airframe mechanics in Miami and Marshalltown. Should we set up specialist companies in every town where there are specialist unemployed people? How?

And the need for goods and services exists everywhere, so we could very well find a way to produce them everywhere. It might involve producing in smaller quantities solely to serve the consumer market in a particular town, state, or region, but that is possible now.

And doing that is going to create a far more dignified life for everyone.

who is going to make sure that certain companies set up in certain locations?

Nothing I suggested in that post requires Soviet-style central planning. We can lay things out democratically and from below. That's what the way Occupy runs itself is demonstrating.

what if I decide that Silicone Valley is the only place that makes sense to locate my business because I want access to a large.population of highly educated people as well as access to some of the top research schools in the world? And what if all my competitors have the same feeling? What can you do to stop me - it is my money and my company after all.

Nobody's individuality is actually protected by letting the wealthy run life.

Your belief that the current model makes you free would be comically naive if it weren't so dangerous to the futures of so many other people. In the corporate world, for all practical purposes, inviduality no longer exists(or has been perverted into a desire to collect fancy toys or sexual trophy beings). If somebody else is telling you what your hair length has to be, whether or not you can have facial hair, what clothes you have to wear, what you can and can't post about the company online, what you can and can't say about the company in your off-hours in person-to-person conversation, and even what you can and can't have on your desk...your individuality is gone and its gone forever. Nothing is left once all that has been taken away. At that point, you are nothing but a flesh-covered robot.

Obviously, I can't stop you locating your business wherever you wish to locate it. But your designers could easily do their work from their own homes in their own town through the use of computers.

And there are needs for goods and services in every community...thus, there is the possibility of developing local economic models that make it possible for the vast majority of people to work and live where they WISH to work and live...rather than where the 1% forces them to live.

What I believe is that we can come together and create a country where nobody is forced to be an economic migrant...that people could move to work IF THEY WANTED TO, but that nobody would be forced to. Is there something wrong with trying to create a country like that?

And how could a country like that be worse than what the "free market" is driving us towards now...a system where a few people can be rooted, but most will be forced to perpetually travel for whatever short periods of work they can get...presumably until they die of exhaustion before their pensions can actually kick in...how is THAT "freedom"? How could a country in which the building of community would be, by definition impossible(I assume your workplace in Silicon Valley would be pretty much like being a character in OFFICE SPACE, for example) be a place in which anything humane, poetic, or creative could possibly survive(unless it made somebody rich, at which point the creativity would be drained from what was created).

It's not tyrannical to want a country in which life is about more than just survival.

the economics of transportation, raw material, energy, access to markets, skilled workers works against a factory in every town or even every region. There are very good reasons why businesses are located where they are.

I moved 2,000 miles to Los Angeles to try to find work. Eight years later, I'm still here and enjoying life (it helps to be making 4x what I made in my old small town). It's hard at first, but eventually you settle in and start a new life.

What I was saying was that we need to have an economic structure that doesn't FORCE people to keep wandering the country looking for any job at all. And the 1% are doing all they can to force the rest of us into a future as perpetual economic migrants.

... there are situations where moving is in fact the best option. But if you have to move, and then move, and then move - well that is not too good.

everyone should or can do is really thoughtless. Perhaps to you leaving family was necessary but others don't feel that way. And if you did move away from family then you were able to. What if you have to care for parents who have Dementia?

There are many reasons why people don't move to get work that may not be there. I'm 63 and I've been lucky that after I was laid off I got a job right away. At the time I was the primary care taker of my mother who was bed-ridden and also had Dementia. It would have been impossible for me to move.

I am glad it worked out for you, but it could have gone differently for you.

People are being propagandized to develop complete insensitivity and contempt towards anybody who's having a harder time than they are...being trained to believe that any call for fellow feeling, common humanity, or even just a bit of help is some sort of a con job...

There are a lot of people in this country who think Jesus chased the jobless and the "welfare mothers" out of the temple.

We're going to see more and more of that thinking. And we'll have to call it out wherever we see it or else lose what the tiny remnants of a soul this country still possesses.

If Americans start moving out of America en masse, you will most certainly find that the Philippines and other nations will close their borders.

The question goes both ways.

Immigration to the US is down. One has to ask why.

but those are VERY low-wage jobs and people there(as well as most of the Third World) can get killed just for trying to organize the union.

Just like it was here before the passage of the Wagner Act.

We need to help THOSE workers organize for a decent standard of living as well. They're on the same side of the fight as we are...AGAINST the arrogance and greed of the 1%.

We're all doomed to lose if we let them play the workers of different countries against each other.

I'm in favor of a total war against offshoring but it's impossible to make it a just and effective war without also fighting for GLOBAL solidarity.

it was the norm to travel to where there was work

But not on a recurring and perpetual basis, which is the model the 1% are trying to impose on us now.

I have done it. and it sucks
you keep your belongings small and able to be lifted by you alone.
I've even gotten a few rock concert style road cases for my direct tv, stereo ect
I live like I'm a band on tour.


I also noticed comments about the cost of moving-yes, it is un-affordable. You have to move yourself......

We'll travel around, sleep in caravans, and learn fortune telling pickpocketing skills in between jobs.

Seems like people are still posting.
It's Friday night here.

Fact is, none of the rest of us are going to say anything more accurate and wise than what you posted.

Just give me the damn job first. I can't tell you how many interviews I have had where they question my willingness to relocate. If I wasn't willing, I wouldn't have applied for the damn job in the first place.

Seriously. I want nothing more than to get out of this craphole town. But, there is no way in hell I am going to pack up and leave to chase possibilities that will likely not amount to anything.

It's one thing if you WANT to move...but not only should no one be forced to, no one who is willing to should be jerked around by the personnel directors who hold life-and-death power over people in these situations.

"By the way, I wonder if it occurred to Dick that a lot of those 400,000 people who are 'making some money' trading on eBay have been reduced to selling their belongings because they can't get a job?"

Especially since ebay had stopped being worth the while to sell your stuff. I used to sell random cool stuff on ebay and made enough money for a night at the movie theater, and that was during the peak years of ebay. Those days are gone. Now, it's sellers based in China selling their mass produced baubles who dominate ebay.

A tech-savvy friend of mine (who has now become more tech-savvy, having been a victim of this) told me that when you see "new" electronics for sale on places like eBay, for prices that are a fraction of their normal retail cost, they're usually not counterfeit -- instead, they've been purchased on the black market in bulk quantities from thieves who steal bins of rejected, defective products from factories.

That's right. $5,000.

$992 for a 16' U-haul moving van. $700 gas, $150 tolls, $100 for two nights in a hotel = $2,000 for the move.

Then she had to come up with first and last months rent, and the security deposit ($3000 total) for a 1 br apartment near DC.

It takes money to move. And you have to have it upfront.

Those who get to stay where they are, in that scenario, become the modern-day equivalent of feudal lords or(to cite the pre-1860 American version of feudalism)economic plantation owners.

have kids, let alone pets, or aging parents who live with them?

who never got past the "I don't need anybody's help, I can do EVERYTHING by myself and have no weaknesses" mindset.

You know, the one most people got past somewhere in junior high.

I strongly encourage it for younger people. They don't have much stuff to move, strong backs to move what they have themselves, and it's really a good idea to find out what life is like outside where you grew up.

However, it shouldn't be required for everyone in order to find work. It should be possible to "settle down" when you want to do so.

People who WANT to travel elsewhere for opportunity should be able to...if it's just because they WANT to.

Nobody should be forced to...especially after, say, the age of 35 or so, a point in life at which one's dignity is far more contingent on being able to establish community and find roots.

I ain't got no home
No place to roam
I ain't got no home
No place to roam
I'm a lonely boy
I ain't got a home

"Ain't Got No Home"

Just want credit to go where it is due. That's a song no one should cover.

Child care in particular sometimes falls to local family members.

Move away from family, have to pay for child care. Where's the savings in that?

that "some people" just shouldn't reproduce.

In other words, that "inferior strains" should remove themselves from the gene pool.

It's economics meets eugenics with some of them.

For which there will presumably be few if any buyers in a place so depressed that people have to leave it?