Top products from r/wisconsin

>FTA, means From The Article. Just quoting from the article. You mentioned an assumption.

Ah. Whoops.

>That isn't how any science works. Not even the social sciences which aren't pure or even necessarily just applied sciences, but humanities with scientific principles.

I wasn't making a scientific argument, I was speaking from personal experience. I will admit I have no current data on hand to back up what I believe.

>See, here is where we really need to define what is truly rural and what is urban. There are also costs associated in small towns growing so if you come to a small town, and say you build new, those houses unlike the original ones, will have impact fees built into the cost. What you might not realize is that housing over the last few decades has gotten significantly more expensive, often because of sprawl or lack of efficiency.

True in many cases, though from what I understand of small town carpentry/contracting/etc. companies is that they have gotten more efficient and have less sprawl to deal with. Again, no data, just breakfast conversations.

>Any its not the point of you car breaking down. What if you have an ongoing problem, what if the mechanic is busy? The point being you can be seriously inconvenience, and since you offered it as advice of how to live cheaply why should we assume some has a brand spanking new car. It likely might be a car that needs maintenance.

That won't change between city or country. I got better mileage in my small town and my tank lasted longer because I was in less stop and go city traffic and I was able to walk when I wanted to go many places.

>Well I've know plenty of people in towns of 10,000 people and they often were bored out of their minds, so they would drive to the next closest larger city for things to do.

I can understand the boredom, but that can be creatively circumvented. Find a bar/cafe and become a regular. Movies are readily available in 10,000 person towns. The internet opens things up so much too.

>No, that's the thing, modern treatment plants can take literally crappy water and turn it into something pristine. I know because I have toured the facilities and know people in the field. I also have a property with a well and have been blessed with good water, yet neighbors down the road have had problems. You need to test regularly, there is just more responsibility to have to worry about.

I will concede the water point. It does depend on your well more often than not I suppose.

>But see you're talking about a city of 10,000, so you may not really be living all that rural. Depends on how far out you live.

I lived in the town and outside. I've climbed from very low population areas on up as I aged. Hopefully it ends before I land myself in Milwaukee or worse Chicago.

>Does it really matter that it is Wisconsin? You held up your statement like it was a universal truth. Wisconsin honestly has been lucky but note, its not just the fracking itself, but the materials, like sand and water which can drop the water table.

I was intending to talk about Wisconsin. Other countries have their own issues, as do some other states.

>Well have always had this consideration especially if local agriculture sucks the water table down and people have to re-drill to get it.

That depends largely on the type of farming, if I'm not mistaken.

>But personal anecdotes are not applicable to general situations. So if that is going to be presented as evidence it may be dismissed by everyone as such. Doesn't mean its not true, just that we have no way of knowing, nor should we trust it, for the reasons stated above.

I have a hard time ignoring my life experience in this matter.

>That's still travel. Again we're sort picking apart just some simple examples, there could be more, still beside the point. Gas will be more because anything that isn't in immediate proximity will need to either be shipped, or you will need to travel for it. If you hang out online for entertainment and order from Amazon, then the discount rural life might be just fine, if you have good Internet access. Again, if.

It takes me longer than 10 minutes to get to my nearest Wal-Mart if I ever decide to torture myself by going there, which I use the beltline to reach. That typically drains more gas than running a town over did.

>No, its not. People choose to have a pool. No only chooses the size of their yard, it is part of the parcel they buy. Or were you only talking renting?

It's part of the parcel, a parcel they choose. If you don't want/can't do upkeep on a large lawn, don't get one. That's like getting a property that already has a pool, the analogy I was reaching for.

>So what you have to do is calculate the CoL rural and compare to CoL urban factoring in all aspects and then compare. You might, I'm not saying you won't. I'm saying its not a guarantee that you will unless you do all the math.

I don't know where I'd find that sort of data. That sounds like something for a statistician in population studies or something to look at.

>But, a strong farm community is harder to find. Why? Because the individual farmers that supported each other are growing scarce being replaced with industrial farming.

Yes, which I don't support.

>Okay, now you are just being silly. If you check Wisconsin history, farmers used to be progressive because they were in battle with the train owners who liked to gouge them for their shipment costs. Its recent manufactured fokelore that Urban=liberal and rural=conservative.

Liberal in one area doesn't mean liberal in all, though that is very interesting.

>You might actually want to read this one book, What's The Matter with Kansas which shows how of some of what you are referring to came to be.

I may do that.

>So you heard something once recently and that makes it a fact? You realize that is what is wrong with the current media and public, we don't challenge these ridiculous notions out of hand. Plenty of politicians on either side of the aisle support farm subsidies if it affect them or their people.

Several times recently, actually. It makes sense, otherwise why would urban elected officials want to give money to rural districts and how would you get conservative representatives to support food stamps?

>The OP topic was "The silent problem - rural poverty is rampant." Unless you have some information to say why the post is completely wrong that doesn't involve your singular personal experience coupled with a few people you know, then we'll have to go with the post having merit and needing further discussion and investigation.

I will agree it needs further consideration and investigation.

>Actually I own a rural property that has been in the family for a couple generations. Its not farmed but it is in a rural setting. And all the problems that I cited, you know the personal anecdotes, those are all things that we contend with when were are there. Do you know why we don't live there full time? Because the city, a reasonable sized city offered many, many more choices especially employment. And grass fed burgers should I desire them.

Okay. That is good to know, then. I was worried that you might have never left the city.

>To be honest, I think it is more people who like the idea of having wealth that no one can see.

Well, the people they know can see it. Family, friends, spouses. Those are the people they'd want to show off to, not random passers-by. Plus, living in a house like that is very comfortable.

>I'd go back and read the article itself and see if there wasn't a larger point you missed, no offense. It was never to argue against a rural way of life nor disrespect those who live in a rural setting. Quite the contrary. In fact, since it says it is the title and you said it yourself. You lived in a rural setting and even you don't it to be a problem.

I'll do that, post-game. I've already started drinking and I've got people coming over shortly.

1) How would dumping low-skilled labor into the US labor pool not displace or devalue US low-skilled labor?

I think the problem that a lot of people who look at it this way have is that they don't account for entrepreneurial expansion or the fluidity of human capital. I'm going to use farmers as my example for consistency but there are factory jobs, construction jobs, and other jobs in the food service sector that low/wage immigrant workers tend to take.

If a farmer sees a reduced cost of wages due to increased competition between domestic and international laborers on his/her farm, s/he has two possible ways to react: lower costs to the consumer (unlikely) or reinvest the excess money into the operation. This, in turn, increases demand in other areas of the economy in different ways and creates openings in other low-wage/low skill areas like factories, chemical plants, etc. Though these low-wage workers may not be able to work at a farm anymore, there's always the low-wage canning factory, farming supply store, repair shop, or other jobs that will grow as a result of an expansion at the farm.

What if these jobs don't exist in their area? Then the people may have to move to an area where the jobs do exist. The reason why the US economy is able to meet the demands of the world market so well is because most Americans are willing to move to get to the job that gives them the life they want. If immigrants come to Baraboo and push a bunch of farmer laborers out, they can always move to Stevens Point and work for Del Monte.

This reaction also ignores the fact that a person can, at any time, improve their skill-sets or education. Right now, we're having a discussion about people with very low skill-sets: lacking a high school diploma or GED, generally in the agricultural sector. The US has many opportunities for these people to advance to the next level of education or training if/when jobs become scarce. This is why Congress passed a bill that expanded tech colleges immediately after the Great Recession in 2008 to meet the expected demand of new students.

In all reality, though, the data is inconclusive as to whether or not a displacement or devaluation of domestic low-skilled labor occurs. When we talked about this in one of my econ classes, the only group of people affected by more immigration were the immigrants already in the US, legal or otherwise. I would actually like to see some research that demonstrates the sort of effect you're talking about here because I haven't seen any, yet.

2) What explains the flood of high risk-taking by immigrant labor?

This is widely believed but, I think, widely misunderstood. Most people who ILLEGALLY immigrate to the US are not taking excessive risks because only one incident with the police will demonstrate that they don't have legal documentation and send them to jail or to be deported. Here's an article by NPR (I know, biased but I'm doing this on the fly) that talks about it. From personal experience working with Latino immigrants to the US, I can say that the majority's biggest fear is that the police will have any reason to stop them because it would mean that they have to be sent home. A kid I worked with at a restaurant was pulled over for not having his car fully registered and he never showed up to work again.

I agree though, the places where most of these people are coming from are also some of the poorest states in their country. Nowadays, what we're seeing an increase of is immigrants from further south: Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc. and an overall decrease of Mexican immigration.

3) Though I'm aware of many border factories, didn't our subsequent deal with China wipe out the full promise of NAFTA?

Short answer: no. Long answer: Our investment in Mexico allowed Mexico to gain a competitive advantage in a lot of the manufacturing jobs that were displaced there. Though many of the factories that we initially relocated to Mexico have subsequently moved to China (and now to Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Indonesia) the Mexican domestic demand for many of these products remained and so the factories did, too. It's also easier to do business with Mexico because of our more similar cultural expectations, free trade agreement, and trust between nations. Mexico is a natural partner for the US and Canada.

4) I see you've referenced the Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution; do you have non-political-thinktank sources to support your point?

Sorry, no, I looked hard, but the subject hasn't had a truly "independent" look yet. I can say that the book I read that initially discussed all of this was pretty balanced in its approach, but Paul Krugman and the professor teaching the class are both considered "liberal" economists.

4) Stuff on the bottom of your point

Yes, Mexico's inequality does remain very high and will continue to do so until they fix their institutions. The influx of wealth from the North did not fix their problem, it only helped alleviate ours a little. It's sort of like a teacher putting a kid's homework into their backpack every night. The kid still has to do the homework, but at least it's there for him to do.

And it will and should. I'm a free trade guy, so my take on this is that Mexico didn't have the infrastructure to effectively and efficiently produce corn that could fully compete with US corn. I whole-heatedly agree that agricultural subsidies should be reexamined, but I haven't studied it much so this opinion is based solely on the fact that I see it as spending the US government can't afford. I don't know the benefits of the system very well.

> You were the one citing the 4 of 5 statistic. I assumed you had the data.

FTA, means From The Article. Just quoting from the article. You mentioned an assumption.

> I know several others in similar situations. I don't have data, but that's because I have life experience.

That isn't how any science works. Not even the social sciences which aren't pure or even necessarily just applied sciences, but humanities with scientific principles.

> I lived in a small town for over 20 years.

See, here is where we really need to define what is truly rural and what is urban. There are also costs associated in small towns growing so if you come to a small town, and say you build new, those houses unlike the original ones, will have impact fees built into the cost. What you might not realize is that housing over the last few decades has gotten significantly more expensive, often because of sprawl or lack of efficiency.

Any its not the point of you car breaking down. What if you have an ongoing problem, what if the mechanic is busy? The point being you can be seriously inconvenience, and since you offered it as advice of how to live cheaply why should we assume some has a brand spanking new car. It likely might be a car that needs maintenance.

> I lived in a town of 10,000 people. You don't need to leave, especially with internet access.

Well I've know plenty of people in towns of 10,000 people and they often were bored out of their minds, so they would drive to the next closest larger city for things to do.

> Yeah, but the initial water quality is what we were getting at I thought.

No, that's the thing, modern treatment plants can take literally crappy water and turn it into something pristine. I know because I have toured the facilities and know people in the field. I also have a property with a well and have been blessed with good water, yet neighbors down the road have had problems. You need to test regularly, there is just more responsibility to have to worry about.

But see you're talking about a city of 10,000, so you may not really be living all that rural. Depends on how far out you live.

> Fracking issues? Really? Please cite one of these occurrences in Wisconsin.

Does it really matter that it is Wisconsin? You held up your statement like it was a universal truth. Wisconsin honestly has been lucky but note, its not just the fracking itself, but the materials, like sand and water which can drop the water table.

Well have always had this consideration especially if local agriculture sucks the water table down and people have to re-drill to get it.

> I lived in a rural setting for 20 years. I know the situation. I don't have to "trust you" on what I lived.

There is only one fact in that sentence, and even that's sort of debatable. It sounds like you lived in a small town in a rural area that had some of the amenities that larger cities might have especially due to recent advances in technology. Trust is not an issue. Numbers, data, research is what we should seek, and we don't trust those, we verify those. Trust involves faith.

But personal anecdotes are not applicable to general situations. So if that is going to be presented as evidence it may be dismissed by everyone as such. Doesn't mean its not true, just that we have no way of knowing, nor should we trust it, for the reasons stated above.

> Many rural areas are near small towns. A rural county usually has 'the town' that serves that purpose and is only 10-15 minutes away.

That's still travel. Again we're sort picking apart just some simple examples, there could be more, still beside the point. Gas will be more because anything that isn't in immediate proximity will need to either be shipped, or you will need to travel for it. If you hang out online for entertainment and order from Amazon, then the discount rural life might be just fine, if you have good Internet access. Again, if.

> A riding mower? If you're going to have a yard that big, you should probably afford it before you buy it. That's like saying that someone's swimming pool costs are too high.

No, its not. People choose to have a pool. No only chooses the size of their yard, it is part of the parcel they buy. Or were you only talking renting?

> I was saying that people who live in rural areas make less money, many times minimum.

Well then that complicates things further. You make less money in a rural setting, and you supposedly pay less, according to you because you don't have the overhead of the city. But on the flip side the reason people are paid more in the city is because of supply and demand which is why the housing may be more, you may have some more taxes, but all services are far more economical to provide per person or per capita because of economies of scale.

So what you have to do is calculate the CoL rural and compare to CoL urban factoring in all aspects and then compare. You might, I'm not saying you won't. I'm saying its not a guarantee that you will unless you do all the math.

> It might be anecdotal, but it doesn't make it untrue. A strong farming community can support itself.

Never said it did. The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it has a very small sample size so we have no way of knowing the truth until it is no longer anecdotal. I'm saying that you have to look far more into the situation with all the data, and that still doesn't refute the OP which appears to be based on research or non-anecdotal evidence.

But, a strong farm community is harder to find. Why? Because the individual farmers that supported each other are growing scarce being replaced with industrial farming.

> Because cities tend to have liberals who want to spend that money rather than return it to the people who earned it and it's impractical to have a public bus in a town of 500.

Okay, now you are just being silly. If you check Wisconsin history, farmers used to be progressive because they were in battle with the train owners who liked to gouge them for their shipment costs. Its recent manufactured fokelore that Urban=liberal and rural=conservative.

You might actually want to read this one book, What's The Matter with Kansas which shows how of some of what you are referring to came to be.

> It also doesn't mean those problems don't exist in urban areas too.

It seems to be grasping at straws. All areas may have problems. Like I said over concentration has problem, under concentration also has problems. The OP was talking about a problem of rural poverty that any sociologist could tell you is a problem, but you, if I understand correctly, seem to be denying its existence by personal experiences.

> I disagree. I seem to recall hearing constantly during the farm bill debate about why the food stamps were included, and that was the reason I mentioned.

So you heard something once recently and that makes it a fact? You realize that is what is wrong with the current media and public, we don't challenge these ridiculous notions out of hand. Plenty of politicians on either side of the aisle support farm subsidies if it affect them or their people.

The OP topic was "The silent problem - rural poverty is rampant." Unless you have some information to say why the post is completely wrong that doesn't involve your singular personal experience coupled with a few people you know, then we'll have to go with the post having merit and needing further discussion and investigation.

> Have you lived in a rural setting? For how long if so? I get the feeling I'm trying to explain what a burger tastes like to a man with no taste buds.

Actually I know what a good grass fed burger tastes like, but we don't find them as often. Do you know why?

Actually I own a rural property that has been in the family for a couple generations. Its not farmed but it is in a rural setting. And all the problems that I cited, you know the personal anecdotes, those are all things that we contend with when were are there. Do you know why we don't live there full time? Because the city, a reasonable sized city offered many, many more choices especially employment. And grass fed burgers should I desire them.

> I disagree. Plus, if you think rural areas need the help, isn't this a good thing for them?

No. Not at all. Because the money isn't going to local areas that are desperate for tax money to maintain services like schools, another thing that doesn't scale well in the rural setting, no they stay just far enough out. It's a very deliberate tax dodge and its not simply retiring boomers, as many of them may not be well off. These are people who did not make money off the land as farmers but did so elsewhere and now flee from the city with their earnings and create paradise in the middle of nowhere.

> Not really. You can build/buy a 2006 2 million dollar house for $300,000. I know of a sale like that that just happened near my hometown.

This actually is getting to be beside the point, it was a simple observation that raises questions.

To be honest, I think it is more people who like the idea of having wealth that no one can see.

> That's a reasonable retirement mortgage if you invested wisely and are putting the sale of another house toward the purchase.

And if you didn't lose your pension, 401k, job, have a major healthcare problem or any number of circumstances. But that was just an observation. And now we're debating over budget mansions?

I'd go back and read the article itself and see if there wasn't a larger point you missed, no offense. It was never to argue against a rural way of life nor disrespect those who live in a rural setting. Quite the contrary. In fact, since it says it is the title and you said it yourself. You lived in a rural setting and even you don't it to be a problem.

So that means The Silent Poverty rampent in rural areas actually is a mystery especially if neighbors like you are unaware.

(Source Emphasis added)

---
You’ll be shocked, shocked to read this, but it seems the great man of populist integrity is, at his heart, as much of a filthy capitalist whore as anyone.

PORCINE provocateur Michael Moore likes to portray himself as a working-class man of the people, but a new book exposes him as a “corporate criminal, environmental menace and racist union-buster.”

In “Do As I Say, Not As I Do: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” Peter Schweizer reveals that Moore, who has been vociferous in his criticism of defense contractor Halliburton, has bought and sold hundreds of shares of Halliburton stock — and that of other defense contractors — through his private foundation.

Moore, who has claimed he doesn’t own a “single share” of stock, has also invested heavily in HMOs and pharmaceutical giants, the targets of his next movie, “Sickos.”

Moore also likes to rail against what he calls rampant racism in the United States and the fact that supposedly no one hires blacks for good jobs. Schweizer points out that “out of the 134 producers, editors, cinematographers, composers, and production coordinators Moore hired, only three were black.” And not one African-American lives in the ritzy Michigan enclave where Moore has a $1 million mansion.

And while publicly championing unions, Moore has been quite anti-union in his own business dealings and had several clashes with the Writers Guild.

We’ve detailed a number of these revelations here over the years, specifically the way Mike treats his staff and won’t allow them to unionize, pays them slave wages, and outsources much of his production work to Canada. It’s good to see it all laid out in print, nicely researched and sourced.

---

Yeah... embrace that "Wisconsin Feeling"... just stay clear of the fat hypocrite.

I would call myself a liberal, but grew up in small town, relatively conservative county. A great start would be understanding where people are coming from, and for that, I would recommend this book : https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Resentment-Consciousness-Wisconsin-American/dp/022634911X

It was written recently by a Madison professor as a series of interviews with rural Wisconsinites after the extreme polarization of the last few years. I learned a lot in my time as a rural journalist, working with town and country officials and getting in invited into people's homes regularly. Even if I didn't agree with what they were saying, I got to know their point of view, and that's what counts.

> You do realize that the second amendment never mentions being able to overthrow our government and that is not at all what its intended purpose was right?

It doesn't have to mention it, just like the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights don't have to enumerate their every use case in detail. You can read the writings of the founders at the time to fill in the context, which are overflowing with references to John Locke, to the point where the founders would casually invoke him to support an argument much like we'd do with the founders today (see: The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution pg 28).

Locke wrote extensively on the right to revolution and was an obvious inspiration when the founders wrote in the Declaration of independence that people have a natural right to "alter or abolish" "any Form of Government [that] becomes destructive."

> It does specifically state the Militia can be called upon by the President to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
>
> ...
>
> The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow local branches of government to form militias ...

The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment doesn't limit the operative clause, i.e. it's not restricted to militia use. That was obvious from writings of the time but thanks to Heller that's now been legally clarified too.

> Even with all the automatic weapons being fully legal they would have no impact on tanks and little to no impact on aircraft. Drones would be able to wipe out any real revolution pretty quickly. You would need to legalize missiles on private aircraft to even stand a slight chance. You would need rocket propelled grenades and surface to air missiles to even start to combat to power of our current military. The idea we could take out our government by forceful insurrection is laughable today and only held to by those without a clue on how the real world works.

Weird how we got thrashed in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan then

See also https://i.imgtc.com/D7G0hkG.png

I highly recommend Wisconsin's Past and Present: A Historical Atlas by the Wisconsin Cartographers' Guild and The Making of Milwaukee by historian John Gurda. The antiquities of Wisconsin: As Surveyed and Described by scientist Increase Lapham is also interesting.

There is also a book called "Haunted Heartland" put out back in the late 80s. It was a pretty interesting read if you want to delve into it.

It was Freakonomics, yes. That chapter was fascinating. I wonder how much of it is accurate.

I am all for them. Also from various things i have read they are safer also. Since they force the drivers to actually pay attention and not just stop at the red light, shut off brain and wait for the green until they gas it.

As long as they dont implement something like this Magic Roundabout

Heres a couple other links you may find interesting

• Roundabouts: Reducing Traffic Frustration
  
• Why we drive the way we do

Perhaps. Although I hate to generalize a group of people, but that is likely true.

Although I don't really blame them, I blame the environment they grew up in as described here:

How children lost the right to roam in four generations

Helicopter Moms vs. Free-Range Kids

Free-Range Kids, How to Raise Safe, Self-Reliant Children (Without Going Nuts with Worry)

Free-Range Kids - Blog

I see people moving in two directions at once, backward as you describe, not just limited to kids but adults that have desk jobs and work overtime. At the same time we have people pushing the envelop, doing extreme sports or 'silent sports' like biking, kayaking, cross-country skiing, but those people are much fewer in number by comparison.

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Big-Black-Sun-Personal/dp/0306824086/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462912664&sr=1-1&keywords=john+doe

Heres the link https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G2B8QX8

Or if you’re interested in the unbelievably fucked up story of Taliesin v1.0, - how he built it for the mistress he abandoned his wife and children for, and oh yeah, how his mistress and her family in turn all got hacked to pieces with an ax by a crazy caretaker who also burned the house down, this is great reading https://www.amazon.com/Death-Prairie-House-Taliesin-Murders/dp/0299222144