In Areas With Low Unemployment, Employees Are Hard to Keep – WSJ

Avatar

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

4 Responses

  1. Avatar Jesse says:

    I mean…yes? I think even Jacobin and Reason would both agree with this.Report

  2. Avatar Will H. says:

    One big problem we’ve been having in this country is that we haven’t been f*cking the working man quite enough.

    Hmmm.

    I just don’t see it.Report

  3. Avatar Richard Hershberger says:

    Reading the linked article, it seems to be talking about places where only rich people can afford to live, with the non-startling consequence that non-rich people can’t afford to live there.Report

    • Avatar Michael Cain says:

      Most of the article is three counties in Colorado: Baca, Summit, and Yuma. None are normal. Baca, population about 3500, is the classic rural Great Plains story: shedding population since the 30s, generally with people leaving faster than jobs. Yuma, population about 10K, is similar except there’s been a small oil/gas boom. Yuma’s problem today is that the boom looks to be over, their tax base has collapsed, and the long-term decline is resuming. Summit, about 30K, is almost 100% national forest with resorts carved out. Essentially every place that can be built has been built, and the interest is how to get more tourist space, not worker housing. Unemployed people don’t hang around, and if they’re going to keep looking, they move to one of the towns outside the national forest (hence county) boundaries.

      I thought the Wall Street Journal would do better than picking three very atypical counties and trying to make a story out of it. Digging into, say, Jefferson at 2.0%, Denver at 2.1%, and El Paso at 2.5%, all with more than a half-million people, would have been much more informative.Report