Rural

Can a Governor Save Rural Regions? Should He?

The Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Virginia unveiled a plan for economic growth in the rural parts of the state.

|

When the final days of the Virginia gubernatorial contest arrive and you find yourself hurling vases at the television because you're sick of snarling attack ads, just remember: The candidates offered much substance back in summer.

Republican Ed Gillespie has laid out extensive policy proposals on taxes and the opioid crisis, for example. Yesterday, Democrat Ralph Northam unveiled his plan for economic growth in rural Virginia.

You can understand why he did. While the crescent from Northern Virginia through Richmond and over to Hampton Roads holds the bulk of the state's vote, rural areas will be key to the GOP effort, and if Northam can make inroads there, he could sew up the contest by October and coast to victory.

And you can understand why his plan would appeal to voters in the rural southwest, what with the decline of the coal industry and so on. Still, it's worth digging a little deeper into Northam's plan and the premises behind it.

"When I travel around the commonwealth," Northam writes, "I hear a lot of folks say they're from rural Virginia, but not enough who say they've stayed in rural Virginia. And that's what we need to fix."

It is? Why?

One possible reason: There is intrinsic value in keeping the region populated. But that doesn't seem very plausible. If anything, you could argue that, environmentally speaking, it might be better to keep some swaths of the state unpopulated.

A more plausible explanation is that the government should help the residents of Southwest Virginia. But are they better off staying there? If they can improve their economic circumstances by moving to urban areas, then why not let them?

Of course, some people in Southwest Virginia might want to improve their economic circumstances and still stay put. But is it the state's job to ensure they can? And if the answer is yes, then what does that imply about, say, struggling economic sectors? Should the state help people stay in fading industries as well as fading regions? If not, why not?

The other day The Washington Post reported on the federal flood insurance program, which has racked up $25 billion in debt. The story cited a $56,000 house in Baton Rouge that, thanks to repeated floods, has run up almost $429,000 in claims. Another house, in Mississippi, is valued at $90,000 and has collected more than $600,000 in claims.

Critics of the program say it encourages people to stay in place when what they really need to do is move. The point could apply to more than just flood plains.

Northam also says the "top concern" he hears from large manufacturers and economic developers is "whether we have the skilled workforce necessary to grow and attract new jobs and industries." To address that concern, he wants to create "flexible, business-oriented workforce training programs across the commonwealth" that can teach people the "unique skillset(s)" that are "oftentimes required to meet that company's needs."

Northam isn't suggesting anything we haven't heard many times before. But the idea does raise two questions—one practical and the other philosophical.

The practical question is whether skill-specific training will help workers as much as it's cut out to. The New York Times recently noted a new study in the Journal of Human Resources that suggests technological and other changes often leave skill-trained workers behind—and rather than retrain them, employers often let them go and bring in new talent. As one of the authors of the research put it, the real need is "for more general cognitive skills that give workers the ability to adapt to new circumstances and new jobs."

That's the practical question. The philosophical one is this: If companies need workers who are trained to perform specific tasks, then why don't those companies do the training themselves? Why should the state—i.e., the taxpayers—shoulder the burden of doing it for them?

After all, labor is a production input just like raw materials. If Acme Semiconductors said to Virginia, "We'd like to build a plant in your state, and we want you to provide us with a steady supply of high-grade silicon," the commonwealth would (one hopes) tell it Acme to go get its own silicon, thank you very much. But when Acme says it wants workers trained in clean-room manufacturing, somehow Virginia feels it is falling down on the job if it doesn't provide them. Is that really what state government is for?

It seems like a reasonable question to ask—even if it doesn't show up in a late-October attack ad.

This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: Jilted Dentist Calls CPS on Mom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m bored at work and you ‘tards aren’t commenting fast enough to ensure there’s something new and entertaining to catch up on every 20 minutes.

    So, you know, get crackin’.

    1. I see you learned form the Hillary campaign on how to motivate people

  2. “When I travel around the commonwealth,” Northam writes, “I hear a lot of folks say they’re from rural Virginia, but not enough who say they’ve stayed in rural Virginia. And that’s what we need to fix.”

    It is? Why?

    Serfs mustn’t start thinking they can just leave the land.

    The historic progression of politico-economic systems is, contra Marx, feudalism becoming mercantilism becoming capitalism becoming socialism becoming feudalism again. Northam’s so goddamn progressive he’s skipping right over the socialism part.

    1. May be, I don’t know, lower some taxes, so all the Mennonites stop moving to Belize?

      1. Belize? So they’ve given up on taking over Albemarle County?

        Fact: you can’t throw a dead possum in the Charlottesville Walmart without getting possum all over at least a dozen Mennonite families.

        1. I bet Walmart made you pay for that possum.

          1. Nope, i brought it from home. The greeter did put a sticker on it, though.

        2. About the Amish and the Mennonites…

          Q: What does your typical Amish woman dream of?

          A: Ten Mighty Menn-a-Night!

      2. Anyway, Northam’s thinking is just more of that magical “if you build it they will come,” supply-creates-demand bullshit that seems to infect every level of government and doesn’t fucking work.

  3. There is intrinsic value in keeping the region populated.

    There is no such thing as intrinsic value.

  4. You are absolutely right that companies should be training their workers, perhaps in partnership with vocational schools that ought to be resurrected instead of shoving everyone into a liberal arts college. This pattern is how, for example in Germany, you often have big companies still thriving in small towns and not just big cities.

    1. Re: Rhywun,

      […] instead of shoving everyone into a liberal arts college.

      Everyone is piling on liberal arts colleges and graduates but you should think about who else is going to flip those burgers and ask us if we want to upgrade to a large size soda and fries. Who do you think would do those things, huh? Illegal immigrants? Psha!

      1. That joke just gets funnier every time I hear it.

  5. >>.economic growth in the rural parts of the state

    legalize it. economic growth in rural parts of state.

    opioid *crisis*?

    1. You doing beat poetry again Dillinger?

      1. No, but he did finally catch the last season of Justified.

        1. I caught every second of Justified

          1. Fuck yeah.

            1. A rare moment of comradery here on the Reason comment section.

              1. For a show about a government agent who does just whatever the fuck he wants, Justified was pretty awesome.

                Anyway, shut up, Tulpa.

                1. fighting the Man while being the Man…loved it.

      2. haiku-ed:

        legalize the green
        rural economic boom
        opioid crisis?

  6. Of course, some people in Southwest Virginia might want to improve their economic circumstances and still stay put.

    And continue to grow tobacco…

  7. After all, labor is a production input just like raw materials.

    Trumpistas would tell you that labor is something that must be protected from foreign competition (like one protects a pedigree cat from ravaging toms) in order to increase national prestige which should in itself shower everyone with blessings and good fortune. But you’re correct: labor is just a production input.

    1. To be fair, I believe Trump would say that copper and such should be protected from foreign competition as well.

      1. Unless it’s for one of *his* properties, whereupon he suddenly prefers cheap materials and labor to American materials and labor.

  8. I suppose I’ll be voting for myself again.

  9. When ever the state gets involved it normally entails new development where people don’t want it and no locals can afford in the first place so they just end up screwing up both the environment that kept the people there in the first place and also making it harder to live there unless you like being the waitress/waiter to the new weekend only homeowners who look down upon the locals as poor folks who couldn’t get through college

  10. More generally, should a government look out for the interests of it’s citizens? Should it try to encourage businesses to move or build there, try to make sure it’s people have opportunities to succeed, try to make sure they offer more then a road out of the state?

    The more extreme “small government” types will answer “no”. But most folks (including most “small government” types) will say”yes”, and just disagree on degree and means.

    That said, you can’t beat the “run government like a business” drum and then act surprised when government caters to the wants (not “needs”, “wants”) of it’s “customers”. (Not saying libertarians are unduly guilty of this particular sin, but it was a common mantra last year all over the place).

    1. “disagree on degree and means”

      That is a pretty big territory. Everything from “put gun to head of businessman and order him to move all his operations to podunk or else” to “the laws in this Commonwealth respect individual liberty thus being conducive to opening a business under a system of profits and losses.”

  11. If he really wants to keep rednecks out of NoVa, he can build a wall along the Rappahannock.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.