Pages: 1 2 [3] 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: North Dakota report (Read 5650 times)
|
|
Zxcv
|
The nukes are not an issue. I'd like to see someone who thinks they are, devise a scenario to demonstrate it.
Secession is not an issue, either (at least not as an FSP-only scenario - if the whole country falls apart for whatever reason, then that's something else again; but our state by itself will never leave this country). All the secession issue is good for, is embarrassing the feds into giving in to the point that, when we've stopped feeding at the federal trough, we ought to have our tax bill cut somewhat too. And other items of that ilk.
North Dakota really looks out, doesn't it? After reading that article? It was interesting it even mentioned South Dakota as being in a certain amount of trouble, but of course did not attempt to prove that (probably because there was little proof). To a certain extent, there has to be a pro-Buffalo Commons slant in that piece. You wonder how bad the slant is. But there is no arguing the population figures. I hadn't realized Fargo was growing at the same time, which makes the rest of the state look even worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
North Dakota really looks out, doesn't it? After reading that article? It was interesting it even mentioned South Dakota as being in a certain amount of trouble, but of course did not attempt to prove that (probably because there was little proof). To a certain extent, there has to be a pro-Buffalo Commons slant in that piece. You wonder how bad the slant is. But there is no arguing the population figures. I hadn't realized Fargo was growing at the same time, which makes the rest of the state look even worse.
The article also brings up a good point against MT. People are leaving the eastern part of MT also (the part that borders ND). I did some research and this is true. This is the most conservative part of MT. However, at the same time people are moving into the western cities of MT (many from CA) and this is the most statist part of MT. So, the conservative part is losing people and the statist part is gaining people. For those of us that want lots of inexpensive, unproductive farmland this is great. For those of us that want to move to the cities of eastern MT this is bad news. Overall, this hurts MT. Where do you think all of the jobs going to MT are? They are in the more statist cities in the eastern part of the state. This part keeps getting more and more statists and more people. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 05, 2003, 10:58:33 pm by FreedomRoad »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mtPete
|
There is a very good reason the western states are loosing people. Agriculture has been in a state of decline (and depresion) since the 1970's. The land is plenty productive enough. The problem is is that the Federal government would just as soon see the farmers go out of business. As a result they get the short end of the deal in trade and the feds are allowing multi-national agri corporations run roughshod over the farmers and ranchers. On top of that you have the environmentalists and feds doing everything they can to pass new rules and regs designed to force everyone off the land.
As a result prices just aren't what they should be. Adjusted for inflation wheat prices should be in the 20 -30 dollar a bushel range, instead of the 3-4 dollars a bushel we have now (which is actually less than what my grandfather got for wheat) As a result a whole generation of kids decided not to continue farming.
The rural western states economies were traditionally agriculturally based. As a result when farming and ranching declined, so did all the main street businesses.
This is not a natural result, nor is it in evitable. But things look grim. In truth, it is a very subtile form of genocide.
But all is not lost. Even though people are leaving the farms the states are still gaining in population. In addition, the farmers and ranchers are starting to unite to change things. If the FSP is successful and stands up to the feds they would be in the position to really help out the farm and ranch communitee.
Even in the worst case, we settled it once, we'll settle it again. There are still lots of farmers in eastern states who could take advantage of cheap land. And there is the newest generation which has a few kids like me who want to get back into farming. The small towns are still producing babies, they just grow up and leave the state. If (when) the FSP turns a states economy around, more will stay. On top of that you have a trend where some of the people who left the rural states for work elsewhere in the last 10-30 years are coming back.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zxcv
|
I don't know if I buy the notion that the feds are hurting farming. Yes, there are environmental regulations and such; but there are the farm bills that are nothing but gigantic subsidies to farmers. Of course these are harvested by the big corporations more than anything else... something to do with paperwork, I'll bet... To me the real problem, is the land is too productive. If you are going to try developing an export economy in farm products, you are in a very competitive, low-margin, high-risk, world-wide business. The supply far exceeds the demand. And you have competition from places like California, much nearer the population centers out west, with the help of their state- and federally-subsidized water projects. You can still subsistence farm, which is what a lot of small farms always were. The only problem is, the kids don't want to live that low-income life. "How do you keep 'em on the farm, after they've seen Paree!"  Anyway, shoveling shit quickly loses its charm... The thing that will keep people around in our state, after we've been there a while, is that it will be one of the few places you can really live free.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
I don't know if I buy the notion that the feds are hurting farming. Yes, there are environmental regulations and such; but there are the farm bills that are nothing but gigantic subsidies to farmers.
Of course these are harvested by the big corporations more than anything else... something to do with paperwork, I'll bet... By helping the large farm companies with welfare the fed is putting the small, highly regulated farms at a major disadvantage. You can still subsistence farm, which is what a lot of small farms always were. The only problem is, the kids don't want to live that low-income life. "How do you keep 'em on the farm, after they've seen Paree!" This is another case of you hitting the nail on the head. Even though my dad is from NY, NY and my mom is from Burlington, VT, my grandma is from rural farms in MS, TN, and KY. She used to work 5 hours a day along with all of her brothers and sisters after school (she only went to the 6th grade). They had to do all of this so that they could keep the farm. Since it is illegal to take your kids out of school and most people do not want to work 12 hour days while not owning a computer, DVD, CD player, videogame system, nice clothes, cell phones, washer, dryer, microwave, toaster, coffer pot, dishwasher, and other such goods people leave the farming life. People can still be farmers if they want, they just have to understand that they will need to live below the poverty level like many farmers (almost all of the farmers around my area) used to. However, people are not willing to do this so they quit farming. The thing that will keep people around in our state, after we've been there a while, is that it will be one of the few places you can really live free. Exactly, if ND is picked people will not stay because it is warm or there are tons of jobs, because there are not, but because it is free. People will not stay in ND because it has large zoos, huge airports, nice beachs, national forests, and mountains, because it does not. Freedom, freedom, freedom, that is what we want. The chance to bring our kids up in a free place, a good place. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 19, 2003, 02:19:06 pm by FreedomRoad »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
exitus
|
Among all the counties in the states in the United States, North Dakota has a county that comes in second among all for having the highest percentage of persons aged 65 and older. And unlike Charlotte, Florida, with 34.7% aged 65 and older, McIntosh County, North Dakota, with 34.2% is not a retirement destination. It has a high aged population because so many young people are fleeing the state. The social dynamics and implications of such a situation must be incredible, with so many young people leaving parents and their elders and leaving living family history, and ties to the previous generation behind in North Dakota.
For comparison among our candidate states, here are the percentages of 65 and older in the highest percentage counties in our states, ranked in order:
North Dakota McIntosh 34.2% 65 and older
South Dakota McPherson 29.6% 65 and older
Montana Prairie 24.1% 65 and older
The Wyoming Job opportunities index noted that most of Wyoming's newest in-migrants are 65 and older.
Wyoming Hot Springs 20.0% 65 and older
New Hampshire Coos 18.5% " "
Idaho Lewis 18.5% " "
Delaware Sussex 18.5% " "
Maine Lincoln 18.2% " "
Vermont Bennington 16.7% " "
Alaska Haines 10.5% " "
Source: U.S. Census Bureau,
County and City Data Book: 2000,
Table B-2.
After looking at this table and the number of young families that live in Alaska from another table, this data makes me want to ask, "Are most of those young people who leave North Dakota going to Alaska?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue†-- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
|
|
|
|
craft_6
|
There is a very good reason the western states are loosing people. Agriculture has been in a state of decline (and depresion) since the 1970's. The land is plenty productive enough. The problem is is that the Federal government would just as soon see the farmers go out of business. As a result they get the short end of the deal in trade and the feds are allowing multi-national agri corporations run roughshod over the farmers and ranchers. On top of that you have the environmentalists and feds doing everything they can to pass new rules and regs designed to force everyone off the land.
As a result prices just aren't what they should be. Adjusted for inflation wheat prices should be in the 20 -30 dollar a bushel range, instead of the 3-4 dollars a bushel we have now (which is actually less than what my grandfather got for wheat) As a result a whole generation of kids decided not to continue farming....
This is not a natural result, nor is it in evitable. But things look grim. In truth, it is a very subtile form of genocide.
I don't think it is federal government policies driving agricultural prices too low that is hurting the family farm. If anything, farming interests have an inordinate amount of political power (witness last year's $30 billion farm bill), and work through government to maintain prices at artificially high levels, by paying farmers to leave land unplanted, and by buying huge quantities of cheese no one wanted to eat in the first place. What's driving agricultural prices down and making the family farm economically unviable is the advance of technology -- it simply takes far fewer farmers to feed us now than in the past, and it's economically inefficient for them to be organized in small family units, just like it's economically inefficient for mom and pop grocery stores to compete with Wal-Mart. Government should have no role in maintaining anyone's livelihood or lifestyle. Letting the plains empty of family farms is not genocide, but a natural economic process that allows (or unfortunately, forces) people to move to where they can be more economically productive. I wouldn't see this as necessarily a bad sign for the FSP in North Dakota, however. Unlike more popular destinations that have increasing anti-growth sentiment, North Dakota might welcome 20,000 industrious newcomers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hank
|
People are leaving the eastern part of MT also (the part that borders ND). I did some research and this is true. This is the most conservative part of MT. However, at the same time people are moving into the eastern cities of MT (many from CA) and this is the most statist part of MT. So, the conservative part is losing people and the statist part is gaining people. FreedomRoad, didn't you mean the "western" cities of MT are becoming more statist? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
People are leaving the eastern part of MT also (the part that borders ND). I did some research and this is true. This is the most conservative part of MT. However, at the same time people are moving into the eastern cities of MT (many from CA) and this is the most statist part of MT. So, the conservative part is losing people and the statist part is gaining people. FreedomRoad, didn't you mean the "western" cities of MT are becoming more statist? Yes, I did. The western cities of MT are the ones that either already are (Butte, Helena) or are becoming statist (Billings, Missoula, Bozeman, Kalispell). I've correct that in error in my post above. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
