This is the first time I have seen "it" called "the North Dakota problem."
If it's a problem we need to have more such problems. Smile.
Here's the link.
Here's the paragraph in that story:
The North Dakota Problem
In December, the unemployment rate in North Dakota was just 3.8%. Meanwhile, in Vero Beach, Florida, the unemployment rate was above 14%. So why wouldn't these people flee to North Dakota? Well, because it's North Dakota.
Many of the states suffering from highest unemployment rates are in the South or West, which also happen to be very desirable areas for weather. That's why they were such big centers for the housing boom and now are suffering worse than most others. Meanwhile, some of the lowest unemployment rates happen to be in very undesirable areas to live, like the upper-Midwest. They often weren't as affected by the housing boom. Even if moving across country wasn't physically difficult and expensive, some people just don't want to deal with the climate-shock. The gleaming exception to this rule is Hawaii, which enjoys a 6.4% unemployment rate.And why won't people "flee to Hawaii? Well, because it's Hawaii."
"...very undesirable areas to live, like the upper-Midwest." I've always considered Chicago to be in the upper-Midwest. "Very undesirable area"? Elitist. I used to enjoy The Atlantic Monthly. Minneapolis? Fargo? Milwaukee?
By the way, this story speaks volumes of how the depression / recession of 2008 - 2009 - 2010 was different than the one in the 1930's. Back in the 1930's people would have flocked to any state if there was an opportunity for employment. But today, nah, as long as somebody is paying the bills, they're not going to move. The "somebody" paying those bills: grandparents, parents, children, the government (unemployment benefits), the government (social security), plastic (credit cards), spouse, ex-spouse, future spouse, significant other, retirement funds, and the occasional lottery winner. I'm sure folks can think of additional "payers."
No comments:
Post a Comment