Moose wrote:
> Nope. I'm not sure I've ever been any closer to Iowa than the
> height of
> a plane. I've been to other Midwestern States. Some wonderful
> people,
> but I grew up with mountain and ocean and can't imagine being happy
> someplace with neither.
My point precisely. Just because the jobs are available, people
choose to avoid the area. The big discussion here is how to prevent
"brain drain". End result of all that is to just make things more
mechanized all the time.
> The historical population before mechanization and consolidation
> was much higher than now, as all you folks living among abandoned
> and dying towns know. Mechanization and chemical assistance
> reduced the number of people needed. With no jobs, a great many of
> them moved away or died off and weren't replaced.
The population decline is directly traceable to three factors here:
Mechanization which increased the ability of one man to farm more
land, "The Children's Blizzard" and an improved transportation system
that has opened up the world markets to the commodities grown here.
> Too many relatively well
> educated and competent people with good work ethic were willing to
> work at a less than living wage in order to stay where they wanted
> to live.
I think your causation theory is ignoring another factor. Farming is
not very profitable and most farm wives worked in town. Iowa has the
highest rate of women working outside the home in the country.
Employers have ALWAYS taken advantage of this "two-income" situation
and underpaid the employees. I work in the telecom industry and the
female/male ratio is 3:1 statewide.
AG
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|