Why do ppl want to use the power of the govt to keep coal and factory jobs?

[HillGoose]

Sorry luddites, free market technological development made coal obsolete and made those great "factory jobs" robotic, so it's communist and anti-American to use the government to keep them in existence.

I don't know why so many Americans want the government to punish those who find good ways to make money. Wanting to make as much money for yourself as you can should be everyone's goal. So if you make money by inventing a robot that does a job in a factory, or inventing a better way to create power and destroying coal's ability to survive in the free market, or buying a company and shutting down all the factories and selling the assets, that should be admired.

Maybe if you lost your factory job you should find something better to do with your life. I don't understand why people think they should be able to make a good living without using their damn brain.

[PragmaticPopulist]

From what I understand, it's because coal, factory jobs, and the like have been around for so long, they're part of working class culture. Workers in those industries can't see themselves doing any other job, so trying to prop up dying industries is appreciated by them, just because it makes them feel good.

[TPIG]

I know a good deal of Republicans want the government to take an active role in protecting the coal industry, but another large number of conservatives, myself included, simply don't want government actively trying to kill the industry and making it harder for coal to compete. I understand that the industry is largely declining due to cheaper natural gas and other competing energy sources, and that's fine, but we shouldn't have the government stepping in trying to hasten the process of that decline. That was my problem during the Obama years; not that we should be engaging in protectionism. If coal is dying, let it die on its own.

[JA]

Coal and factory jobs haven't always been pleasant (nor are they necessarily so today). But, those became gateways to a respectable, middle-class life for Americans regardless of their socioeconomic background. While those jobs have largely disappeared (primary thanks to automation), the memory working class Americans have associated with those jobs and the American culture that arose during their peak (40s-60s) is one not so easily abandoned. Entire cultures developed around those industries in the communities in which they were dominant. Workers knew that a coal or factory job meant a decent wage, health insurance, pension, and other benefits that are not so easily obtained through other careers - even ones that require a college degree. The relatively high standard of living these folks enjoyed is simply unattainable in today's economy outside of certain highly skilled fields or rare exceptions (such as natural gas booms).

It's not simply an attachment to a particular type of work, but to the benefits and security associated with that work. If these people were given opportunities in their communities aside from low wage, no benefit jobs (like service jobs), then they'd take them. Instead, that's all they have and it simply isn't sustainable for families or for local/regional economies. Return the dignity of a hard days work equals good pay and benefits, and these people will do those jobs and let go of coal and factory jobs. College isn't even necessarily the answer either; trade school provides great opportunities, as do community colleges. But, that requires investment and the promise of local opportunity afterward, where they won't be forced to relocate hundreds of miles away from their home just to have career options.

[ProudModerate2]

I know a good deal of Republicans want the government to take an active role in protecting the coal industry, but another large number of conservatives, myself included, simply don't want government actively trying to kill the industry and making it harder for coal to compete. I understand that the industry is largely declining due to cheaper natural gas and other competing energy sources, and that's fine, but we shouldn't have the government stepping in trying to hasten the process of that decline. That was my problem during the Obama years; not that we should be engaging in protectionism. If coal is dying, let it die on its own.

Governments around the world (not just in the US) need to actively discourage the burning of fossil fuels. We need to all move towards cleaner methods of producing electricity. We are already very late in the game in helping to mitigate the damage we have already done. The amount of carbon-dioxide is slowly killing the ability for all living things, animals and plants, to thrive (and for some, to just exist) in this world.

I would like to recommend a PBS special that was released just recently in coordination with Earth Day. It was a 2-hour documentary show called Decoding the Weather Machine. If you have not seen it, you can watch it free via the internet ... here is the PBS link :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/decoding-weather-machine.html

[courts]

I know a good deal of Republicans want the government to take an active role in protecting the coal industry, but another large number of conservatives, myself included, simply don't want government actively trying to kill the industry and making it harder for coal to compete. I understand that the industry is largely declining due to cheaper natural gas and other competing energy sources, and that's fine, but we shouldn't have the government stepping in trying to hasten the process of that decline. That was my problem during the Obama years; not that we should be engaging in protectionism. If coal is dying, let it die on its own.

i largely agree with that.although at this point i'm basically ok with the tariffs. at least as far as china is concerned

[longtimelurker]

Maybe because people need to have good-paying jobs and the government should step in to make sure those people keep their jobs.

Then the government should stop funding highways and air traffic control.  Those newfangled automobiles and aeroplanes are killing the passenger train industry!

And why hasn't the FCC stepped in and stopped television?  All those radio actors (there used to be thousands of them in the 20's through early 50's) have lost their jobs!

[DINGO Joe]

Here's a timely story on just this topic

Kentucky is giving this coal company tax breaks worth millions to keep 250 jobs

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem for many coal mining areas is that they aren't exactly along the pathways of commerce.  They're frequently in isolated, difficult to navigate terrain.  Back in the olden days mining towns were abandoned all the time.  Really, if the mine runs out it hard to find other viable means of employing the people there.  So, do you spend money on helping the people to transition out to some other place or do you spend it on propping up an uneconomic asset?  Of course some would prefer neither, just leave them to the mercy of the free market.  From an economic stand point it would seem more sensible to train them for economically viable jobs even if it means relocation. But the locals almost always prefer the status quo and vote for those who promise it even if they can't deliver it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Coal and factory jobs haven't always been pleasant (nor are they necessarily so today). But, those became gateways to a respectable, middle-class life for Americans regardless of their socioeconomic background. While those jobs have largely disappeared (primary thanks to automation), the memory working class Americans have associated with those jobs and the American culture that arose during their peak (40s-60s) is one not so easily abandoned. Entire cultures developed around those industries in the communities in which they were dominant. Workers knew that a coal or factory job meant a decent wage, health insurance, pension, and other benefits that are not so easily obtained through other careers - even ones that require a college degree. The relatively high standard of living these folks enjoyed is simply unattainable in today's economy outside of certain highly skilled fields or rare exceptions (such as natural gas booms).

It's not simply an attachment to a particular type of work, but to the benefits and security associated with that work. If these people were given opportunities in their communities aside from low wage, no benefit jobs (like service jobs), then they'd take them. Instead, that's all they have and it simply isn't sustainable for families or for local/regional economies. Return the dignity of a hard days work equals good pay and benefits, and these people will do those jobs and let go of coal and factory jobs. College isn't even necessarily the answer either; trade school provides great opportunities, as do community colleges. But, that requires investment and the promise of local opportunity afterward, where they won't be forced to relocate hundreds of miles away from their home just to have career options.

This.

The United Mine Workers endorsed George McGovern in 1972.  They didn't endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Imagine that.

[HillGoose]

Coal and factory jobs haven't always been pleasant (nor are they necessarily so today). But, those became gateways to a respectable, middle-class life for Americans regardless of their socioeconomic background. While those jobs have largely disappeared (primary thanks to automation), the memory working class Americans have associated with those jobs and the American culture that arose during their peak (40s-60s) is one not so easily abandoned. Entire cultures developed around those industries in the communities in which they were dominant. Workers knew that a coal or factory job meant a decent wage, health insurance, pension, and other benefits that are not so easily obtained through other careers - even ones that require a college degree. The relatively high standard of living these folks enjoyed is simply unattainable in today's economy outside of certain highly skilled fields or rare exceptions (such as natural gas booms).

It's not simply an attachment to a particular type of work, but to the benefits and security associated with that work. If these people were given opportunities in their communities aside from low wage, no benefit jobs (like service jobs), then they'd take them. Instead, that's all they have and it simply isn't sustainable for families or for local/regional economies. Return the dignity of a hard days work equals good pay and benefits, and these people will do those jobs and let go of coal and factory jobs. College isn't even necessarily the answer either; trade school provides great opportunities, as do community colleges. But, that requires investment and the promise of local opportunity afterward, where they won't be forced to relocate hundreds of miles away from their home just to have career options.

This.

The United Mine Workers endorsed George McGovern in 1972.  They didn't endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Imagine that.

Unions are tools of the communists.

In 1996, my father joined a union because he thought it might help him out in his workplace, since we live in TN it wasn't required but he said he made the mistake of joining anyway. He says the union was the biggest group of assholes he'd ever met and made working very difficult because they impeded the flow of business. He quit the union after like a week.

My father's experience with that union is one of the major reasons he's so anti-labor and has been a Republican for years.

Unions just harm business and workers.

[JA]

Coal and factory jobs haven't always been pleasant (nor are they necessarily so today). But, those became gateways to a respectable, middle-class life for Americans regardless of their socioeconomic background. While those jobs have largely disappeared (primary thanks to automation), the memory working class Americans have associated with those jobs and the American culture that arose during their peak (40s-60s) is one not so easily abandoned. Entire cultures developed around those industries in the communities in which they were dominant. Workers knew that a coal or factory job meant a decent wage, health insurance, pension, and other benefits that are not so easily obtained through other careers - even ones that require a college degree. The relatively high standard of living these folks enjoyed is simply unattainable in today's economy outside of certain highly skilled fields or rare exceptions (such as natural gas booms).

It's not simply an attachment to a particular type of work, but to the benefits and security associated with that work. If these people were given opportunities in their communities aside from low wage, no benefit jobs (like service jobs), then they'd take them. Instead, that's all they have and it simply isn't sustainable for families or for local/regional economies. Return the dignity of a hard days work equals good pay and benefits, and these people will do those jobs and let go of coal and factory jobs. College isn't even necessarily the answer either; trade school provides great opportunities, as do community colleges. But, that requires investment and the promise of local opportunity afterward, where they won't be forced to relocate hundreds of miles away from their home just to have career options.

This.

The United Mine Workers endorsed George McGovern in 1972.  They didn't endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Imagine that.

Unions are tools of the communists.

In 1996, my father joined a union because he thought it might help him out in his workplace, since we live in TN it wasn't required but he said he made the mistake of joining anyway. He says the union was the biggest group of assholes he'd ever met and made working very difficult because they impeded the flow of business. He quit the union after like a week.

My father's experience with that union is one of the major reasons he's so anti-labor and has been a Republican for years.

Unions just harm business and workers.

Not every union is perfect; in fact, there have been plenty of corrupt and incompetent unions. It’s simplt a fact of life. But, to claim unions “just harm business and workers” is beyond ludicrous. It was the unions, as organizations of allied workers fighting for the interests of their class, that gave us child labor laws, the 8 hour work day, higher wages, and countless other benefits. Most of what ordinary workers take for granted today wasn’t the result of supportive politicians and businesses doing good for workers; it’s the result of the workers forcing owners of capital and their congressional puppets to make concessions - often having to standup against hired thugs and the police with guns and other weapons.

In fact, perhaps the biggest problem with american unions and why our labor movement never achieved for workers what it did in Western Europe is due to the 1940s law that prohibited unions from working with known Communists. Our labor movement barred radicals from agitating for strikes and other forms of radical labor activity that likely would’ve won a guaranteed safety net for all Americans and better working conditions.

And, yes, I already know you’ll probably respond with some edgy, fanatically anti-worker screed and all that “muh poor business” nonsense.

[Adam Griffin]

You're a member of a party that is literally built on the foundation of opposing change of any kind. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out for you.

[Progressive Pessimist]

You're a member of a party that is literally built on the foundation of opposing change of any kind. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out for you.

[RINO Tom]

You're a member of a party that is literally built on the foundation of opposing change of any kind. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out for you.

Bullshlt, and you’re both too smart to believe that.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Coal and factory jobs haven't always been pleasant (nor are they necessarily so today). But, those became gateways to a respectable, middle-class life for Americans regardless of their socioeconomic background. While those jobs have largely disappeared (primary thanks to automation), the memory working class Americans have associated with those jobs and the American culture that arose during their peak (40s-60s) is one not so easily abandoned. Entire cultures developed around those industries in the communities in which they were dominant. Workers knew that a coal or factory job meant a decent wage, health insurance, pension, and other benefits that are not so easily obtained through other careers - even ones that require a college degree. The relatively high standard of living these folks enjoyed is simply unattainable in today's economy outside of certain highly skilled fields or rare exceptions (such as natural gas booms).

It's not simply an attachment to a particular type of work, but to the benefits and security associated with that work. If these people were given opportunities in their communities aside from low wage, no benefit jobs (like service jobs), then they'd take them. Instead, that's all they have and it simply isn't sustainable for families or for local/regional economies. Return the dignity of a hard days work equals good pay and benefits, and these people will do those jobs and let go of coal and factory jobs. College isn't even necessarily the answer either; trade school provides great opportunities, as do community colleges. But, that requires investment and the promise of local opportunity afterward, where they won't be forced to relocate hundreds of miles away from their home just to have career options.

Excellent post.