Why does the American rust belt do so much more badly than the Canadian side

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by woodrow

I haven't seen much mention of another reason for industrial decline in the rustbelt - a dated, inaccurate term. Labor laws. Yes yes, the rise of air conditioning and the supposedly better weather in the sunbelt helped, but industry didn't move south for the weather. Corporations found the labor laws much more to their liking, i.e. - right to work, anti-union.

I don't know enough about Canadian labor laws. Is their any financial benefit for a company to move from one province to another?

Absolutely. Why would companies want to deal with, god forbid, reasonable wages and working conditions when all they have to do is go down to Texas or Alabama or South Carolina where $15/hour is a top wage and benefits are limited to none?

That being said, it's an overall lose, IMO, for the companies that do this. Sure they make more short-term profit, but who's to say that the labor force at those lower wages isn't actually less productive than the labor force at higher wages? Something like this can't be seen overnight, but takes a reasonable period of time to discern properly...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

weather plays a big part in all of this. i don't know why people always try to claim that weather has nothing to do with it.

Yep, same in my family. I have lots of family in Orange County (SoCal) and they basically moved because of the perfect weather.

Not saying that other factors don't play a role (and certainly Texas or wherever has pretty extreme weather during parts of the year) but weather does play a role for many in relocation decisions.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Not really. Niagara Region's economy and population is growing. In fact Niagara Region has built itself into the largest horticulture economy in North America.

sorry Mike, I just can't let this one slip by. What exactly do you mean by "largest horticulture economy in North America" and what source do you have to back this up? I'm 99% sure it's not true. Even if it was, you think that is what's saving the Niagra region from economic doom? If anything, most of the products are probably going to serve the Toronto growth machine.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

In fact places like Florida do not have the best economies at all.

No you're right. Florida doesn't have to have the best economy at all. But we do alright.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by woodrow

I haven't seen much mention of another reason for industrial decline in the rustbelt - a dated, inaccurate term. Labor laws. Yes yes, the rise of air conditioning and the supposedly better weather in the sunbelt helped, but industry didn't move south for the weather. Corporations found the labor laws much more to their liking, i.e. - right to work, anti-union.

I don't know enough about Canadian labor laws. Is their any financial benefit for a company to move from one province to another?

Yeah, labor laws is part of the "low-cost, low-structure business-friendly environment" that we've been talking about... that drove jobs to the sunbelt.

But labor laws/unions were just a part of it. There was a large-scale effort to develop the southern and western US after WWII, with the introduction of the interstate highway system and establishment and massive growth of military bases there. Military and aerospace manufacturing, long based in the industrial northern US, followed in a largely government-sponsored movement.

Again, this didn't exist in Canada.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by brickell

sorry Mike, I just can't let this one slip by. What exactly do you mean by "largest horticulture economy in North America" and what source do you have to back this up? I'm 99% sure it's not true. Even if it was, you think that is what's saving the Niagra region from economic doom? If anything, most of the products are probably going to serve the Toronto growth machine.

What Mike means is that, according to one cherry-picked statistic from some booster-agency representing some sort of horticultural interests group, the largest horticulture economy in North America is in the Greater Niagara Region, which includes everything from Halifax to Vancouver.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's not how it worked in my family. i've had many relatives move to the sunbelt (FL, AZ, TX, NC) over the decades, and not a single one of them moved for a job. they all moved south because they weren't tough enough to handle midwest winters anymore.

weather plays a big part in all of this. i don't know why some people always try to claim that weather has nothing to do with it.

Maybe that's why they left, but exodus from the rustbelt started because of job movement to the sunbelt. The "nicer" weather provided added incentive. People do leave simply for better weather, but if industry had not left initially for far different reasons taking jobs with them and helping the development of locales in the sunbelt, there would have been nothing for your relatives to move to. They weren't going to all of a sudden pick up and move to the desert in Arizona simply for a better climate if development wasn't already occurring there. It wouldn't have been an option if the south and west were not becoming industrialized and cheap land and houses were following.

People who move for weather reasons are certainly not the "first movers" in the scenario. I don't know, but I highly doubt your relatives left and built factories there because they wanted to enjoy milder winters.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yep, same in my family. I have lots of family in Orange County (SoCal) and they basically moved because of the perfect weather.

Not saying that other factors don't play a role (and certainly Texas or wherever has pretty extreme weather during parts of the year) but weather does play a role for many in relocation decisions.

Sure, but that's secondary to the development that occurred/was occurring there. They may have moved for the good weather, but I doubt yours and Steely Dan's family were pioneers searching solely for a nicer climate. Those place with good weather were growing because of the transfer of industry and became an option for living... and the fact that they had warmer winter weather caused them to become a draw for people from colder climates.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Maybe that's why they left, but exodus from the rustbelt started because of job movement to the sunbelt. The "nicer" weather provided added incentive. People do leave simply for better weather, but if industry had not left initially for far different reasons taking jobs with them and helping the development of locales in the sunbelt, there would have been nothing for your relatives to move to. They weren't going to all of a sudden pick up and move to the desert in Arizona simply for a better climate if development wasn't already occurring there. It wouldn't have been an option if the south and west were not becoming industrialized and cheap land and houses were following.

People who move for weather reasons are certainly not the "first movers" in the scenario. I don't know, but I highly doubt your relatives left and built factories there because they wanted to enjoy milder winters.

i don't buy this "first movers" and "second movers" theory. all of these things were happening simultaneously in the sunbelt. one of the absolute biggest economic growth drivers in the sunbelt over the past 60 years has been the construction industry, and that industry has been sustained in large part by people like my relatives who moved south for the lone reason to get away from midwest winters.


deny weather all you like, but it is a significant factor in all of this that needs mentioning. it is by no means the only factor, but the fact that canada has no warm winterless sunbelt for people to flee to has helped its side of the rust belt remain more vibrant.

[Centropolis]

The answer some people want to the question is that it's because America is smelly, and doesn't wipe properly (or something).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's not how it worked in my family. i've had many relatives move to the sunbelt (FL, AZ, TX, NC) over the decades, and not a single one of them moved for a job. they all moved south because they weren't tough enough to handle midwest winters anymore.

weather plays a big part in all of this. i don't know why some people always try to claim that weather has nothing to do with it.

I know this is about Canadian "rust belt" versus American "rust belt", but I think you have to include the northeast -- most of which is also part of America's historical manufacturing belt -- in order to analyze how the Midwest cities truly ran afoul.

Weather explains why someone would move from north to south, but it doesn't quite explain why the Midwest urban areas deteriorated much worse than the northeast, since the weather is very similar. The northeast major metros and midwest major metros have historically had similar growth rates, but the differences in the inner cities are extremely stark. Why has NYC continued to post new peak populations but Chicago's population continues to shrink? Why did Philadelphia's population only decline by 1/4th while Detroit's declined by 2/3rds? Why did Baltimore only decline by 35% from peak and Cleveland by 60% from peak?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Weather explains why someone would move from north to south, but it doesn't quite explain why the Midwest urban areas deteriorated much worse than the northeast, since the weather is very similar.

i'm not saying that weather is the only reason why the US rustbelt has faired worse than the canadian side, i was merely bringing it up as one of the issues in play to counter others who were claiming that weather had absolutely nothing to do with the economic and population shift from north to south within the US over the past 6 decades.

weather does play A role in this discussion. it's certainly not the ONLY role, but it has A role none-the-less. that was all i was trying to articulate.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't buy this "first movers" and "second movers" theory. all of these things were happening simultaneously in the sunbelt. one of the absolute biggest economic growth drivers in the sunbelt over the past 60 years has been the construction industry, and that industry has been sustained in large part by people like my relatives who moved south for the lone reason to get away from midwest winters.


deny weather all you like, but it is a significant factor in all of this that needs mentioning. it is by no means the only factor, but the fact that canada has no warm winterless sunbelt for people to flee to has helped its side of the rust belt remain more vibrant.

It's a significant factor, of course. But it's not why it initially happened. If desire for better weather was the foremost factor, the US south and west would not have remained largely agricultural and undeveloped until post WWII times... people would have up and moved there en masse and the "sunbelt" would have existed long before the term was coined, if nicer weather by itself caused its population influx and economic activity.

The construction industry followed after the highways, military installations, military and aerospace industry transfer to the south and west, and yes, widespread and cheap air conditioning. Cities in the south and west in this era initially grew because of the industrial change in America... and then the nicer weather brought more and more people. Yes, people like your relatives seeking better weather sustained that construction industry in the sunbelt, but they in their search for better weather did not cause it. I'm not suggesting that weather was not a factor in helping to drive the exodus from northern cities, but it was not the cause of that exodus to begin with. More recently, it most certainly is a major factor... and the sole factor for some people... generally people who had/have the means to just up and leave because they desire warmer winters. More often though, people wanted nicer weather, but there was also opportunity in the sunbelt that didn't exist to the same extent anymore in the rustbelt.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

I'm not suggesting that weather was not a factor in helping to drive the exodus from northern cities, but it was not the cause of that exodus to begin with.

i disagree. people moving for weather, industrial shifts, the interstate system, all the other things you mentioned, etc. were ALL occurring simultaneously, all made possible because the sunbelt became livable due to A/C. A/C caused it all.

at this point we'll probably just have to agree to disagree as i don't buy into your "first movers/second movers" theory.



my only point in posting in this thread was validated. you had originally stated:

I'm saying people didn't leave the northern US and generations of family and friends just because they wanted to go bask in the sun.

but you now admit that, yes, people did in fact (and continue to) "leave the northern US and generations of family and friends just because they wanted to go bask in the sun".

[M II A II R II K]

Some left due to weather, others left for other reasons, and some for combinations of reasons to varying degrees on an individual basis.

[Private Dick]

^^ I was talking about initially leaving when industry collapsed in the rustbelt. I think that was pretty clear from what I was talking about. People did so once there was reason and opportunity to allow them to do that. The vast majority of people who left and leave the rustbelt did not do so particularly because they wanted better weather (though yes, some did/do); rather, they left for opportunity in a high growth area (just like people from the southern US - white and black - moved north to the rustbelt for opportunity decades earlier). The nice weather only provided more of a draw once areas of the sunbelt were established enough economically. The south and west was where the US was growing (well before the widespread availability of affordable air conditioning) , largely because that's where jobs were moving to and cheap housing was plentiful.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Weather explains why someone would move from north to south, but it doesn't quite explain why the Midwest urban areas deteriorated much worse than the northeast, since the weather is very similar. The northeast major metros and midwest major metros have historically had similar growth rates, but the differences in the inner cities are extremely stark. Why has NYC continued to post new peak populations but Chicago's population continues to shrink? Why did Philadelphia's population only decline by 1/4th while Detroit's declined by 2/3rds? Why did Baltimore only decline by 35% from peak and Cleveland by 60% from peak?

^ At least one reason why the Northeast, with its foul weather, seems to be doing better than the midwest is simple 'branding'.

When you talk about New York, for example, nobody really talks about its cold winters. First thing that comes to mind is the whole "New York City" thing. To a lesser degree that is true about places like Boston and Philly.

But in the midwest, for some reason the cold winters dominate the image people have about the region. Cleveland, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit....cold, cold, cold.

The midwest does have a bit of a brand identity problem. As others here have said, the Canadian "rustbelt" really doesn't have to deal with this because Canada doesn't have a sunbelt that it is forced to compete with.

[novawolverine]

Air conditioning has been around a long time. A lot of the movement to the south and west was after air conditioning had been around. Sure, it was a luxury for a while, but A/C wasn't really the catalyst as much as it was contributing factor.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

Air conditioning has been around a long time. A lot of the movement to the south and west was after air conditioning had been around. Sure, it was a luxury for a while, but A/C wasn't really the catalyst as much as it was contributing factor.

i disagree.

if the sunbelt boom can be pinned down to a single cause, it was affordable wide-spread A/C.

[M II A II R II K]

And if the rustbelt has no other industries going for it and there was no where else to go it could still have been full of decaying downtowns with richer suburbs surrounding them.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i disagree.

if the sunbelt boom can be pinned down to a single cause, it was affordable wide-spread A/C.

Why must it attributed to only one-cause? That's idiotic. And back to the topic, I don't see the Northern suburban areas doing as poorly as the cities are.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

Why must it attributed to only one-cause?

that's why i used the important words "if" and "can".