Coal miners in election 2016

[Alyrium Denryle]

Throw your ideas at greatagain.gov , if nothing else it can't hurt.

With how they would implement it? Yeah it would. Because this has to be implemented as a joint project between the federal and state governments that includes an Alaska-Style dividend. And with Sarah Palin as Secretary of the Interior (god that is so wrong) and a delusional nitwit heading the EPA, they will NEVER regulate the whole thing properly.

[K. A. Pital]

Still worth a toss, I think. There's a tiny chance the idea will end up in the right hands.

I haven't been up-to-date on Trump's nuclear power views. Does he support or is he against?

[FireNexus]

He has expressed support, but barely and tepidly.

[Sea Skimmer]

The alternative is to completely replace the coal mining sector in Coal Country with something else that can utilize a similar skill set, with preference for hiring former miners.

If it were me, I would do it with (well-regulated) ore processing and nuclear power buildup. That old coal mining town now exists to support the building and running of a large modular thorium reactor, basically. Big slab of concrete containing a large number of smallish 250 MW thorium reactors that are continuously added to.

What coal mining skills transfer to nuclear power???

That idea is unworkable. Nobody is going to ship uranium ore at the least, across at least the entire US to process to a place like West Virginia where the water supply is limited and upsteam from millions and millions of people in the Mississippi basin, and it's hard to even find flat land to build a major plant on. This is a job for the desert where you can run big evaporation ponds. Even a Trump EPA wouldn't make approving this sane on the east coast. Maybe in Wyoming.

Meanwhile not even a prototype thorium reactor exists, which means even if we said GO right now you're talking 2036 at best to bring online the first large scale commercial power prototype. And you need a site with enough cooling water, coal country tends not to have that because it tends to be in the highlands in the US.

Be much quickly, more relevant and far more likely to create jobs that employ miners, as opposed to people with college degrees, to spam wind turbines along the tops of all those Appalachian mountains. Train miners to build and maintain them. Also the US is having a surge of chemical plant construction linked to the natural gas fracking boom, it would be possible to try to steer some of that to coal country. The leap from coal mine to chemical plant maintenance and operation is a lot more sane then telling mid aged people to go get a job in nuclear power.

[Zaune]

And tar sands probably has plenty of decent openings for people who know how to use mining explosives, drive a forklift and so on. Not so much the guys who just press the buttons to run the mining machines, though.

[Knife]

What coal mining skills transfer to nuclear power???

That idea is unworkable. Nobody is going to ship uranium ore at the least, across at least the entire US to process to a place like West Virginia where the water supply is limited and upsteam from millions and millions of people in the Mississippi basin, and it's hard to even find flat land to build a major plant on. This is a job for the desert where you can run big evaporation ponds. Even a Trump EPA wouldn't make approving this sane on the east coast. Maybe in Wyoming.

Meanwhile not even a prototype thorium reactor exists, which means even if we said GO right now you're talking 2036 at best to bring online the first large scale commercial power prototype. And you need a site with enough cooling water, coal country tends not to have that because it tends to be in the highlands in the US.

Be much quickly, more relevant and far more likely to create jobs that employ miners, as opposed to people with college degrees, to spam wind turbines along the tops of all those Appalachian mountains. Train miners to build and maintain them. Also the US is having a surge of chemical plant construction linked to the natural gas fracking boom, it would be possible to try to steer some of that to coal country. The leap from coal mine to chemical plant maintenance and operation is a lot more sane then telling mid aged people to go get a job in nuclear power.

Isn't that kind of the point? Those jobs are gone and not coming back. Those people voted for a lie that the 'good old days are coming back'. This is the double edged sword of 'dirty liberal talking down to me' bit. Sure, a lot of times it is condescending, but sometimes it is true. Those jobs are gone and not coming back.

[Gandalf]

Then that returns to a problem that is happening here, and presumably a whole lot of other places.

In a capitalist system, how does one address the idea of communities that just aren't economically viable?

[Zwinmar]

Why aren't they economically viable? There has to be many reasons though one in particular is the mega corporations absorbing everything and selling cheap shit.

[Darmalus]

To steal one of Simon_jester's analogies, money is like blood, it keeps you alive while its flowing through you and you die when it stops (hits zero or other issues).

Money entered coal towns in exchange for coal, and exited through all the various means a consumer economy provides. With no more (or radically decreased) demand for coal, money only leaves the area, it does not return. This rapidly creates a death spiral.

A coal-less coal town could stay viable (that is, a good place to live for the people there, which is really the only metric that truly matters in the end) if there was no money outflow (the town became self sufficient), but it'd more likely the town will simply drop down to whatever level can be supported solely on welfare income.

[K. A. Pital]

Then that returns to a problem that is happening here, and presumably a whole lot of other places.

In a capitalist system, how does one address the idea of communities that just aren't economically viable?

Like this - ghost towns and abandoned buildings. Capitalism has no other way of addressing this.

[Darmalus]

I'm pretty sure that has been the way of humans throughout all of history. It's just more dramatic now when most places have economies that are not significantly or mostly immobile (aka locally produced and consumed agriculture).

[K. A. Pital]

I'm pretty sure that has been the way of humans throughout all of history.

I'm pretty sure most of human history has been nomadic, so no, this is not so.

It's just more dramatic now when most places have economies that are not significantly or mostly immobile (aka locally produced and consumed agriculture).

Under capitalism, capital is the ultimate mobile resource, and globalism is basically a policy that allows capital to flow swiftly from place to place without any obstacles. Not humans, not the land. Only capital matters.

[Zaune]

On the other hand, I don't see how any socioeconomic system can do much about the fact that an entire community's reason for existing has gone away. If the coal sells for less than it costs to dig out then there really isn't much point in keeping the mine going, that's just as true under socialism. Now there might well be things you can do to give those towns and villages some other source of work, but at some point you may have to concede defeat and start making plans to help people relocate.

[K. A. Pital]

On the other hand, I don't see how any socioeconomic system can do much about the fact that an entire community's reason for existing has gone away. If the coal sells for less than it costs to dig out then there really isn't much point in keeping the mine going, that's just as true under socialism. Now there might well be things you can do to give those towns and villages some other source of work, but at some point you may have to concede defeat and start making plans to help people relocate.

Under socialism, relocation without loss of livelihood is possible because there is no private property. The state can provide other homes and other jobs for those who can no longer operate because the mine has been depleted. The state can even plan for this, if it knows the depletion of the mine or the switch from coal consumption is imminent.

Under capitalism, people are left to relocate or deal with the fallout on their own, without warning.

That's the only difference. The mines can close either way.

[MKSheppard]

Retraining? Cut, or never available in the first place.

You left out: Get the training but every position you see is "two years of experience, req but waivable in lieu of XYZ"

*Angry REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE*

[FTeik]

I'm pretty sure that has been the way of humans throughout all of history.

I'm pretty sure most of human history has been nomadic, so no, this is not so.

Why not? The principle is the same. If the source of the people's livelyhood is gone, they have to move on or find something else. It doesn't matter if the source of that livelyhood is a spring of water that dries up or lots of fruit-trees, that have been harvested too much by the nomadic hunters and gatherers or if we are looking at coal-miners loosing their livelyhood, because nobody wants their coal.

It's just more dramatic now when most places have economies that are not significantly or mostly immobile (aka locally produced and consumed agriculture).

Under capitalism, capital is the ultimate mobile resource, and globalism is basically a policy that allows capital to flow swiftly from place to place without any obstacles. Not humans, not the land. Only capital matters.

I seem to remember, that Marx equitated "capital" with "all means of production". Which would include also land and humans (in the form of employees you have to hire, train and pay). You are limiting capital to money, which would be worthless, if there would be nothing to exchange it against (either as consumer or investor).

Under socialism, relocation without loss of livelihood is possible because there is no private property. The state can provide other homes and other jobs for those who can no longer operate because the mine has been depleted. The state can even plan for this, if it knows the depletion of the mine or the switch from coal consumption is imminent.

No, it can't. For example the state wouldn't be able to provide new homes, if every other place is occupied or the amount of essentials is limited (like access to clean water, agriculturally usable land and so on). And having a job doesn't equal having work, that is needed and in demand. You end up with shops with five salespersons, where one or two would be enough.

[K. A. Pital]

Why not? The principle is the same. If the source of the people's livelyhood is gone, they have to move on or find something else. It doesn't matter if the source of that livelyhood is a spring of water that dries up or lots of fruit-trees, that have been harvested too much by the nomadic hunters and gatherers or if we are looking at coal-miners loosing their livelyhood, because nobody wants their coal.

Because nomads do not leave ruins.

I seem to remember, that Marx equitated "capital" with "all means of production". Which would include also land and humans (in the form of employees you have to hire, train and pay). You are limiting capital to money, which would be worthless, if there would be nothing to exchange it against (either as consumer or investor).

Capital is not all or any means of production. It is precisely a means of production distinct from land and labour, which is transforming and growing through the Money-Goods-Money cycle.

No, it can't. For example the state wouldn't be able to provide new homes, if every other place is occupied or the amount of essentials is limited (like access to clean water, agriculturally usable land and so on). And having a job doesn't equal having work, that is needed and in demand. You end up with shops with five salespersons, where one or two would be enough.

Usually the economy is in a non-static condition, permitting people to find something to do in other places. The state wouldn't be able to provide new homes if every other place is occupied? That sounds strange. As if you can't build new homes. Meanwhile, I am interested to hear just what kind of situation it is that every single living space is occupied and there is no possibility to build more anywhere?

Probably only applies to places like Singapore or Vatican that physically run out of land.

[MKSheppard]

The alternative is to completely replace the coal mining sector in Coal Country with something else that can utilize a similar skill set, with preference for hiring former miners.

Coal mining continues as before, but to feed synthetic fuel plants fed by cheap fracking energy to ensure energy independence through coal to oil conversion.

Jobs still stay from coal mining and new ones are created to support the synthetic fuel plants.

[madd0ct0r]

The alternative is to completely replace the coal mining sector in Coal Country with something else that can utilize a similar skill set, with preference for hiring former miners.

If it were me, I would do it with (well-regulated) ore processing and nuclear power buildup. That old coal mining town now exists to support the building and running of a large modular thorium reactor, basically. Big slab of concrete containing a large number of smallish 250 MW thorium reactors that are continuously added to.

What coal mining skills transfer to nuclear power???

That idea is unworkable. Nobody is going to ship uranium ore at the least, across at least the entire US to process to a place like West Virginia where the water supply is limited and upsteam from millions and millions of people in the Mississippi basin, and it's hard to even find flat land to build a major plant on. This is a job for the desert where you can run big evaporation ponds. Even a Trump EPA wouldn't make approving this sane on the east coast. Maybe in Wyoming.

Meanwhile not even a prototype thorium reactor exists, which means even if we said GO right now you're talking 2036 at best to bring online the first large scale commercial power prototype. And you need a site with enough cooling water, coal country tends not to have that because it tends to be in the highlands in the US.

Be much quickly, more relevant and far more likely to create jobs that employ miners, as opposed to people with college degrees, to spam wind turbines along the tops of all those Appalachian mountains. Train miners to build and maintain them. Also the US is having a surge of chemical plant construction linked to the natural gas fracking boom, it would be possible to try to steer some of that to coal country. The leap from coal mine to chemical plant maintenance and operation is a lot more sane then telling mid aged people to go get a job in nuclear power.

Skimmer nailed it, water availability espcially. I'll also note that ex coal mining areas are a fucking pain in the arse to build large things in due to tunnels collapsing overtime and unpredictable subsidence at the surface. In South wales area we've got bridges with all sorts of weird piling angles and hinges to try and account for stuff drifting over the next century. It also makes ground water flows incredibly complex and harder than usual to seal in the case of a meltdown.

Thumbs up for wind. They're not the best renewable, but have good local uses. Thumbs up also for relocating a town. Long term, it'd be cheaper to move people somewhere useful than support a rotting town with literally no reason to exist at that site anymore. But people are stubborn and risk avoidant. There was a good BBC documentary about this in South wales a few months ago (How Green is Your Valley) - and that's for towns within 40min commute of a large city.

[FTeik]

Why not? The principle is the same. If the source of the people's livelyhood is gone, they have to move on or find something else. It doesn't matter if the source of that livelyhood is a spring of water that dries up or lots of fruit-trees, that have been harvested too much by the nomadic hunters and gatherers or if we are looking at coal-miners loosing their livelyhood, because nobody wants their coal.

Because nomads do not leave ruins.

So a spring dried up because of overuse, a forrest burned down for a hunt and so on isn't a ruin? Are you even aware WHY nomads are migrating? They stay in a area as long as it can provide them with what they need and once those things are used up (guess by whom) they move on.

I seem to remember, that Marx equitated "capital" with "all means of production". Which would include also land and humans (in the form of employees you have to hire, train and pay). You are limiting capital to money, which would be worthless, if there would be nothing to exchange it against (either as consumer or investor).

Capital is not all or any means of production. It is precisely a means of production distinct from land and labour, which is transforming and growing through the Money-Goods-Money cycle.

The only thing I found after a quick search about this "Money-Goods-Money cycle on Google were the rantings of people, who obviously want a return to the gold-standard. And it changes nothing about the fact, that money isn't the same as capital.

No, it can't. For example the state wouldn't be able to provide new homes, if every other place is occupied or the amount of essentials is limited (like access to clean water, agriculturally usable land and so on). And having a job doesn't equal having work, that is needed and in demand. You end up with shops with five salespersons, where one or two would be enough.

Usually the economy is in a non-static condition, permitting people to find something to do in other places. The state wouldn't be able to provide new homes if every other place is occupied? That sounds strange. As if you can't build new homes. Meanwhile, I am interested to hear just what kind of situation it is that every single living space is occupied and there is no possibility to build more anywhere?

Probably only applies to places like Singapore or Vatican that physically run out of land.

The earth only has a limited amount of space the last time I checked (it being a sphere and all that). Also with climate-change, deserts spreading, areas getting polluted, limited amounts of drinkable water and a still growing population usable space IS limited Entire civilizations have died out in the past despite there being more room available than today, so why should it be impossible for that to happen again?

[Elheru Aran]

No, it can't. For example the state wouldn't be able to provide new homes, if every other place is occupied or the amount of essentials is limited (like access to clean water, agriculturally usable land and so on). And having a job doesn't equal having work, that is needed and in demand. You end up with shops with five salespersons, where one or two would be enough.

Usually the economy is in a non-static condition, permitting people to find something to do in other places. The state wouldn't be able to provide new homes if every other place is occupied? That sounds strange. As if you can't build new homes. Meanwhile, I am interested to hear just what kind of situation it is that every single living space is occupied and there is no possibility to build more anywhere?

Probably only applies to places like Singapore or Vatican that physically run out of land.

Bear in mind that you do NOT want to actually physically use every little bit of land, not if you're going to use the resources of the Earth in a responsible manner. Leaving land to remain wild and 'natural' in trust for your citizens to enjoy is as vital as consuming those resources and building habitation, manufacturing or other buildings on that land. It would be a grotesque world indeed that didn't have green spaces or natural preserves.

[Sea Skimmer]

Why aren't they economically viable? There has to be many reasons though one in particular is the mega corporations absorbing everything and selling cheap shit.

The reason is simple in this context. The coal mining towns started...after the coal mining began. People did not found a town,and then look for coal afterwards. No coal mining, no reason for a town. The US in fact already has many many abandon company coal towns in West Virginia, and out west numerous though typically much smaller towns were abandon because of successive mining booms imploding in waves through the 1970s, though most got abandon way earlier.

The problem is now some of these towns got fairly large at the peak of coal worker employment, and managed to last so long at diminished populations the residents no longer think of them as a boom town, but home. And while back in the day coal miners all lived in company homes, giving them no incentive or ability to stay if the mine closed, typically they own homes now, which means moving somewhere else is difficult because the house is probably impossible to sell at any price, due to lack of employment. In that certain respect the fact that coal mining wages improved greatly after WW2 actually created a long term problem.

[LadyTevar]

This is from the New River Gorge National River website, and is a list of all the coal and timber towns that used to exist within the main park boundaries. One of the coal towns is actually under the Hawk's Nest Dam impound, with only the railroad trestle still above water (and in use).

When the New River Gorge Bridge was built, the engineers had to dump tons of concrete into the mountainsides before building the pylon bases, because of all the mines pockmarking the area.

Abandoned mines and towns are everywhere, some of them you only find while hiking in 'wilderness' and stumbling over the remains of rock walls, or happening across an opening far too wide to be a natural cave. Rule of thumb for hiking in WV -- if it's a flat section of trail winding about the mountain, even if it's now got decades-old trees growing in the center, it was once a timber or mining road, and it may well have been a town's main drag once.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The alternative is to completely replace the coal mining sector in Coal Country with something else that can utilize a similar skill set, with preference for hiring former miners.

If it were me, I would do it with (well-regulated) ore processing and nuclear power buildup. That old coal mining town now exists to support the building and running of a large modular thorium reactor, basically. Big slab of concrete containing a large number of smallish 250 MW thorium reactors that are continuously added to.

What coal mining skills transfer to nuclear power???

That idea is unworkable. Nobody is going to ship uranium ore at the least, across at least the entire US to process to a place like West Virginia where the water supply is limited and upsteam from millions and millions of people in the Mississippi basin, and it's hard to even find flat land to build a major plant on. This is a job for the desert where you can run big evaporation ponds. Even a Trump EPA wouldn't make approving this sane on the east coast. Maybe in Wyoming.

Meanwhile not even a prototype thorium reactor exists, which means even if we said GO right now you're talking 2036 at best to bring online the first large scale commercial power prototype. And you need a site with enough cooling water, coal country tends not to have that because it tends to be in the highlands in the US.

Be much quickly, more relevant and far more likely to create jobs that employ miners, as opposed to people with college degrees, to spam wind turbines along the tops of all those Appalachian mountains. Train miners to build and maintain them. Also the US is having a surge of chemical plant construction linked to the natural gas fracking boom, it would be possible to try to steer some of that to coal country. The leap from coal mine to chemical plant maintenance and operation is a lot more sane then telling mid aged people to go get a job in nuclear power.

There are a few things, lots of the construction related jobs at first. You are going to need people who know how to weld, blast, move earth, lay cable and electrical wiring etc. A lot of miners can find work that way. The OH&S people still have jobs, you keep/expand the environmental consultants etc.

More importantly however is keeping the support infrastructure. There needs to be something there that a coal-mining town can support. The service sector that supports coal miners, when the mine dies, those die too. So the coal mines need to be replaced.

I also did not specify what types of ore.

Though admittedly, your other suggestions are more workable. I am perfectly comfortable with banks of wind turbines and a chemical industry. But I would prefer, ultimately, not to be reliant on the fracking boom, because that is a boom and it is eventually going to face market contraction in response to climate change and resulting shifts in energy priorities. That might not affect the chemical industry as much, but I dont imagine it will be good for them.

[MKSheppard]

There are a few things, lots of the construction related jobs at first. You are going to need people who know how to weld, blast, move earth, lay cable and electrical wiring etc. A lot of miners can find work that way. The OH&S people still have jobs, you keep/expand the environmental consultants etc.

There's a big difference between standard construction trades and nuclear certified trades. For one, everyone who welds anything connected remotely to a nuke is held to a much higher certified standard at the minimum.