Thread replies: 2
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1501257637071.png (116KB, 500x465px) Image search:
[Google]
116KB, 500x465px
Should the Government fund new settlements?
Okay, so here's the premise - we have too many people in certain areas, where there are no jobs, housing is expensive, and people are living on the dole at huge taxpayer expenses. Would it not be better to drain these people into less populated areas of the United States so that they can get jobs and housing of their own without having to leech off the Government year after year?
My idea is that we could fund settlements in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Eastern Washington and Oregon. Areas that are particularly underdeveloped and could use an economic shock to make them stronger. This also helps to spread out our population more, making it harder to take all of us out in the case of a nuke. Plus, these new cities would need more jobs than just expanding outwards from LA, Chicago, NY, Miami, Phoenix, Houston, etc.
Far more jobs at every skill level, lower housing costs, and removing people off of the Government's tit. What's the downside, besides the initial economic hurdle and muh environment?
>>
File: 1497689018968.png (48KB, 646x701px) Image search:
[Google]
48KB, 646x701px
And yes, this is pretty Keynesian, but not in the awful way that Keynes proposed. This would be the Government affording more land for jobs to develop rather than creating the jobs themselves. Much like the homesteading in the 1850's and 1860's that developed much of the Midwest, this would be the modern equivalent in the Northwest.
Thread posts: 2
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2