High poverty rates in Golden Valley are rooted in the loss of job security after the mill closed down as the result of federal policy to protect owl habitat. Though, Sherman argues that “it is likely that the forest industry would have continued to decline in Golden Valley even without the spotted owl ruling” (35). The circumstances in Golden Valley fit into a larger, nation-wide trend of de-industrialization and industrial restructuring. The community is “fiercely protective” of itself as a space for white, working class, rural families “isolated in time and space from the rapidly diversifying, mostly urban state” of California.

A strong sense of tradition pervades Golden Valley, especially in terms of conceptions of gender. Prior to the economic collapse, most men were employed in the “masculine” manual labor sector and were the sole household bread-winners; women were “focused on the maintenance of the family” (45). Out of necessity, these roles have begun to change; though most conceptions of the social structure of Golden Valley are rooted in romanticizations of the past. When asked why they choose to stay in Golden Valley despite hardship, the responses of the men tend to include a connection to the land for both work and leisure. The women tend to cite close familial and community ties. “The key to respectability”, Sherman argues, is “not necessarily wealth, but rather having a male earner who provided as much as he could through work” (58). Men in post-industrial Golden Valley tend to reject the type of employment that remains in town: service and administrative oriented, low-wage, part-time, “feminized” jobs. Instead, they prefer to supplement their livelihood via hunting, fishing, and working odd-jobs in the informal economy.

What is to be done in Golden Valley and similar de-industrialized communities around the US? This dilemma is especially pertinent, given that rural poverty is outpacing urban poverty and that the rural poor (and those who identify with this group) will increasingly drive US policy.

Sherman notes that “the receipt of welfare is absolutely incongruent with the work ethics of Golden Valley” and that the use of welfare is considered to have “only slightly less” moral capital “than selling drugs” (73). Unemployment and disability are deemed of higher moral value, because one has to have work in order to receive them. To protect their social capital, citizens of Golden Valley who are eligible for SNAP, travel almost two-hours in order to use their benefit cards. Allowing people to purchase approved items within their monthly limit on a normal debit card (rather than a stigmatized snap card) might encourage people to take advantage of this program. This solution, however, does not get at the larger macro-economic and socio-cultural forces that have created an economic environment where welfare is such a necessity.

As we stated in class, increased research on rural poverty is needed in order to prescribe appropriate, evidence-based policy. Though, as we can see from their fierce rejection of government assistance, many people living in Golden Valley would likely argue that the first job of the government is to leave them alone. In their minds, the government prioritized the spotted owl over people, would rightfully wary of subsequent efforts by the government outsiders to ‘fix it’. I still am left wondering what policies should actually be implemented in Golden Valley (and places like it). Does it boil down to two options? A. The government can bring jobs to Golden Valley via favorable tax policy? Or, B. Residents can choose to move to places where jobs are more readily available, thus, giving up their “traditional” way of life? Is there some favorable middle ground?