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?
I also wonder about the incentives the government could use to foster a stable economy in Golden Valley. The social norms in their community restrict poverty-stricken members from getting the help they need. Your solution with tax incentives seems promising but I do not think plan B would work due to the emotional tie the community members have to Golden Valley. The solution is going to come from an outside source bringing in some sort of industry or training. In class, we touched upon making Golden Valley a tourist town but that could drastically change the makeup of their community as well. Their location limits the possibilities they have to compete in the market and the limited number of community members leaves little room for start-up business’. This blog made me think of conflict theory and question the purpose of this community? Is it okay they are not successful if they are happy?
The rejection of government intervention in Golden Valley and the seemingly lack of solution for these poor rural community made me consider these rural community in the context of the 2016 presidential election. Feeling as though they have been abandoned by the government in favor of the spotted owl, it is not surprising that people in de-industralized communities voted for a candidate who promised job reform. While Trump’s policies, such as reducing welfare benefits, are actually against the community’s best interest, his promise of re-opening the industrial market was very compelling to these communities, especially Golden Valley. The members of Golden Valley already reject the notion of government hand outs, besides disability checks, and advocate for hard work and labor. Therefore, it is not astonishing to see that they would favor a rather unstable candidate who promised jobs over a well-established political candidate who advocated for welfare. However, this blog post as well as the discussion in class made me further consider if Trump’s lofty promises would really offer any solution to the members of the community. Will it ever truly be possible to bring back a thriving business economy to this community if the forest is still so heavily regulated? Moreover, it is clear that the members of this community are unwilling to leave the area in favor of more prosperous job opportunities. It is possible that the only way in which Golden Valley could continue to survive is if the men in the community were willing to take more “feminine” jobs and if welfare, such as food stamps, were presented in a different manner. If there was a way of making the usage food stamps anonymous, would the members of Golden Valley be more willing to accept the government help?
Is it okay they are not successful if they are happy?
This is something that I have thought about since the Golden Valley reading and I have applied it to many situations that we have discussed in class. Perception is at the core of most of these situations and even though I agree with most that Golden Valley is in dire need of revamping, the residents seem to be coping by dwelling on the past and continuing their lives the best they can. They try to see the best in every situation and reject government assistance. It is only the perception of outsiders that cast a dark shadow on the valley because they, for the most part, don’t align with our ideas of success. The same could be said for the hood. We view it as a desolate, crime ridden place yet residents are full of life and happy. Maybe we could reach such a conclusion if we started to view places for what they can offer and what they could be instead of what they were and what they are lacking.