-
Pray and Grow Rich
May 16, 2013 | 67 comments
-
Ruthie’s Way
May 2, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Free and Indivisible Union
April 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
Revoke Obama’s Peace Prize
April 18, 2013 | 80 comments
-
What the New Atheists Ignore
April 11, 2013 | 103 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Rootless in America
Why our opposition to hiring locally?
It was a fine send-off. After 30 years, our friend Marian was retiring from the marketing department of a major university. Like a lot of people in top jobs, Marian was an outsider. She was brought in because in a metropolitan area of three million people university officials allegedly couldn’t find one local person qualified to do her job. And it wasn’t like they were hiring a chief nuclear engineer. But then maybe all our local marketing directors had moved elsewhere too.
I would think there’d be advantages to hiring locally. Local professionals know a city, its people, its history and traditions intimately. Locals often have a stake in their communities in a way outsiders — who may be only putting in time till their next move — do not. They are more likely to be involved in local organizations — not as networking opportunities — but because they are genuinely invested in their communities and want to see them thrive. And locals are likely to stay longer in a position. Besides, you help your homegrown economy by giving a local resident a job. Hiring locally, however, is often at the bottom of the list of priorities of any hiring board, if at all. Probably because the board is made up of transplants, too. (Hard to imagine now that all our large hometown corporations — Anheuser-Busch, Monsanto, McDonald Douglas (now Boeing), the St. Louis Post-Dispatch — were founded and made successful by smart local boys. The idea that smart local men or women could run them today is deemed absurd.)
Not long ago I got into a painful conversation with a New York transplant who told me how provincial St. Louis was, how we needed more outsiders in positions of leadership, fresh thinkers who could bring in new ideas and different perspectives. I replied that I couldn’t disagree more. “The reason all our cities seem the same, seem so bland and generic, is because we have destroyed what made them unique, our local culture and our local traditions,” I said. “The fact is all the people running our local businesses, schools, and churches are rootless, job-hopping outsiders from Nowheresville.”
He said he’d never thought of it that way. I wasn’t surprised.
THE DAY AFTER she retired, Marian put her house on the market. After three decades of living among us she is moving away. Or maybe I should say that despite living here for three decades she never did put down roots. To her, St. Louis was simply a way station between her last job and retirement. As is so often the case in Generic America, roots are considered a hindrance to upward mobility, and upward mobility is all that matters. Not family, not home, not being rooted in a community where one has something at stake.
Marian was born in rural southern Indiana. A hundred years ago, she would have been a farmer or the local school marm. Today, she was a marketing specialist and, as such, just another replaceable cog in a large, complex machine that will continue to operate just fine without her. As a farmer, a wife, a mother, and a valuable member of a small rural community, she would have been irreplaceable.
Marian still owns the family farm in southern Indiana, though she seldom visits. And yet she holds onto it out of some profound familial instinct she cannot quite explain, but is doubtless related to that same longing for land and place that brought her ancestors to America 200 years ago. Rather than return to the farm, she intends to move to Arizona where her daughter and son-in-law live. They have been in Arizona less than a year, and have yet to sell their previous home in North Carolina. Now there is talk that her son-in-law may be transferred to California in a year or two. If so, Marian will likely follow them there.
There was a profound sadness to Marian’s retirement party that wasn’t entirely occasioned by her imminent departure. I think it was that Marion’s life serves a prime example of how deracinated all of us have become, and in what low esteem we hold such elemental virtues as home, family, and place. There was a time when being transient, unconnected, rootless, and uncommitted were considered vices, not virtues. When did everything become upside down?
About the Author
Christopher Orlet writes from St. Louis.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (57) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Christopher Orlet
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/07/rootless-in-america
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Henry22| 9.7.12 @ 6:40AM
That we have a mobile population is a good thing, Christopher. It's one of the main things that differentiates us from Europe, and it is market driven phenomena.
Pecos Pete| 9.7.12 @ 8:56AM
The young need to live where there are jobs. Can't stay down on the farm anymore. I'd like my children to be close, but there aren't enough good paying jobs in New Mexico, so they move where they can make enough money to live well.
Bob K| 9.7.12 @ 8:59AM
We excuse and explain everything these days by saying it is "market driven." The "market", whatever it is, even excuses rootlessness and the dissolution of families. In fact, it encourages it.
Immigrants from India who relocate here in response to the "market driven" global economy still maintain connections with their clans in India as they have done for centuries.
I knew an Indian Physician whose family lived in Uganda for several generations. He was in Medical School there when Idi Amin came to power and he had to quit school, telling me he barely escaped with his life. He returned to India and contacted his clan. Remember, his family had not been back there for 3 generations. He arranged for financing and acceptance to an Indian Medical College for his degree. He came to America for his residency and worked here earning money to first pay back the loan from his clan, or as he said "His name would be Mud."
That is not possible for the children and grandchildren of immigrants to America from Western Europe.
My paternal great grandfather fought in the Civil War for the Union with 4 brothers. I have photographs showing them together in uniform. All, to the best of my knowledge, survived it and returned here. I have 2nd and 3rd cousins with the same surname as mine. At least one has the same name. We do not know one another and have never met.
83champ| 9.7.12 @ 11:24AM
My Dad was the youngest of 10 children. All of his brothers and sisters moved away to factory jobs in Detroit. He was the only one to go to and graduate from college. It enabled him to get a white collar job and have a comfortable living that we now have our own business. But I haven't seen my cousins in 20+ years.
Chris Orlet| 9.7.12 @ 10:03AM
Sorry, Henry, but rootlessness is not a conservative value, no matter how you parse it.
THKrupp| 9.7.12 @ 10:16AM
I would also argue that its not a liberal value either. Its more an economic issue. I understand where you are coming from though. People from far away many times arent any smarter or better than local people, they are just perceived that way.
Occam's Tool| 9.7.12 @ 10:51AM
It provides mix and ferment, yes.
The problem comes from a lack of concern for family and commitment to children.
Von Mises Jr| 9.7.12 @ 11:20AM
You got it Occam. Catherine the Great and Peter the Great separated Russian families and moved them to new locals. It destroyed family unity and friendships, and made it very dangerous to plot any reforms with your new neighbors. This is why, along with never understanding property rights, that the Russian people embraced communism.
Companies are not advancing progressive government goals, but they know that if they hire someone who comes across the country for the job, they are grateful and have nowhere to go after work. They can stay until late night and are on call all weekend.
83champ| 9.7.12 @ 11:27AM
Also it prevents internal corruption and cronyism.
THKrupp| 9.7.12 @ 11:54AM
Czarist Russia is a different case than say the USA. They understood property rights very well it was just that property was mostly owned by nobles and much of the population was made up of serfs who worked the land. Many of the serfs were self organized into communes. I think this is why communism found fertile soil in Russia. It was already leaning in that direction. The issue of the serfs is very similar to slavery in the USA. It was a huge problem that was not easily solved and eventually led to the Revolution.
Von Mises Jr| 9.7.12 @ 1:30PM
There was also little fertile soil literally in Russia that led to their nomad history.
THKrupp| 9.7.12 @ 1:44PM
I would disagree. The Russian steppe is very fertile and is a huge area. It rivals the USA in productive soils. They had more of an issue in that a lot of it has been mismanaged by the landowners namely the aristocracy and then the communists. If the Russians would have opened up their vast land area to homesteading or some other type of redistribution, things might have turned out differently. The problem of course was that the people doing the actual work didnt own any of the land and didnt benefit directly from increased production.
Derek Leaberry| 9.7.12 @ 5:03PM
According to Richard Pipes, another problem with Russian agriculture was that the peasants would redistribute their individual plots every twenty or so years. Peasants had little reason to improve their land.
Derek Leaberry| 9.7.12 @ 5:18PM
more accurately---"peasants within individual villages would redistribute.....
Von Mises Jr| 9.8.12 @ 5:55AM
Pipes is the one whom says that much of Russia was not fertile and they kept moving in "Property and Freedom." THKrupp may be correct about a portion of Russia, but most is not fertile. They are self-sufficient unlike Germany in agriculture since they have fewer people per land mass.
THKrupp| 9.8.12 @ 1:58PM
Yes you are correct. Its a large area but its only a portion of the total area of Russia. Most would be considered not fertile. Their row crop production area is about 460,000 sq miles or not quite the size of 2 texas's
RFisher66| 9.7.12 @ 2:35PM
You are right on the money, Occam. After getting out of the military in 1976, and dragging my family around the country, I settled in Springfield MO and went to college here. Once I graduated I promised my daughters, then in only the 3rd and 5th grades, that they would graduate from the school they were attending. It cost us many promotions, several job changes and a lot of loss in potential financial gain but it was worth it. Thirty six years later my wife and I still live here along with our oldest daughter and our grandchildren. We never have regreted putting family ahead of promotion, job or money. When I'm laying on my death bed I don't want to be guilty of saying, "I sure wish I had spent more time with my grandchildren". You can't take your money with you but you can sure leave your influence behind if you're there to provide it.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.9.12 @ 5:25PM
"That we have a mobile population is a good thing, Christopher"
Next Henry will write " that we have an unwed mother population is a good thing, Christopher, it's one of the main things that differentiates us from ancient Egypt..."
A Dying Breed| 9.7.12 @ 7:03AM
I can personally relate to this article! My two children have relocated to different states after finishing college due to jobs! I now sit at home alone, (recently divorced) wondering if I would get sick who would be around, if I needed help, to assist me! I'm very healthy now but as I reach fifty years of age and I'm not what I used to be, I worry! When I was young I knew all my cousins and had contact with them. My children barely know their cousins! Me, being self employed for twenty years and building a local customer base over that period, it makes it almost impossible to start over somewhere else at my age! Yes, globalization has destroyed many a family, how sad!
Appleby| 9.7.12 @ 7:32AM
I have lived and worked all over North America, and travelled all over the world. In two of the cities where I moved, I encountered the Rooted Community, and found that the only people who wanted to welcome me were other "expats". Toronto makes a fetish of putting up barricades against people who move in from other places. Buffalo did, too. Buffalo, of course, is stagnating and dying. Toronto is a mass of enclaves of ethnic groups who glare at each other through the (metaphorical) barbed wire. California was different -- everyone there was a transient, and people were open, welcoming and friendly. Trying to blast your way into a settled society is a thankless task. Perhaps people don't put down roots because they're not given a chance.
Meadow Lemon| 9.7.12 @ 9:11AM
I have also lived and worked all over the world and second your observations about rooted communities. The "roots" displayed much more of an entitlement attitude because of the local ties and felt that trumped all. You see the hire locally mentality displayed in Democratic machine localities because that is a form of patronage.
THKrupp| 9.7.12 @ 9:22AM
Ive found the exact same thing in rooted communities. The good old boy and girl networks are very strong and they resist outsiders. They dont want outsiders because that would threaten their control over the local economy. Once when I was trying to raise some financing from private investors I had a local matriarch tell me that she wouldnt have talked to the people that I had talked to. She gave me a list of names of people she considered worthy. Most of these places are economic backwaters because of attitudes like this. They like being big fish in a small pond and outsiders threaten that.
Chris Orlet| 9.7.12 @ 9:48AM
"Outsider" public administrators came into my hometown and pretty much destroyed it, bringing with them urban renewal, which led to the razing of our historic buildings and the loss of our town's character. Outsiders also bought up our plants and factories then closed them and shipped production elsewhere. No wonder we are suspicious of rootless outsiders.
Meadow Lemon| 9.7.12 @ 10:09AM
Your outsiders were invited in, either by your hometown government who hired them or the people who sold the plants and factories. Our country was founded by the rootless and expanded by the rootless.
Chris Orlet| 9.7.12 @ 11:55AM
"Our country was founded by the rootless and expanded by the rootless."
Our country was "expanded" by landless peasants coming here for the plentiful land so they could put down roots and pass that land on to their children. But I can see how you might be confused.
THKrupp| 9.7.12 @ 12:49PM
How many of those original pioneer families actually stayed and passed down the land to their families? How do you stop people from moving or going to where there are better opportunities? My family is a perfect example of this. My brothers and I are the 6th generation to farm where I came from. All those generations had many children. My great great great grandfather had 13 children his son had 8 the next had 3 my grandfather had 4 and my father had 3...Yet there are very few relatives left where I live. They were moving away even in the 1800s. This is not a new phenomenon. My great great great grandfather gave each of his children 180 acres. It wasnt like they lacked opportunity. He was a very large and successful farmer. His son that I descend from was also very successful and split his land up between his children and so on and so forth. In the end most of them moved to other parts of the country. How do you plan on stopping this?
THKrupp| 9.7.12 @ 1:00PM
Also as an aside my great great great grandfather wasnt a landless peasant. He was fairly wealthy when he came here from England. He came here to make more money. He helped start the town where Im from. He ran the first general store and post office. We had a school named after our family. Yet most of my relatives moved away.
A Dying Breed| 9.7.12 @ 10:10AM
+1
What you wrote has happened to thousands of towns across America! Beware of strangers coming to town talking about "improving things" it usually ends up being fools gold they are peddling!
THKrupp| 9.7.12 @ 10:30AM
How would you change this? How do you keep a place vibrant? I come from rural Illinois and have watched towns dry up. The reason that they dry up is that there is no economic reason for them to exist anymore. I live in a town now that is in the process of dying. The reason being is that the natural economic advantages that led to the town being situated here no longer apply. They resisted change for a long time and now are scrambling to save the town. Its too late.
Derek Leaberry| 9.7.12 @ 4:47PM
In my home county of Queen Anne's, MD on Maryland's conservative Eastern Shore, certain local developers have wanted to pave the county and make it suburban. Fortunately, the Great Recession and high gas prices has virtually ended any new home building. I prefer being an economic backwater with plenty of space, hunting, fishing and quiet. Much of Queen Anne's old boy network, led by their beloved/hated chief Mr. Mareen Waterman, wanted to destroy the county and remake it in the image of suburban Baltimore and DC. They lost....for now.
Doctor_X| 9.7.12 @ 9:39AM
That is the way big companies work, they would rather hire from outside the company than from within. I work for a Fortune 100 company and I am 3 months away from a Ph.D. The company I work for has shown no interest in moving me into one of the many empty ‘Entry Level’ Ph.D. openings that I will be qualified for. They would rather bring in someone from outside the company then move me and make my boss backfill my job. I was told by HR that if I want to move out of my job it is up to ME to have a replacement in line to backfill my job. Did they ever stop to think that I can simply LEAVE the company and there would be no one to replace me? Maybe this is just a case of the grass is always greener, and the employee’s from outside are always smarter. So much for intuitional and subject matter knowledge, it’s all about to walk out the door.
By the way I have interviews lined up with 2 other ‘Top’ Companies.
Occam's Tool| 9.7.12 @ 10:49AM
Doctor_X: May thy tribe prosper and increase, and G-d Bless and good luck. I like the cut of your jib.
Drunken Sailor| 9.7.12 @ 12:58PM
Doctor_X,
Just remember that the grass may be greener on the other side because it is better fertilized, if you catch my drift.
OP4| 9.7.12 @ 9:41AM
I moved a bunch of times before the kids came along. I'm staying in New Jersey until they are raised and for the income. As soon as they are gone and I get the opportunity, I will be gone.
I have been dreaming for over a decade of living in a free state. That dream will come true eventually.
Occam's Tool| 9.7.12 @ 10:48AM
I couldn't stand living in Chicago; Liberalmoronsville. Turned 18, moved to Texas for College and Med School. UCLA had great Psych program, but LA is no place for a Conservative to live. Moved to Alabama, worked so hard I had to change jobs to lower the intensity. Moved to Kentucky, but they are neither Southern nor Conservative.
Tried New Mexico, even tried overseas---came to rural Minnesota and like the balance here---we WILL get rid of Franken in 2 years, and rural Minnesota is very calm and tranquil, and my job is fantastic.
It is VERY hard to find psychiatrists who like rural life. I will always be in demand. Sometimes it takes a while to find the place, that's all.
83champ| 9.7.12 @ 11:16AM
Where at in Kentucky? It sounds like the Lexington, Louisville, Cincinnati Corridor. I've never been into the western part of the state for anything other than sporting contest when I was in high school, so I can't say much about it.
But Lexington and Louisville are not southern cities. People from other parts of the country may think of them as southern, but they are more mid-western, maybe even eastern liberal, than they are southern.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 9.7.12 @ 11:04AM
The city where I was born (San Francisco) is overrun with transplants many of whom work in the tech industry or financial sector. Manufacturing?...there is no real manufacturing in San Francisco anymore. Formerly blue collar neighborhoods have completely disappeared and been replaced by trendy yuppie neighborhoods. If it wasn't for the handful of native hold outs and the Irish, Chinese, Russian and even some Italian immigrants San Francisco really wouldn't have any flavor at all.
Petronius| 9.7.12 @ 11:38AM
A great friend who was in grade school with me got in at A B back in '70 due to connections. Gussie was still God then. Later he went with IBM; (I've Been Moved). The nature of large corporations who are everywhere is very simple: Company First. If your home and family mean more, there's the door. That makes hatred of big business somewhat justified. And most people don't identify with the company they work for. The vicissitudes of working life do separate and stratify us. Locals don't get promoted because somebody who knows the "new boss" will resent it since he or she didn't get that job, or the personnel director believes he's the smart one and none of them are up to scratch. "Undesirables" get transferred for the sole purpose of running them out. Take your pick. H.L. Mencken said, "getting a living in this country is too easy. It gives rise to inferior men." That was a century ago and still true. But working for a living is now divorced from what "living" means apart from drudgery versus enjoyment. Fulfillment an satisfaction don't matter, but they should. If they did, we would have real communities to live in. And when the day comes to retire, we have something more than the farewell party and the watch.
Mr Chips| 9.7.12 @ 11:51AM
In my family the rootlessness is driven by economics. We have roots in Southern California. My generation (for the most part) still live in California but our children (recent grads or still in college) seem to be going elsewhere. When my son looked at his options post high school he thought about enlisting in the military or going to school out of state. He decided to go to college in Kansas and enroll in ROTC. He took a look at where California is headed and thinks that the future is dim here. When I retire my wife & I are talking about relocating to N.C. or Texas, hopefully to be closer to our son and because we think that those states will be more dynamic than my home state of California (apparently gold does tarnish).
Le Cracquere| 9.7.12 @ 12:00PM
I was born and raised in Atlanta, the poster child for rootlessness. For generations, its virtual raison d'être has been as a waystation for white-collar transients on the make. Even to be born there is to be a rootless outsider of sorts--if the place ever had any local culture, it was long ago sacrificed as an obstacle to commerce.
However, Atlanta's starting to discover an unpleasant truth: if nearly your entire populace has been imported for unsentimental reasons, they will be equally unsentimental about leaving quickly once the jobs dry up. No one has any inherent or inherited affection for the place ... so as soon as the economy goes pear-shaped, there's no natural brake on the outflux of residents. Even if America goes into long economic decline, places like Boston and San Francisco will still be relatively major cities; I predict that absent a turnaround, Atlanta could end up as jerkwater as it began.
In other words, cities whose sense of place and rootedness erode past a certain point are often economic bubbles ... but the worse news is that they're DEMOGRAPHIC bubbles.
Appleby| 9.7.12 @ 4:28PM
I left Atlanta after 17 years because I got tired of hearing that because I'm White, I'm a racist from birth and there's not a thing I can do about it. I moved away so I wouldn't become what I was constantly accused of being. Incidentally, I brought my 14 year old nephew with me to Toronto during the Atlanta Olympics (we lived in the Olympic Ring and it took five layers of security to get in and out of our building) and after one walk down Yonge Street, he understood why Atlanta is a Big Village and Toronto is a City.
Derek Leaberry| 9.7.12 @ 12:22PM
Sadly, the economic determinists and libertarians that are part of big-box conservatism don't really know what is worth preserving. They tend to love money more than the land, water and air and even people.
THKrupp| 9.7.12 @ 2:39PM
what is the solution? Dont allow people to leave their home towns? Dont allow outsiders to purchase land homes or businesses? How exactly do you keep someplace from ever changing?
Derek Leaberry| 9.7.12 @ 4:27PM
There is probably little in the way of government solutions. A little tariff help defending American manufacturing against Third World manufacturing might help some. An end of the Interstate Highway program might stanch the blood flow. An end to subsidies to agribusiness might allow for more specialty farms to be formed. The greatest help would be lower taxes. For the most part it is up to a free individual to make his own decision to be amongst the family and people he feels most familiar with.
Appleby| 9.7.12 @ 4:29PM
Or to run away from them.
THKrupp| 9.7.12 @ 5:38PM
Exactly, most people make these decisions based on economics...good bad or indifferent. no one is going to stay in an area that doesnt offer economic opportunities. That means no place is going to stay the same. Ive got nothing at all against small towns or people that are happy where they are. Ive spent most of my life in one area but I have spent considerable amounts of time in other places. You cannot expect things to stay the same. Its not even a realistic world view. The solutions you offer wouldnt do much, people will still tend to move where they have the greatest economic opportunities. Small towns that rely on agriculture will continue to dwindle because it simply takes fewer people to cultivate the same acreage than it used to. Big farms are going to get bigger no matter what happens with ag subsidies. Specialty farms tend to be close to urban areas where they can sell their produce at much higher prices. The interstate highway program does have an effect. If you are near an access ramp then your town will probably not die off. If you dont have interstate access it makes it that much harder to grow or even maintain. Lower taxes especially in areas that have high property taxes can help. Realistically people go where they can get jobs
billinlv| 9.7.12 @ 1:41PM
Come on Chris. You are an astute observer of the culture and its profound bankruptcy. Things have been moving from right side up to upside down for the past 50 years, but certainly accelerating rapidly during the past 20 or so. Being mobile is the least of our problems and in many ways is a good thing. The real problem is our rejection of the Truth and embrace of insanity and evil. And it was on full display in Charlotte this week.
Citizen Jerry| 9.7.12 @ 2:53PM
Christopher is right on point again. A rootless, mobile population might be a good thing if your only interest is in acquisition, more money, more status, more power. And all of that will vanish on the last day. All that would be left of your legacy would be family, home, and place. But because you had no interest in cultivating those intangibles, you leave with nothing.
Two men were discussing a wealthy friend's death. One asked how much he left. The other answered: "All of it."
Tafuna| 9.7.12 @ 4:33PM
I like the fact that in Ameica you are free to move and work wherever you wish. I joined the Navy 40 years ago and after a series of transfers ended up in a place I liked. I'm thankful for the mobility in my life, to experience far places and meet different people.
Derek Leaberry| 9.7.12 @ 4:51PM
Chris, I would wish you to write a book on your ideas about rooted conservatives. Count me as a potential buyer.
PCPSmokerII| 9.7.12 @ 9:22PM
This is bullshit. America became what it is, or was prior to Bush/Obama, because the entrepreneurial spirit moved them to migrate. This type of Conservatism reminds me of Rod Dreher's failed Crunchy Conservatism experiment. CC demanded a number of intricate rules and attitudes regarding matters like this. Fuck that.
You should also check your past writings. It wasn't long ago that you were whining about Charles Murray's admonition to elites to move back to regular neighborhoods.
BackToBasics| 9.7.12 @ 9:29PM
Most of the people doing the hiring were educated in our public schools. Too often there is little to no common sense used in evaluating those wanting to be hired.
As for "not hiring locally," it is an understatement when considering that there are millions of foreigners hired and even given preference over American citizens. And too often it is Americans who pass over their fellow citizens. It foes form the hiring of illegal aliens to the hiring of professionals who are granted H1-B working visas.
the theme of the article reminds me of a verse from Mark 6: 4 - "But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
BackToBasics| 9.7.12 @ 9:30PM
corr - it goes from the hiring of.....
delahaya| 9.8.12 @ 1:33PM
Food for thought. Thanks Christopher.
MEG| 9.8.12 @ 9:53PM
Kind of ironic to be yearning for the "stay-puts" in a city whose most recognizable monument celebrates those who left, don't you think Chris?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.9.12 @ 1:17PM
Having left the town where I grew up, and having later returned, I have had the opportunity to consider the circumstances Mr. Orlet describes. While I think he makes valid points, I think there are equally valid counterarguments which can at least partially refute them.
In the end, while I believe there are virtues to local hiring, I would be highly reluctant to proscribe any employers’ choices with unnecessary regulation designed to achieve a quasi-utopian view of what I think is a better form of existence, even if it could be guaranteed that my rules would lead to the desired outcome. In large part, this is what the Left usually tries to do.
Kingofthenet| 9.10.12 @ 3:50PM
This is what the 1% had made us. I had a friend grow up with me in New Jersey, he had a large family and couldn't handle the rents and all that, so he moved to Pennsylvania where it's cheaper, of course his 'road' job installing POS equipment in fast food places dried up, and forget about local jobs there, so he moved to Georgia to be near some of his family who moved there, where will he be in ten years, i have no idea?