Why is Maine a poor state? (Lincoln, China: house, income, quality of life)

[deerislesmile]

Originally Posted by islandmover

Do you know how much we pay for lobster in ny .Somethings wrong here

Do you know how much it costs to run a lobsterboat?

[Dwatted Wabbit]

Considering the mess the wealthy states such as CA, IL, MA, etc. have gotten themselves into regarding taxes, debt, and most importantly freedom, I'll take po any day.

[Dwatted Wabbit]

Originally Posted by Mainer41

I am also 3rd or maybe even 4th generation military. I joined because I didn't want to go to college after high school right away.I grew up in Washington county "Downeast" and did not even know we were considered a poor area until I moved away. I had a great childhood with the ocean at my front door and numerous lakes and streams within walking distance. As I've read on many posts here wealth is a relative term.My family all still lives in Maine and has to work hard for what they make but have always had more than they need and some left over for the niceties.I have not lived in Maine for over 20 years but still consider it home.

Good post. It's funny that so many po folk didn't know they were po until they moved to the wealthy outside world. It almost seems like great wealth creates insanity.
As Forest Beekeeper points out, you can be strapped no matter your income if you don't control spending. Look no further than the federal budget for examples. Wealth begets waste and corruption. Great wealth begets great waste and great corruption.
Wealthy states like Indiana and Illinois are selling off or leasing out infrastructure and sure money makers like toll roads and lotteries. Insane? Illegal?
Half of poverty IMO is the inability to live within your means. How many people do we know who have seven TVs, four cars, thousands worth of sound equipment, and 10 bucks in savings? A lot.
Look at high school and college parking lots. Now there's some poverty.

[ontheroad]

I just spent some good time in Maine, up Waldo County, and I'd say if Maine is poor, and surely some folks are, it is because any rural area these days has a harder time moving from an agricultural life-style to an industrialised life-style. Moreover, states with lower populations often pay a financial penalty for goods and services, and have to travel longer distances for work and even occasionally for organised pleasures (theatre, concerts, etc).

But what Maine may lack in financial reward, it receives in abundance in an unspoiled landscape; down to earth folks; family and community who aid each other generously, and much more that I surely missed mentioning.

I would rank Maine as rich in terms of the many fine attributes some other states are sadly lacking because of the populace's decision to make lifestyle a higher priority than financial gain.

Every last person went out of their way to extend their hospitality to me--something to treasure!

[GregW]

Maine, among others, is a financially poor state as measured by average income, because the agricultural base has been devastated by Federal policies designed to industrialize agriculture that started in the 1960s to the detriment of the small farmer. It is also the recipient of the deindustrialization resulting from the transfer of industrial capacity to, first, the southern US and, now, to Southeast Asia. Without either agriculture or industry to create wealth and no significant mining, there is little wealth generated in Maine. The tourist/retirement/second/vacation home trade does bring in some wealth but costs nearly as much to service, so there is no real gain for the citizens of Maine.

This is why Maine, along with all the other rural states, is becoming increasingly destitute. Only the financial and governmental centers of the US are gaining wealth.

[brightcopperkettles]

Originally Posted by ontheroad

I just spent some good time in Maine, up Waldo County, and I'd say if Maine is poor, and surely some folks are, it is because any rural area these days has a harder time moving from an agricultural life-style to an industrialised life-style. Moreover, states with lower populations often pay a financial penalty for goods and services, and have to travel longer distances for work and even occasionally for organised pleasures (theatre, concerts, etc).

But what Maine may lack in financial reward, it receives in abundance in an unspoiled landscape; down to earth folks; family and community who aid each other generously, and much more that I surely missed mentioning.

I would rank Maine as rich in terms of the many fine attributes some other states are sadly lacking because of the populace's decision to make lifestyle a higher priority than financial gain.

Every last person went out of their way to extend their hospitality to me--something to treasure!

Well said indeed!!!

[DavidoftheNorth]

Originally Posted by GregW

...It [Maine] is also the recipient of the deindustrialization resulting from the transfer of industrial capacity to, first, the southern US and, now, to Southeast Asia...

Wasn't this partly an intentional move on the part of our (U.S.) politicians & diplomats to attempt to improve our image in the world re: the Haves vs. Havenot nations? Consider NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, which has been supported by both national U.S. parties and their leaders, in order to help less wealthy nations in the Western Hemisphere by "levelling the playing field". I do not see any sinister, hidden intent here; I think it was conceived as a sincere attempt to spread the wealth and improve America's image. Has Maine benefitted? I would say certainly not, at least not economically. In fact, Maine might have been one of the biggest losers. In the last 25 years we've lost a major portion of our manufacturing capacity. Somebody had to suffer, and there are other states that have sufferred, as well. Maybe it has or will benefit at some point, but I'd say probably not in the near or forseeable future.

So when can Maine start charging the NAFTA Account for our social problems? Probably not any time soon.

That's my opinion; I welcome yours!

[Submariner]

Unifying all of the Americas into a common economic union [NAFTA], does hurt the US. Open borders; relaxed trade tariffs; encouraging foreign imports of foods, fuels, and manufactured goods.

Every tomato from Chili, every head of lettuce from Venezuela, every orange from Peru; that is sold in Maine; hurts US citizens.

To take wealth from the US and transfer it to South America, lowers each of us here in the US.

Thank you Hillary!

[ontheroad]

Although I fundamentally agree that importation reduces our own US agricultural base and reduces the local farmers income, the changes from an agricultural to an industrial base; the movement of industry from the North to the South, and then offshore, has a longer history than the Presidency of Clinton (or Senator Clinton).

I distinctly recall a large move from the North of clothing, and particularly overwear, moving from places like Fall River, MA, in the 60s, first to Charlotte (no unions); and more vaguely recall the move of industries like Celanese (fibres) to Asia.

More than one person obviously thought they were getting a better business deal--short range thinking perhaps!

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

Unifying all of the Americas into a common economic union [NAFTA], does hurt the US. Open borders; relaxed trade tariffs; encouraging foreign imports of foods, fuels, and manufactured goods.

Every tomato from Chili, every head of lettuce from Venezuela, every orange from Peru; that is sold in Maine; hurts US citizens.

To take wealth from the US and transfer it to South America, lowers each of us here in the US.

Thank you Hillary!

I totally agree with you up until your last sentence. Hillary is not solely to blame. She's in the pack, of course, but let's lay equal blame on President Clington, the Gingrich-led Congress, Ronald Reagan, and a host of others.