Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jeffreyi

(2,600 posts)
3. Yeah.
Mon Feb 17, 2025, 03:23 PM
Feb 2025

These feds are invested socially, financially in outlying, impoverished areas. (1) when they leave, the local (often bad) economy is deprived of people with steady incomes. (2) There are not very many alternative jobs for these feds to fill in those areas. They will probably have to uproot and leave. It's often not easy to sell real estate in the boondocks; customers are in short supply. Schools are often very small and can't really afford to lose students. The local economy and social structure is adversely affected. In the meantime, the other elephant in the room are the demographics in these areas. The demographic is shifting to old people. The population of the area where I live is smaller than when I came here for my USDA federal job in 1978. The local NRCS, Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management workforces have been the financial and social backbone of this area for decades.
To boil it down: This is devastation for the small communities where these federal employees are located.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»An unidentified USFS spok...»Reply #3