The DOT seems to actually do it’s job though. Plus, government jobs usually have better benefits. So, I don’t see how it would be bad?

Well, there is actually a need for people to fill healthcare roles with the aging population. Unless people just want to sit in their own shit once they can’t care for themselves.

Because of the aging population, a lot of the jobs needed are in healthcare. Yet, nursing, where many of jobs are needed, actually pays less in Maine compared to other states. One incentive would be to raise healthcare wages, especially in areas in need to attract younger people.

We actually moved here from Arizona, and I assumed the taxes would be much higher since it’s the northeast. But, taxes are surprisingly pretty comparable.

Cost of living, in general, is higher though. I agree local wages are low compared to the COL as well. Usually as COL rises, pay does as well. Maine employers don’t seem to get that. Remote work is really the only way to make it work, unless you are in a high demand, highly skilled healthcare field.

and neither will mining in Maine. Mining in Maine will not stop mining overseas. They’ll just extract from both places for more profit, and harm multiple communities.

The only way to possibly stop it is to actually move to more sustainable practices and by pushing for for environmental rights for people.

First of all, for this to even be a fair argument the materials available in Maine and Burundi would have to be exactly the same, which is unlikely.

Second, I am not advocating mining in vulnerable places overseas. There should be less mining, less consumption, and more recycling and reusing of materials rather than ripping up the land in vulnerable communities. Many of mines in the US disproportionately impact Native communities, and poorer communities. It’s not social justice to move the impact from one vulnerable community to another. Where I worked on the air quality project, the air was full of lead and arsenic next to a school. The people being poisoned were children, all of who were low income and and majority Latino. Who profits off this? A few very wealthy people.

What we should be doing is mining less, extending the life of electronics, recycling electronics, and living with less. If you are truly worried about mining overseas, which I kind of doubt you are and assume you are trolling, then advocate for more environmental and human rights protections on a global level as well as more research and methods into recycling of metals. Advocate against corporate greed and over extraction of materials.

This would go in a poor area in the US. I don’t know how else to explain that to you. This isn’t going into Cumberland County, it’s going into a rural part of Aroostook county. You are not advocating for anyone here.

I actually worked on an air quality project in Arizona (which hosts the second largest number of mines in America), and there are places that are inhabitable because they are so poisonous. The mines are no where near the major cities. The vast majority of mining towns become ghost towns once the jobs dry up, leaving behind the poorest of the community to poisoned water and air. EPA clean up of these sites is often slow to non existent due to funding and bureaucracy, and often because these are towns inhabited by people who lack any economic power. Jobs aren’t even a good argument anymore, because a lot of mining jobs have become automated.

Again, if you want an environmental disaster in an already vulnerable and poor area that will benefit rich people who don’t live there, by all means.

This would go into a poorer community. What are you talking about? There are 14k active mines in the US, mostly in poorer communities. Aroostook county is not a wealthy area, and it will poison the air and water in that area while those who don’t live there profit. This isn’t the same as Cape Elizabeth voting down affordable housing. This would actively harm people who cannot afford to leave the area and generate profits for people no where near Northern Maine.

The comments on here are ridiculous.

So, what do you think will happen if they start mining this land in Northern Maine? It will benefit the wealthy who don’t have to live by the mine, who can conduct their business far away from the site, while it poisons the people who cannot move away from it by contamination of the water and air. That’s what happens. This isn’t going into Cape Elizabeth, it would be going into Aroostook county where the median income is $24k a year.

So, I don’t see what the argument is here. It’s another mine that would go into a poorer community and ultimately poison the resources there. You are not standing up for the “little people” by advocating for mining this material. All that’s going to happen is some CEO in another state will add to their wealth while the people in Maine suffer the consequences to their land.

And poison air. I actually worked on an air quality project near a mining site. The consequences are awful. These communities become ghost towns once the site is “dried up” and jobs are no longer viable, except for the few very poor who cannot leave the area who continue to get poisoned from the site. The number of jobs can also be overblown because a lot of mining has become automated as well.

The answer should be less consumption, and more recycling/fixing/reuse of materials. It’s really easy to make bold claims on Reddit, but a mine in your backyard is not generally something most people would want. The people who profit of it are not going to live in the community that was destroyed either.

I’m all for change that is good and makes sense (like better public transit, the proposed 70 mile bike loop in southern Maine, raising pay for healthcare workers which we are in desperate need of, more housing), but I’m not for environmental disasters. Mining has huge consequences for the environment and community that lives near the mine.

I used my SUP all summer. If you can, get a solid one rather than an inflatable. They are nicer to ride on.

I mean, if winter is going to continue to be 45-50 degrees, who knows!

But, seriously, try Eddie Bauer. They tend to have a lot of good deals on down jackets. I have a long coat from them and it’s the best.

The article says New England seafood.

I’m not talking about WF losing money. I’m talking about the impact on the New England seafood industry.

I think maybe people are missing what I am saying. WF is doing this to maintain an image, which is, ultimately, about money. All of this is about money and capitalism. I’m interested in what financial impact this has one the New England seafood market. Was WF a large supplier of their product? Does this have minimal impact on the seafood market? What does WF publicly dropping Maine Lobster do for the image and brand of Maine Lobster? What kind of negative impact could it have?

Yeah, but this is definitely a case where money is an important consideration lol.

There is Whole Foods in Portland, but this isn’t just local. Any product that contains New England seafood, which would include anything frozen and shipped, anything prepackaged, etc. I don’t know how many products Whole Foods carries that contains New England seafood, but I would imagine there’s a supply chain of seafood products that ships around the nation. It’d be interesting to know what proportion of that seafood is going to Whole Foods.

I am interested to know what the financial impact of this is, can’t be good from a marketing aspect.

Edit: I’m talking about the financial impact on the New England seafood industry, not Whole Foods.

Vermont is very similar to Maine, and this is not the case there. I also think the impact of opiates in Maine is a part of this as well.

The states at the bottom are Washington, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania though…

Alabama isn’t at the bottom, or even near it. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Washington are.

I find this worrying. States like New Jersey and Washington are at the bottom. Vermont is towards the bottom, and California is in the middle. These are not conservative strong holds, and are states that are known for good education systems and better social funding, and I would imagine more mandated reporting and training. If it were true that it’s just more reporting, then we’d see all the states with better social and education systems at the top and states with poorly funded social systems and education at the bottom. But that’s not the case.

Most states have mandated reporting.

Also, the states at the mid to bottom include Washington, Vermont, California which tend to also have higher levels of state funding and mandated reporting. So, more reporting doesn’t explain it all.