Life is hard to live in a place where life is hard to live.
There is some push to discuss "food deserts" as a social problem subject to sociopolitical solutions. Thing is, a desert is what it is because there is little there to sustain life - and the prime way to deal with that, short of either imposing expensive infrastructure or accepting grinding bare-sustenance living, is MOVE: don't be there. Ditto these urban "food deserts" (or "banking deserts", or ...): the solution isn't trying to impose an infrastructure on a system which has a natural resistance thereto, and will require enormous costs with little payback, the solution is to recognize "this is a bad place to exist in" and get out. Yes, it can be hard to move for many reasons; which is cumulatively harder - leaving, or staying?
If you're going to commute 2 hours every day, you've already proven you can move. And people do! There are plenty of towns and cities (Detroit a good current example) where people finally realized "this isn't working, I'm outta here" and left, leaving the systemic structural problems behind.
My recurring conclusion on the issue: the problem isn't opportunity, the problem is people not acting on opportunity. You can't force them to, and if they won't then nothing will change for them.
Thing is, a desert is what it is because there is little there to sustain life - and the prime way to deal with that, short of either imposing expensive infrastructure or accepting grinding bare-sustenance living, is MOVE: don't be there.
I wanted to work in high-tech and eventually be a tech entrepreneur. I lived in rural East Bumfuck, NC, where the dominant industries were: tobacco farming, golf courses, shrimping, fishing, and logging. We had no broadband availability, no (or little) access to VC money, angel money, mentorship from experienced entrepreneurs, and a limited pool of technology aware people.
I could have stayed there, and moaned about how "we don't have broadband" or "I can't find any other techies to work with," etc. Instead, I packed up my stuff and moved to the RTP area which is an environment much more suited to the kind of life I wanted. (No, it's not silicon valley, but it's better than where I was).
I know some people don't like to hear "move" as an option, whether it's because of a sense of entitlement, lack of ambition, or just lack of resources to move. But it's simply true that - for many people - picking up and moving is exactly the right choice (maybe a necessary choice) if they want a different kind of life.
I know nothing about you in particular, but your post in whole suggests that you weren't raised by drug addicts and foster parents.
My bigger point though, is to be very careful of people who say "I grew up in BFE, Kentucky" and then clarify that to say "really, on a farm, BFE was just the nearest town." Because the whole context changes when you find out they grew up on a Kentucky racehorse breeding farm.
In healthcare and the military, you find out that this whole thing about "moving" implies realizing that's an option. You're off in the toolshed telling your friends how other people would be better off shoveling snow with a sand shovel instead of a snow shovel. Meanwhile, our ancestors drawing animals in caves shepherded those genes to us through countless winters without ever knowing about the entire class called shovels. Never mind that shovels aren't very good for a lot hunting problems, berry-gathering problems, etc.
I understand that moving is legitimate way to recast your social network, but it's a long way from optimal for a lot of people.
> the solution isn't trying to impose an infrastructure on a system which has a natural resistance thereto, and will require enormous costs with little payback, the solution is to recognize "this is a bad place to exist in" and get out.
You're making it sound like these are two alternative solutions by setting them next to each other, but they aren't. No agent faces the dilemma of improving the desert infrastructure or moving someplace better.
City planners, legislators, etc. can choose to improve living conditions in deserts. Desert residents can choose to leave (of course, even if this does eventually better their situation, the short-term result will be a decrease in living standards).
There is some push to discuss "food deserts" as a social problem subject to sociopolitical solutions. Thing is, a desert is what it is because there is little there to sustain life - and the prime way to deal with that, short of either imposing expensive infrastructure or accepting grinding bare-sustenance living, is MOVE: don't be there. Ditto these urban "food deserts" (or "banking deserts", or ...): the solution isn't trying to impose an infrastructure on a system which has a natural resistance thereto, and will require enormous costs with little payback, the solution is to recognize "this is a bad place to exist in" and get out. Yes, it can be hard to move for many reasons; which is cumulatively harder - leaving, or staying?
If you're going to commute 2 hours every day, you've already proven you can move. And people do! There are plenty of towns and cities (Detroit a good current example) where people finally realized "this isn't working, I'm outta here" and left, leaving the systemic structural problems behind.
My recurring conclusion on the issue: the problem isn't opportunity, the problem is people not acting on opportunity. You can't force them to, and if they won't then nothing will change for them.