This is a ridiculously false dichotomy. Plenty of folks in the midwest/south/appalachia/dakotas/etc. don't give a shit about their communities, and plenty of people in dense coastal cities care deeply about the people around them. And vice versa (as you noted).
Weekend (or, anyways, short) vacations to Paris are a thing. On the other hand, they are also super cheap historically speaking (< $600 east cost <-> Paris, stay in a hostel and it's < $800 total). My weekend trip to Europe was $500 cheaper than what a friend from Neosho spent on a pontoon and a rental at TR the same summer! We both got a lifelong dream that summer (me: paris; him: boat & lake house boozefest).
Also, I have back issues from sitting all day and he has back issues from standing all day. He should wear a brace. I should get a standing desk. We are both too dumb/lazy to change and will probably both regret it in 10 years.
So. Rich laborers spend too much on stupid stuff and all humans have health issues. News as 11.
Furthermore, the modality of caring differs, and this causes a blindness to others' generosity. The average rich person in SF who cares about their neighbors is extremely unlikely to exhibit that care via churches, but might take in a homeless LGBT youth and donate 20K+ to various humanitarian/environmental orgs. Similarly, the average rich person in rural GA who cares about their neighbors is extremely unlikely to exhibit that care by voting for progressive policies or by offering to shelter LGBTQ youth, but might donate 20K+ to their church every year.
Those groups are invisible to each other because they each think of "civic engagement" in terms of their own preferred modality, not realizing that there are other ways to help.
(Tangentially, people from the "interior" refer to themselves as "midwesterners", "appalachian", "southerners", "mountain states", or, more commonly, just by their state or even region within their state. I've literally never heard anyone from anywhere outside of Boston/NYC/SF refer to that part of the country as the "interior". Where in the "interior" do people actually refer to themselves as being from the "interior"?!?!)
>Weekend (or, anyways, short) vacations to Paris are a thing. On the other hand, they are also super cheap historically speaking (< $600 east cost <-> Paris, stay in a hostel and it's < $800 total). My weekend trip to Europe was $500 cheaper than what a friend from Neosho spent on a pontoon and a rental at TR the same summer! We both got a lifelong dream that summer (me: paris; him: boat & lake house boozefest).
Try repeating this statement to a friend who is deciding between groceries or gas to get to work this week. You really can't comprehend what life is like on the minimum wage of $15k.
> > You really can't comprehend what life is like on the minimum wage of $15k.
I have personal experience with exactly that kind of poverty, and the chronic physical/mental health problems and financial roadblocks to prove it.
Putting your assumptions about my life aside, you missed the point.
The presumption that people "in the interior" are poor and virtuous and people "on the coasts" are rich and morally bankrupt is profoundly wrong.
The presumption that people who "work with their hands" are poor and people who work in technology are rich is also wrong.
There are people in each quadrant of the "interior"/coast/rich/poor divide. The "rich=coast=no morals=tech" trope is just the opposite side of the ugly "poor='interior'=lazy=uneducated" coin.
I'll also repeat one of my original questions: who in the "interior" actually refers to the "interior" as the "interior"? I literally never heard that language until I moved to a coast.
You're using false dichotomy in a kind of odd way, it normally means that you have to choose between one of two positions or arguments, not that someone has stereotyped two groups.
I don't think anyone is saying that these classifications are perfect, but are you saying that they're not true even on average?
Weekend (or, anyways, short) vacations to Paris are a thing. On the other hand, they are also super cheap historically speaking (< $600 east cost <-> Paris, stay in a hostel and it's < $800 total). My weekend trip to Europe was $500 cheaper than what a friend from Neosho spent on a pontoon and a rental at TR the same summer! We both got a lifelong dream that summer (me: paris; him: boat & lake house boozefest).
Also, I have back issues from sitting all day and he has back issues from standing all day. He should wear a brace. I should get a standing desk. We are both too dumb/lazy to change and will probably both regret it in 10 years.
So. Rich laborers spend too much on stupid stuff and all humans have health issues. News as 11.
Furthermore, the modality of caring differs, and this causes a blindness to others' generosity. The average rich person in SF who cares about their neighbors is extremely unlikely to exhibit that care via churches, but might take in a homeless LGBT youth and donate 20K+ to various humanitarian/environmental orgs. Similarly, the average rich person in rural GA who cares about their neighbors is extremely unlikely to exhibit that care by voting for progressive policies or by offering to shelter LGBTQ youth, but might donate 20K+ to their church every year.
Those groups are invisible to each other because they each think of "civic engagement" in terms of their own preferred modality, not realizing that there are other ways to help.
(Tangentially, people from the "interior" refer to themselves as "midwesterners", "appalachian", "southerners", "mountain states", or, more commonly, just by their state or even region within their state. I've literally never heard anyone from anywhere outside of Boston/NYC/SF refer to that part of the country as the "interior". Where in the "interior" do people actually refer to themselves as being from the "interior"?!?!)