Tuesday, February 11, 2014

"Should I stay or should I go? If I go there will be trouble and if I stay it will be double": In which I offer important policy suggestions to the GOP

I thought the lament in the '90s and '00s was that the yoof were too mobile, too rootless, too dismissive of small-town and local treasures like used food stores in favor of soulless corporate franchises like new food stores. Now the problem is that they don't move enough? Since when?

I was really on-board with the previous too-much-moving lament, because it I could, like, totally relate to this problem, having moved enough times in the past 10 years that I can no longer access my own credit report because I can't correctly answer those security questions that ask you, "At which of the following addresses did you live/not live in the past five years?" People are still moving a lot, because I am moving a lot. And if they're not moving, maybe it's because they've already found their way to one of America's several yoga studio/cupcake bakery meccas and are now satisfied to stay there? Maybe the bipartisan pro-localism mantra of the past decade was actually effective? Maybe the Big Sort...sorted? Anyway, how would we know how much mobility is enough?

(Side note: The standard "list all your previous addresses" demand for security clearances and background checks seems really outdated. Who can even do this anymore? When a friend was doing this last year, she not only had too many American addresses to list, but also faced the problem of multiple foreign addresses. "I don't think my room in Cambodia even had an address. Maybe one of the buildings down the street had an address?")

If yoof non-mobility is any kind of problem, which I am not convinced that it is, I have a better policy proposal than giving vouchers to unemployed New Yorkers to move to the greener pastures of North Dakota (!!). The long-term unemployed do not necessarily or even primarily overlap with the yoof. One of the big impediments to my own moving is the cost of pet transportation. You have to buy a separate airline ticket for a cat! (Ok, it is a steeply discounted ticket, granted, but it's still a lot of money.) Plus a trip to the vet, cat sedatives, an airline-approved carrier, and cleaning supplies to deal with the cat's angry peeing in your shoes after arrival. And cats at least fit under airline seats. Think of the dogs that have to fly in cargo! The yoof do not want to move to North Dakota, despite its marginally lower unemployment rate (which seems like it would immediately increase once they arrived there unemployed, but what do I know about this?). But the yoof do own pets and they don't want to leave them behind. Ergo, to facilitate greater national mobility of the yoof and others, I propose government-issued vouchers for pet transport.

Suitcase Cat says, "Dear GOP, please send money so I can travel too!"

This post has been brought to you by the department of bad ideas.


WPB said...

The standard "list all your previous addresses" demand for security clearances and background checks seems really outdated. Who can even do this anymore?

Amazon. Every time I've had to do one of those checks, Amazon knows everywhere I've ever lived.

Alternatively, you should have made friends with a postcard addict.

alex said...

Cutie pie kitty cat!

Feliway helps so much with the peeing. You should get the plug-ins for the constant stream of calming fake hormones.

Miss Self-Important said...

WPB: That's a good idea! I hadn't thought of it, but yes, I guess Amazon does know everywhere I've lived since 2003, which is basically my entire life, give or take 18 (sedentary) yrs. But does my buying history get preserved for that long?

Alex: Well Nigel is not moving or peeing right now, but feliway also costs money, so that should be factored into the voucher sizes.