Talk:Rust Belt

Messages from the old Talk:Rust Belt

These messages are from the old Talk:Rust Belt file before Talk:Manufacturing Belt was moved over it when Manufacturing Belt was histmerged with Rust Belt. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Illinois

Not sure what the academic definition of Rust Belt is, but speaking from personal experience, northern Illinois (Peoria/Quad Cities/Rockford) certainly is considered Rust Belt. PeteJayhawk 02:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

yes...

and what about St. Louis? The east side of the metro region definitely shares characteristics of the rust belt. There are numerous factories and abandonded rail yards that are literally RUSTING. J. Crocker

Cincinnati

Cincinnati likely also part of the rust belt, as the city proper has suffered through job losses, white flight, and constant population declines for the last few decades. There have been efforts made to revive the downtown, and indeed that area is nice. However, the rest of the city is stricken with poverty and crime. Bcirker 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Detroit has suffered the most."

I removed this line from the introductory paragraph as it does not indicate by what criteria and compared to what peers Detroit has "suffered the most." If any editor wishes to add the cities or metropolitan areas that have endured the largest population decline, contraction in economic output, fall in property values, reduction in employment base, etc. please feel free to do so, with suitable citation.-choster 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Flint, Michigan has actually suffered the most. It was once the richest city in America, and Flint is not like Detroit, which is a huge city and is still going to have industries drawn to it. But also, in addition to really not being part of the Rust Belt, the Twin Cities are not economically depressed at all, they are actually much better off economically than most big American cities in any region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbob12 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

When did the name change from Manufacturing Belt to Rust Belt?

Wasn't this geographic area was once considered to be and/or named the Manufacturing Belt? So when did the term Rust Belt enter the lexicon?

Circa 1975 when the USA started to feel the early effects of various free trade agreements on many industries within the Manufacturing Belt (mass layoffs, plant closures, corporate restructuring/bankruptcy, offshoring) the term was commonly used by journalists to negatively describe the decline of the area. Their term fit well, as any economist will state that the USA is finished in the realm of manufacturing.

Since the term 'Rust Belt' has negative connotations--in the same way 'black attack' negatively describes white flight--does anyone know of a different term for this geographic area? Linguists discovered the Northern cities vowel shift trend that closely matches the geographic area of the Rust Belt. But this is not really a name, just a trend.

Perhaps rust is leaching into groundwater, causing the population to (yet again) butcher American English. Any thoughts? Anybody? Anyone? V-O-O, Voodoo Economics. (Bueller? Bueller?)216.170.144.5 12:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

free trade bias

I feel the history section of this article is written with a bias against NAFTA and other free trade agreements, as it seems to give the view that these agreements killed the middle class and the manufacturing centers of america. Should probably be looked at.

I agree with you. I added "citation needed" to those claims that free trade was a problem. Then I added three sources explaining that free trade is not a problem, and that the real problem is the high taxes and closed shop policies of the rust belt states. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

New York City

I can understand the labeling of NYC as a Rust Belt city based on the loss of its garment industry, and I know there was population loss between 1970 and 1980, but I can't seem to find a reference that specifically places NYC in the Rust Belt. If anyone can find anything, please include it in the article! Confiteordeo 23:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Which name?

"Rust Belt" redirects here? This article sugar coats the social upheaval of factory closures in places like Flint, MI and Pittsburgh, PA while "wealth producing" and high tech solutions are mentioned several times each. NPOV is definitely in doubt; Rust Belt should probably have it's own article.

{Filippo Argenti's post begins:} Rust Belt should have its own article, or at least its own section of the article, rather than just a sentence, for heaven's sake. I mean, "Rust Belt" means that there are no more factories, its 'post-industrial' if you will. Which means that area is the 'Manufacturing Belt' no longer, since there's no more manufacturing going on there any more. Just rusting. --Filippo Argenti 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The area experiences new manufacturing, high tech, and so on, its a vibrant region of the US. The US is one of the worlds pre-eminent manufacturing powers. Words like 'post industrial' are perjorative and highly inaccurate.12.110.179.187 19:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I live in the Rust Belt and have NEVER heard nor seen it called the "Manufacturing Belt". (I don't hear it called "Rust Belt" every day or anything, but it's at least a known term.) It is most certainly not a "vibrant" region, with the possible exception of Chicago, by any stretch. "Post Industrial" is not pejorative, it's accurate. The U.S. as a manufacturing power? When was the last time you purchased a consumer good made in the U.S.? I can't even tell if you're joking or if you're seriously THAT biased. Rust Belt is a commonly used term that should not redirect to a rarely used term.71.114.211.31 (talk)

History Section

This section seems to be written with a bit of a critical tone rather than just discussing the facts of the history of the manufacturing belt. Lets work together and get this polished. :) --Wootonius 16:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to link this page with other articles suggesting remedies to Rust Belt blight. i.e. PA's Growing Greener, tax incentives, brownfield remediation, industrial remediation, urban planning in Cleveland... Not just the cause, but some effects would be nice. Iamthetrigger 00:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Ia Trigger

The history accurately reflects effects of trade. Tax incentives and other developmental issues are constantly changing and ongoing. New plants are opening in the region. The tired old hammer and sickle view of the world died with the end of the cold war. Terms which deride manufacturing are no longer in vogue. 12.110.179.187 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Sub-par exchange rates? NPOV 24.206.120.242 03:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

China's labor cost is is pegged at 4 percent of the USA, that is an extremely sub-par exchange rate. The statement is more than accurate. 12.110.179.187 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is deemed that the article should discuss the disadvantages of free trade with China for the 'Rust Belt', perhaps in order to keep NPOV, a section discussing the advantages to the Rust Belt of free trade should be added. (such as lower costs of living and lower costs of most goods) The article, as it stands, is not NPOV. Look at the word 'culprit' - second sentence, second paragraph of the 'History' section. That shows the author's true motivation in writing in this article. Captain Vimes (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Manufacturing vs Services

"Economists generally regard manufacturing as a wealth producing sector of an economy, whereas a service sector tends to be wealth consuming."

Utter rubbish. Ask Switzerland how their filthy-rich service based economy is performing. Furthermore, both references sited aren't from respected economists; they're both references from the the same biased think-tank.

Wikipedia is replete with this type of agenda-based rubbish. Can someone delete it; I can't be bothered, as I view Wikipedia as a failed experiment.

Hows the view from up there on your high-horse? You complain about it in the discussion page but you are too smart and important to edit the article. I agree with what you are saying, however I do not like your tone. And anyway both sides of the story should be told. Fair and balanced. Even the side that to you and I is the "wrong side". --Jon in California 14 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.73.82 (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Article

This article needs some serious adjustments. The fact that the article for the term Rust belt has been removed and redirects here is evidence of this. This region is no longer the economic juggernaut that it was 40 years ago, and it has not regained its former prosperity. This article needs a major reevaluation in order to be credible.(Lucas(CA) 17:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

That "rust belt" redirects here represents weasel-wording of the highest order. Who uses the word "manufacturing belt" in conversation? 71.185.88.200 15:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some contributors enjoy replacing commoner terms with remote ones. I created Theodore Gaillard Thomas and found that the nineteenth-century word vagiotomy has been redirected to oophorectomy, a practically unknown word. Superslum (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In my confusion and in haste, too, I mistakenly cited an improper word. Ovariectomy is the word that has been redirected to oophorectomy. Wikipedia has attracted an excessive number of contributors; many of whom place unusual redirects in their efforts to contribute. During the Eisenhower administration, newsmen called the area "the industrial heartland of America." It was generated by determined workers who toiled from roughly 1850 to 1960 before it deteriorated into "the rust belt" of 2008. There is no reason to call the area a "manufacturing belt." Too many important irreversible changes have taken place. Wikipedia has developed a disease called "redirect mania" (by me). If your child became ill with measles, you would not abandon him. Please don't abandon Wikipedia because of its disease. I had left for awhile, but I decided to accept Wikipedia and its many diseases. I have found a new life here in Wikipedia. Superslum (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding, though I do not have the citations to back it up, is that the region is now called the "Rust Belt" because it was originally known as the "Steel Belt" and, as we all know, steel turns to rust when it deteriorates. Although I have heard the term "Steel Belt" in conversation, I have never heard the term "Manufacturing Belt." I think that it would make more sense to change the name to "Steel Belt" and keep "Rust Belt" redirected to this page. Mike3550 (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The formal name is Manufacturing Belt. That's what other encyclopedias like Britanica call it. Manufacting output rises in the U.S.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sugar coating of the rust belt economy?

"Contraction of manufacturing jobs has left many cities in this region in bad shape, forcing the area—the focal point on the continent for a recovering automobile industry—to diversify. Emerging technologies in this region (including hydrogen fuel cell development, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology) have helped revitalize its economy."

Recovering automobile industry? Revitalized economy? What kind of lunatic wrote this part? There is a reason why this area is called RUST belt, don't you think. Automobile industry is still in decline, with jobs and factories disappearing in Midwest only to migrate to the southern United States. Places like Michigan and upstate New York are some of the most economically depressed areas in the US with no clear solutions to their economic issues in sight.

Move back to "Rust belt"

The naming conventions are that the most common name is to be the name of the article. On account of the Google ratio between "Rust Belt" and "Manufacturing Belt" is a staggering 20:1, I propose that the article be renamed Rust Belt. __meco (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias like Britannica call it the Manufacturing Belt. That is the formal name. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Map

It says in the opening paragraph that the rust belt extends to Duluth, however the map shows that it barely extends to Chicago. I think the map should be fixed to reflect this if the content is correct. --Wizard191 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AGREED! The map shows a far too small area. Minneapolis is considered Rust Belt; so is St Louis. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Minneapolis is not considered rust belt. Duluth & the Iron range, is, however. Minneapolis never was much dependant on heavy manufacturing and did not experience much of an economic downturn. Minneapolis has been more dependant on grain trade, and computer industry. The map should be updated, however to reflect some additional areas of coverate. I never considered St. Louis as part of the Rust Belt, but maybe it was. Manufacturing in outstate Illinois, I know was affected.--71.214.221.153 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Minneapolis, no. The range, yes. I don't know what the academics say, but St. Paul could pretty easily be considered part of the rust belt. American Hoist & Derrick, Whirlpool, Ford, etc. 24.118.1.186 (talk)

Proposed move back to Rust Belt

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One editor keeps moving this article from Rust Belt to variations of Manufacturing Belt, on the stated basis of it being it's "formal name". Rather than engage in a move war, I bring it to the community to establish consensus. Wikipedia:Naming conventions seems to me to clearly and explicitly say that the most common name in use should be used as the article's title, regardless of what may be the "official" or "formal" name. Several editors have pointed out that "Rust Belt" is FAR more commonly used, and in fact is what the majority of the references cited in the article call it. Shawisland (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Manufacturing Belt (U.S. region) → Rust Belt

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nom. Shawisland (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support move back to Rust Belt. See Wikipedia:official names which is just a proposal at this stage but which I think summarises existing policy and guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support since I have already proposed this. __meco (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I learned this in school as the "Rust Belt". Making reference to th region using either terms is infomal anyway. What is the point of using a formal term for an infomal context, especially when that "formal" term is barely used? 66.121.215.213 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - The formal name is Manufacturing Belt. Other encyclopedias such as Britannica call it Manufacturing Belt. Scholarly Jourals likewise refer to it as the Manufacturing Belt. The factual activity that takes place in the region is called "manufacturing" therefore the name of the region is the manufacturing belt. The National Association of Manufacturers refers to it as the Manufacturing Belt. Trade publications commonly use the name manufacturing belt, as do scholarly journals, and government publications. Manufacturing Belt maintains a neutral point of view. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I've never even heard the term "Manufacturing belt", I thought someone deleted the Rust belt article momentarily. JohnM (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Does either side care to provide any evidence to support the fact that either choice is more commonly used? JPG-GR (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There are 473,000 Google hits for rust belt and 24,600 for manufacturing belt, half of which appear to refer to conveyor belts used in manufacturing assembly lines. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Baltimore

Why is it included? When I think Rust Belt, I think the Great Lakes, not the Chesapeake. Now yes, it did share some similarities in terms of heavy industry and manufacturing, but so does other coastal cities from around the country. Besides, the climate, the history from every aspect, it's all different from what's considered the Rust Belt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.4.3 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

New York City and New Jersey?

How are New York City and New Jersey considered part of the rust belt? The rust belt doesn't refer simply to declining manufacturing, but to long-time stagnant local economies as well. I'd say the rust belt begins in western Pennsylvania and western New York State, and moves westward along the Great Lakes. --JHP (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why no picture?

Why no pictures of anything left to rust? Would like to see some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.90.30.142 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Like, a rusted steel belt? or belt buckle? or a rust-colored belt? the possibilities for ridiculous literalization are nearly endless.72.205.238.27 (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wisegeek Source

3 people make comments, one says its unreliable, another not for controversial or entire article support. One person says it would be ok to fill in the blanks. I consider this statement controversial. Without a proper source, I'm removing that line on where the "rust belt" moniker comes from. 124.78.48.95 (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a new RSN discussion about this particular case at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wisegeeks.com_and_Rust_Belt. Wizard191 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As I noted at the RSN discussion, I do think that the Wisegeeks article is, within the limits described in the prior RSN discussion, is reliable. However, it seems to me that taking the reference in that article to "the abundance of shuttered buildings guarded by rusting gates gave the region a new name, the Rust Belt" to be a comment upon the origin of the term Rust Belt is giving it more reliance than it deserves. Let me point out that the Dictionary of American History, available here (and more reliably through the Gale Virtual Reference Library online academic research database available through many public libraries) says,

The 1984 Democratic presidential candidate, Walter Mondale, is generally credited with coining the term. During the campaign, Mondale, the former vice president from Minnesota, attacked the economic policies of incumbent Republican president, Ronald Regan, stating that the president was "turning our great industrial Midwest and the industrial base of this country into a rust bowl." The media, however, repeated and reported the notion as "Rust Belt," and the phrase stuck as a good description of the declining industrial heartland...

Schondelmeyer, Brent. "Rust Belt." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 7. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 215-216, retrieved 21 January 2011. It seems to me that the Wisegeeks article is just engaging in a bit of editorial expansion on the concept of the term, and to use it in this article to specifically refer to shuttered buildings and rusting gates is too specific (and is also probably prohibited plagiarism when stated without in-text attribution and quotation marks, see the third red X and following text at WP:PLAGIARISM). It seems to me that the purpose of the paragraph is to say what "rust belt" means, more than to describe the term's history, and it could be rewritten so that either the Wisegeeks article or the Schondelmeyer article, or both, could support it without getting hung up on the rusty gates issue. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In any event, "...the abundance of shuttered buildings guarded by rusting gates..." seems overly flowery for an encyclopedia, hopefully it can be toned down in the rewrite. --CliffC (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)