The ‘abundance movement’ needs to help distressed places, not just booming ones

A new, energetic push to tackle big problems is taking shape in progressive policy circles: the “abundance movement.” Its most notable priority is reforming zoning codes to make it easier to construct more housing, but the movement also calls for expanding the nation’s ability to build infrastructure, operate public services, and support scientific research. 

The movement is making a bold claim: Focusing on abundance issues is the key to unlocking a future of broadly shared prosperity. However, a critique of the movement is that it ignores the needs of most people in America’s distressed places.¹ 

That’s because the abundance movement mistakenly assumes that most residents of distressed places can be helped by migration policies that make it easier for them to move to booming places by building housing there. In doing so, the movement ignores the alternative solution of “place-based jobs policies”: the strategy of creating job opportunities in distressed places. Given that, the abundance vision needs to be significantly broadened if it is to address some of the nation’s most serious social, labor market, and inclusion problems, which tend to be concentrated in distressed places.  

Without this broadening, the movement’s effort to get the U.S. to develop “new things” will fail to grapple with some of our nation’s toughest challenges.  

Why pay attention to the abundance movement? First, it has many prominent supporters, including journalists at The New York Times (Ezra Klein), The Atlantic (Derek Thompson, Jerusalem Demsas, Yoni Appelbaum), and Substack (Matthew Yglesias, Noah Smith). Second, the movement has attracted wide public attention, with a best-selling book (“Abundance” by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson) and features in The American Prospect, Washington Monthly, The Nation, and Boston Review, to name a few. 

Still, policy advocates with other priorities have pushed back against the abundance movement with critiques regarding anti-monopoly policies, stronger union power, expanded social welfare programs, stricter environmental regulations, and increased local community input. These critiques sometimes reject the abundance vision for failing to address how inequitable political power leads to inequality in economic outcomes. 

This piece’s critique is different: The movement should be broadened in order to get more people in distressed places into good jobs, which should be a key part of any strategy labeled “abundance.”   

What is the distressed place jobs problem?

We can separate places into two types: local labor markets and neighborhoods. Local labor markets consist of one or more counties that are closely linked by commuting. Due to these commuting links, changes in labor market conditions in one county are significantly reflected in changes throughout the local labor market. Neighborhoods are several census tracts that have similar characteristics, such as crime and school quality.  

Many adults have strong ties to their local labor market. Half of all Americans live within 50 miles of their birthplace. Americans value the familiar people, landscapes, institutions, and networks of their home local labor market. Children, on the other hand, are tied to their neighborhood. School quality, crime, and neighborhood peers all affect child development.  

Many Americans live in distressed local labor markets, with employment rates well below full employment. By one classification, about 10% of Americans live in local labor markets that are severely distressed, and another 28% live in areas that are moderately distressed.²  

Map 1 shows distressed local labor markets. They include many rural areas and non-coastal cities such as Flint, Mich., Gary, Ind., Fresno, Calif., Bakersfield, Calif., and Spokane, Wash. On average, the racial and ethnic composition of distressed local labor markets is similar to the overall U.S.

About 11% of the U.S. population lives in distressed neighborhoods, with employment rates well below the surrounding local labor market.³ On average, the national percentage of the population living in distressed neighborhoods is about 7% for non-Hispanic white Americans, about 12% for Latino or Hispanic Americans, and almost 22% for Black Americans.  

Distressed places have large social costs. In local labor markets, low employment rates lead to higher substance abuse, higher crime, and more family breakups. Neighborhood distress, meanwhile, adversely affects children. Low employment rates for a neighborhood’s adults are associated with that neighborhood’s children having lower future earnings.  

Distressed places’ social problems lead to a vicious cycle: Low employment rates reduce the local tax base. Without adequate revenue, local problems persist or worsen.    

The problems of distressed places create major challenges for many Americans. The abundance movement claims it has a solution: geographic mobility, which the next section discusses.

The abundance movement assumes migration can solve the distressed place problem 

The abundance movement’s advice to residents of distressed places can be summarized in two words: Get out.  

To help residents of distressed places to leave those places, the movement proposes to make it easier to build new housing in booming places. Thus, more residents of distressed places will be able to find affordable housing in those places, and these migrants will increase their real earnings.

An implicit assumption of the abundance movement is that increased out-migration from distressed places will also help any residents who remain. Labor supply will go down relative to the number of jobs, and jobs in distressed places will be easier to get. Journalist Matthew Yglesias outlined this assumption most clearly:

“…With more elastic housing supply [in rich states], [more working-class people could move to rich states,] the United States would be richer on average, and the gains would be disproportionately concentrated among poorer people and poorer states…Sunbelt and Rust Belt cities would be richer but smaller, while coastal ones would be bigger.” 

In their best-selling book, “Abundance,” Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson also endorsed the migration solution for distressed places: 

“It used to be that both high-wage and low-wage workers moved from poorer areas to richer ones. [Due to rising housing prices in these richer areas], by the 1990s, poorer workers were moving away from high-income areas—and from the opportunities they once offered.”

Klein and Thompson go on to say, “It is, then, no surprise that income inequality began rising in the ‘70s and reached such striking peaks in recent decades…We made life in dynamic cities too costly for the poor to afford.”

Similarly, Yoni Appelbaum’s 2025 book “Stuck” argues that “the extraordinary geographic mobility of the United States [in the past] drove its equally distinctive levels of social and economic mobility.” Appelbaum argues against programs that end up “tying residents to places where opportunities are diminishing.” Instead, he favors policies that “help people move to places where their chances are better.” 

Abundance movement advocates are right that lower housing prices in booming places—and the resulting increased out-migration from distressed places—may help the out-migrants. But will this help people left behind in distressed places?

Out-migration from distressed places does not help the people left behind 

Even with vastly more housing supply in booming places, most people will not leave their homes in distressed places. Perhaps a few rural towns will disappear, but most people in distressed rural areas will still be there. 

People’s reluctance to leave their home place, even if it is distressed, is not crazy. Relationships of trust with familiar people and institutions are valuable, and are not easy to re-create in a new place.  

Indeed, it is unclear whether many residents of distressed places would be better off by moving to booming places, even if those booming places had lower housing costs. The loss of jobs in distressed places makes many of its residents less employable. Their job experience is lessened, and they are more likely to have problems with substance abuse or a criminal record. Moving to a booming place does not solve these problems.  

For some people, moving from a distressed place to a booming place could make them worse off. The distressed place has more trusted relationships that can provide job leads and support when the person loses a job.  

So, most people will remain in distressed places, even if we make it more affordable to move to booming places. And increased out-migration from distressed places won’t help these left-behind residents. That’s because research suggests that if out-migration reduces a local labor market’s population by 10%, the area’s employment will also go down at least 10%. As a result, the employment-to-population ratio will remain much too low, and it will not be easier for residents to get jobs.  

Out-migration’s large negative effect on jobs is in part due to demand effects. When more people leave an area, it reduces spending on local goods and services, reducing local jobs. Out-migration also discourages housing construction and renovation, which further reduces local jobs. Tax revenue goes down, but the need for public spending does not go down as much. Local governments need to cut spending or raise taxes, both of which reduce local jobs.  

In addition, out-migration tends to be selective. Younger and more entrepreneurial residents are the most likely to move out. This loss will reduce business startups by these residents and make the area less attractive to employers.  

Neighborhood out-migration also has negative effects. If a neighborhood loses many residents, it reduces local retail demand. This reduces local jobs, and also may reduce “eyes on the street,” which may increase crime. Housing abandonment will increase, which will contribute to increases in crime and substance abuse. The remaining neighborhood residents will be worse off.  

Opening up booming places to more residents via looser housing and other policies is, overall, a good strategy. It helps some people in distressed places who are able to take advantage of these new opportunities. But the “get out” solution does not help most residents of distressed places. Other solutions are needed. 

Bringing job opportunities to distressed places helps create an ‘abundant’ national economy 

If out-migration from distressed places does not help left-behind residents, what can help? A better solution is bringing more job opportunities to distressed places, which will not just help people in those places, but also expand the entire national economy, which is an abundance movement goal.

Local job creation will significantly boost distressed local labor markets’ employment rates, both in the short run and the long run. In the short run, higher employment rates directly boost residents’ per capita earnings, and also indirectly boost earnings by making it easier to find better jobs. Improved employment experience also boosts residents’ job skills. Social benefits occur due to reduced substance abuse, crime, and family breakups. Local governments and public services benefit due to an increased tax base. 

In the long run, the combination of residents having more skills and fewer social problems, along with stronger local tax bases and public services, will persistently boost local employment rates and per capita earnings. 

At the neighborhood level, simply plopping more jobs down in a distressed neighborhood will not necessarily help, as most Americans do not live and work in the same neighborhood. But job opportunities for a distressed neighborhood’s residents can be improved by increasing job access. Increased job access includes not only better transit and reliable used cars, but also access to good information on job openings, high-quality job training, affordable child care, and other job supports. 

On a larger scale, targeting expanded job opportunities in distressed places boosts national employment and productivity. The economic and social benefits from more job opportunities in distressed places are greater than in booming places.  

For example, based on research, job creation in booming local labor markets has little effect on employment rates. The job growth mostly boosts in-migration, with the new jobs mostly going to people who would have been employed in similar jobs. The main effect of job creation in booming places is to boost local housing prices and overall prices.  

Reallocating job opportunities to places where more people are in need of good jobs boosts the overall sustainable national employment rate. A higher national employment rate can be sustained without putting undue upward pressure on inflation. In addition to increasing overall national employment, targeting jobs in distressed places will increase national social benefits. Substance abuse and crime will be lower, and families will be stronger.

Place-based policies can meaningfully improve job opportunities for residents of distressed places—if they are given enough resources 

Rather than only pursuing an abundance agenda in booming places, place-based policies can meaningfully help distressed places—if given sufficient resources.  

At the local labor market level, the most cost-effective ways to create local jobs in distressed places are to improve the quality of local land and labor and to help businesses be more competitive in new markets. Job creation can be encouraged by developing local business real estate (e.g., industrial parks, research parks, business incubators), while also increasing access to high-quality and affordable utilities and transportation infrastructure. Job creation also can be encouraged by customized job training programs, under which local community colleges train residents for the specific skill needs of individual firms. Finally, many small and medium-sized businesses benefit from business advice programs (e.g., manufacturing extension programs, small business development centers), which can help businesses adopt new technologies and sell to growing markets.  

Residents of distressed neighborhoods can benefit from high-quality job training programs that target occupations with expanding demand throughout the local labor market. The best training programs spend over half their resources outside of classroom training on needed support services such as helping access child care and keeping cars in good repair.  

Examples from a much longer list of past successes in place-based policies include: 

• Starting in the 1930s, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) increased the area’s  manufacturing jobs by over 250,000, mostly by rural electrification.  
• Access highways provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) significantly increased earnings in targeted counties.  
• In response to the steel industry collapse of the 1980s, the Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania was able to reinvent itself by investing in industrial parks, warehousing, and high-tech spinoffs from Lehigh University.  
• Unlike other manufacturing-intensive areas, Grand Rapids, Mich., has been able to grow manufacturing jobs in the last 35 years by helping manufacturers sell to the health care sector, providing high-quality job training, and encouraging continued local family ownership. 
• For neighborhoods, both the Empowerment Zone program of the 1990s and the Community Development Block Grant program started in 1974 have created higher employment rates in distressed neighborhoods by investing in local business districts, job training, child care, and other social support services.  

Research suggests that these economic development programs to create jobs in distressed local labor markets, or training and other programs to boost job opportunities for residents of distressed neighborhoods, can consistently increase local employment rates at a reasonable cost. The required program costs, divided by the extra jobs associated with higher employment rates, can be as low as $100,000 per extra job that residents obtain due to higher local employment rates.⁴ This $100,000 cost is far less than the value of the economic and social benefits of persistently increasing these residents’ employment rates. These benefits—higher earnings and social benefits such as reduced substance abuse, mentioned previously—probably average at least $1 million for each extra job that is held by residents due to higher employment rates.  

At a national level, if place-based policies provided resources similar to the TVA at its peak, the funding in today’s dollars for targeted places would be around $380 annually per capita. The ARC at its peak spent about $104 per capita. A national program of $20 billion per year could aid 52 million people at TVA-level funding, or over 200 million people at ARC-level funding. A feasible program might provide TVA-level aid to the most severely distressed places, while spending at lower ARC levels in places with more moderate distress.

Place-based jobs policies can help create ‘inclusive abundance’  

The problem of distressed places causes large and persistent social costs. This problem cannot be solved by the “abundance” solution of facilitating migration to booming places.

Instead, a more direct approach is needed: bringing jobs to people where they live. Getting more residents of distressed places into better jobs can be accomplished by place-based public services that create jobs and job opportunities. Significant help can be provided at affordable costs. 

Boosting employment rates in distressed places will help those residents who get jobs and provide spillover benefits to other residents of distressed places. The entire national economy benefits from expanded national employment and lower overall social costs. Thus, an abundant economy should include abundance for residents of distressed places.