Leads directly to shut down

Pay Workers to Leave Depressed Towns 

Bloomberg opinion column starts ff with the right problem:

Here’s an unsettling fact: Economic inequality between U.S. states can be greater than inequality between the U.S. and other countries. For example, GDP per person in the state of New York is about twice as high as in Mississippi. The gap between the U.S. as a whole and the nation of Slovakia is smaller.

Then makes the fatal error:

Having said that, one promising place-based policy is relocation assistance. The idea is simple: Offer long-term unemployed workers — those who have been unsuccessfully looking for a job for at least six months — in lagging economic areas a federal subsidy to offset the costs of moving to a better-performing region.
Moving is a major investment. Even workers who want to move to a city with improved economic prospects may be deterred by the need for so much up-front cash. The subsidy could help overcome this constraint.
It is attractive because it directly addresses the problem: If you’re worried about regions being permanently left behind, and if a key driver of regional disparities is too little worker mobility, then subsidize mobility so that you get more of it.

He forgets, the depressed towns carry two senate votes with them.  This proposal pays the wrong group, it needs to pay the state capitals to work the problem themselves. Then it needs to manage the federal programs much better.

The senators of these small states will pry whatever earmark from where ever they can get it to keep their small populations viable. Hard bound means they cannot subdivide and reagglomerate. The trading  pit starts there, a House to state capitals with a Senate swap.