If this matters…
Comment. Send a letter you'd like me to post. Like the Hickory Hound on my various platforms. Subscribe. Share it on your personal platforms. Share your ideas with me. Tell me where you think I am wrong. If you'd like to comment, but don't want your comments publicized, then they won't be. I am here to engage you.
Get in touch: hickoryhoundfeedback@gmail.com
HKYNC News & Views Dec 7, 2025 – Executive Summary
Hickory Hound News and Views Archive
-----------------
📤This Week:
(Tuesday): Hickory 101: Lesson 5 – Reading the Room - When you look at the data, observe the streets and storefronts, and listen to people’s stories — the town gives you signals. It shows you what’s changing, what’s stuck, and what’s under pressure.
(Thursday): ⚙️Structural Schisms 6 Labor Market Compression - Catawba County’s unemployment rate may look good on paper, but the reality underneath tells a different story. People are working, yet too many are living on the edge.
-----------------
📤Next Week:
(Tuesday): Hickory 101: Lesson 6 - From the Kitchen to the Command Post - explains how the pressure, discipline, and accountability learned in real kitchens translate directly into effective civic leadership. It shows why command presence, emotional control, and ownership under stress are essential for fixing systems like Hickory that have drifted without structure or direction.
(Thursday): ⚙️Structural Schisms 7: The Absent Innovation Core - Hickory’s economy still builds things but no longer builds new things. This report explains how the region’s missing innovation core—fragmented institutions, risk-averse culture, and lack of R&D—suppresses wages, drains talent, and locks the city into economic dependence. Rebuilding requires leadership, coordination, and deliberate invention.
----------------------------------
🧠Opening Reflection:
When you grow up in Hickory, you come to understand what the people here value. They want stability. They want a place where life feels manageable, where a family can get by without being swallowed by the pace or the price of the larger world. Those instincts are not wrong; they’re part of our cultural DNA. But after spending months digging through the numbers—population patterns, income trends, economic comparisons across North Carolina—it is clear that the things we have valued and the things our peer cities have built are not the same, and the difference explains almost everything about where we stand today.
Charlotte, Raleigh, Asheville, and Wilmington did not grow because they were comfortable or cheap. They grew because they built leverage—economic, cultural, institutional, and political. They constructed systems that attracted talent, created opportunity, and amplified their importance to the state. Their growth may look effortless now, but it came from intentional strategic moves: universities expanding research capacity, specialized industries taking root, cultural identities being cultivated, and public institutions aligning with long-term opportunity.
Hickory never built that kind of leverage. Instead, we leaned into affordability. It kept us afloat after the industrial collapse, and there was a moment when it felt like we had found a workable path: people continued moving here, housing was attainable, and the cost of living gave families a margin of safety they couldn’t find in the metros. But affordability is not a growth strategy. It’s a stabilizer, not a force multiplier. Over time, the same trait that helped us survive also limited us. When a city becomes known primarily for being inexpensive, it begins to attract people who are looking for relief, not people who are looking to build. The result is predictable: population numbers improve, but economic velocity does not.
The hard truth—one we have avoided because it is uncomfortable—is that people came to Hickory because it was affordable, not because it was essential. And places that are not essential do not retain their young talent, they do not generate high-income industries, they do not exert political influence, and they do not accumulate cultural capital. They absorb people who are trying to stabilize their lives and then watch them leave once opportunity appears elsewhere. Meanwhile, the people with the capacity to push the city forward—the innovators, the professionals, the young adults with ambition—are drawn to cities that invested in institutional strength, economic specialization, and upward mobility.
This does not make Hickory a failure, but it does mean we are living inside a framework that cannot produce the outcomes we keep hoping for. Our schools and taxpayers raise, educate, and stabilize the next generation—native and newcomer alike—only to export them the minute they’re qualified enough to earn 25–30% more somewhere else. We run the farm system; the metros get the major-league talent.
Our wage structure lags a full generation behind the state’s anchor metros. Our economic identity is vague and rooted more in memory than in present capability. And our civic narrative, shaped by nostalgia and resourcefulness, no longer matches the demands of the era we are trying to survive.
Yet acknowledging this is not surrender. It is a mark of maturity. Cities cannot correct their trajectory until they confront the structure producing it. Hickory has spent the better part of twenty-five years sustaining itself through stability rather than building leverage. The result is visible in every dataset I’ve pulled, in every comparison to the cities that passed us, and in every quiet conversation you hear around town about what “used to be” and what “might have been.”
But there is a reason to keep doing this work. Our story is not over, and our position is not hopeless. A community that understands its architecture can redesign it. A community that understands its trajectory can redirect it. And a community that understands where its leverage must come from can begin building it deliberately, not reactively.
What matters now is whether we continue to define ourselves by affordability and nostalgia, or whether we choose to build something that matters to the future of North Carolina. The four anchor cities show what happens when a place commits to being essential. Hickory now has to decide whether it is content with being livable, or whether it is ready to rebuild itself into a city that carries weight again.
--------------------------------
⭐ Feature Story ⭐
“What They Say, and What the Numbers Say Back”
If you listen closely to the conversations that shape Hickory—the quiet exchanges in boardrooms, the familiar speeches at civic breakfasts, the optimistic notes in official press releases—you will hear a set of talking points repeated with absolute confidence. They sound reassuring. They sound familiar. And in a way, they sound like the city many people still believe we are.
But when you put those talking points next to the data we’ve been tracking for the past three months, a very different picture comes into focus. This week, I want to hold the two narratives side by side: the Powers-That-Be version of Hickory, and the structural reality the numbers keep showing us. Not to attack anyone. Not to embarrass anyone. But because if a community wants to change its future, it has to tell the truth about its present.
So here is the ledger as I see it.
One of the quiet challenges in a place like Hickory is that the stories we tell about ourselves do not always match the structures we live inside. People want to believe the city is stable, growing, and headed somewhere better than the last twenty years would suggest. And so a familiar set of talking points rises up—from elected officials, business leaders, long-time civic influencers, and even well-meaning residents. They sound reassuring, and they create the appearance of order. But when you place these talking points beside the data we have been unpacking for months, the gap between narrative and reality becomes impossible to ignore.
This is not about pessimism.
It is about accuracy.
Because no community ever rebuilt itself by flattering its own illusions.
Counter Talking Points to the Hickory Hound’s Themes
(The arguments the establishment would use to dismiss or dilute the Hound’s analysis)
Talking Point 1: “Affordability is a strength, not a trap.”
What They Argue:
Supporters claim Hickory’s low cost of living attracts families and retirees, provides a competitive advantage over expensive metros, and keeps the region appealing to those priced out of Charlotte and Raleigh. They insist Hickory should not pursue big-city models, because with higher growth comes “big-city problems.” Rising costs elsewhere, they argue, will continue to funnel newcomers into the region.
Why They Use It:
This narrative shields them from confronting stagnant wages, low-skill labor markets, and the city’s lack of modern economic development. It reframes a structural weakness as a strategic position.
Rebuttal:
Affordability kept Hickory afloat after manufacturing collapsed, but it never made the region stronger. A city built on low cost becomes a magnet for people seeking relief rather than opportunity. Affordability stabilizes; it does not elevate. After two decades of wage stagnation, it has hardened into a ceiling that prevents upward mobility. Hickory has been defined as a refuge, not a destination, attracting those trying to survive rather than those trying to build.
Symptom:
Household incomes remain 25–30% below the national average while housing and living costs steadily rise. The city gains population but experiences no meaningful economic lift.
—------------------------------------------
Talking Point 2: “Population growth proves we’re doing something right.”
What They Argue:
Supporters point to rising population as evidence of success. They claim that if people are moving here, the region must be healthy. They highlight growth rates compared to other North Carolina counties and insist that newcomers themselves “prove” the city is on the right trajectory. If conditions were truly bad, they argue, no one would be arriving.
Why They Use It:
Population growth is the simplest, most superficial metric available. It offers an easy political win because it requires no deeper examination of income, employment structure, or institutional capacity.
Rebuttal:
Population growth without rising household income is not progress; it is added weight on a weakened frame. Hickory has grown through retirees, low-wage workers, and families priced out of larger metros—not through the arrival of young professionals, high-skill workers, or industry builders. This type of growth generates demand without generating leverage. Numbers can rise even as a city loses strength because people often move to lower-cost regions when they have exhausted their options elsewhere. Growth without economic lift is not evidence of success—it is evidence of strain.
Symptom:
More residents arrive, but schools, healthcare, infrastructure, and social services face greater pressure with no corresponding increase in capacity or funding. The population grows while civic leverage declines.
—-----------------------------------------
Talking Point 3: “Local wages are appropriate for the cost of living.”
What They Argue:
Defenders insist Hickory does not need big-city wages because it has small-city costs. They claim wage stagnation is normal for manufacturing and service economies, and argue that companies cannot raise wages without losing competitiveness. They frame the region’s low incomes as “sustainable for our market,” suggesting there is nothing structurally wrong with the wage environment.
Why They Use It:
This argument preserves a cheap labor supply and keeps economic expectations low. It allows leaders to avoid discussing why modern industries avoid the region and why upward mobility has stalled.
Rebuttal:
Wages in Hickory remain 25–30% below the national median and have barely moved in decades. At the same time, housing costs have risen faster than incomes, eroding the cost-of-living advantage that once justified lower wages. Low wages are not a market accident—they are the predictable outcome of an economy structured around low-skill service work and a replacement population. Hickory’s wage floor has not kept pace with inflation, housing costs, or statewide wage growth. The claim that wages fit the local cost of living only works if one ignores twenty years of documented wage suppression.
Symptom:
Workers juggle multiple jobs to stay afloat. Families have little or no upward mobility. Young adults see no path to a middle-class future, and savings or stability remain out of reach even as housing becomes less affordable.
—----------------------------
Talking Point 4: “The schools are doing fine given the challenges — stop blaming the system.”
What They Argue:
Supporters frame rising needs in the schools as evidence of diversity and growth. They emphasize the heroic work teachers and administrators perform and position criticism of the school system as anti-education or unfairly negative. They argue that the district offers wrap-around services comparable to, or better than, those in larger metros, implying that institutional performance is sound.
Why They Use It:
Institutional critique threatens the political and bureaucratic ecosystem. Acknowledging structural decline would require admitting that schools are carrying responsibilities far beyond their intended scope.
Rebuttal:
Schools have become safety nets for an economy that cannot support its own population. They absorb poverty, instability, language gaps, and behavioral fallout that should be addressed by employers, social services, and public health systems. Teachers now carry burdens that belong to multiple failing institutions. What appears from the outside as stability is, in reality, institutional triage. Schools are no longer purely educational systems—they have become the region’s frontline social infrastructure, compensating for economic decline and family instability on a scale the community rarely acknowledges.
Symptom:
Teachers serve simultaneously as counselors, translators, crisis managers, and social workers. Instructional time competes with basic stabilization needs, and academic performance stagnates as educators divide attention between education and survival-level support.
—------------------------------------------
Talking Point 5: “Immigrant labor and new residents are revitalizing the region.”
What They Argue:
Supporters claim immigrants fill essential jobs that locals avoid and help stabilize industries that might otherwise collapse. They emphasize cultural diversity as a community asset and frame population replacement as renewal rather than erosion. The narrative suggests that an influx of new residents—regardless of income or skill level—signals economic momentum.
Why They Use It:
This framing transforms a survival strategy into a story of progress. It masks the underlying reality: the region relies on imported low-wage labor because its economic model cannot generate or retain a skilled workforce.
Rebuttal:
Immigrant workers are essential and deserve respect, but the model that depends on them is not revitalization—it is maintenance. The system relies on low-wage, replaceable labor rather than upward mobility, skill building, or long-term economic strength. This approach stabilizes the present while weakening the future by suppressing wages, exporting local talent, and locking the region into a low-value labor structure. The contributions of immigrant workers are real, but the structure they enter is not designed to lift them or the community.
Symptom:
Factories operate and service industries stay staffed, but upward mobility remains limited. Local talent continues to leave, the workforce remains trapped in low-wage roles with few advancement opportunities, and overall economic instability grows despite visible activity.
—---------------------------------------
Talking Point 6: “The story Hickory tells about itself is positive — stop trying to rewrite it.”
What They Argue:
Defenders of the status quo emphasize Hickory’s resilience, close-knit identity, and quality of life. They insist the region remains one of the best places to live in North Carolina and argue that focusing on weaknesses is counterproductive. The prevailing narrative encourages residents to celebrate community strength rather than acknowledge uncomfortable trends.
Why They Use It:
Narratives protect institutions from accountability. A positive civic story keeps public pressure low and shields leaders from confronting long-term economic and demographic decline.
Rebuttal:
Resilience is admirable, but resilience without renewal becomes stagnation. For twenty years, Hickory has relied on the reassuring message that “we’re doing fine,” even as wage stagnation, institutional strain, and demographic inversion intensified. A civic narrative must evolve with reality or it becomes a comforting myth disconnected from present conditions. A city cannot survive on nostalgia. A community can endure hardship without ever overcoming it—and Hickory’s story has not kept pace with its structural challenges.
Symptom:
Civic messaging clings to past identity while the real economy drifts further from its manufacturing-era foundation and deeper into service-sector precarity. Public narratives lean heavily on old reputations, even as wage gaps widen, institutions strain under rising burdens, and demographic shifts reshape the city’s trajectory.
—-------------------------------------
Talking Point 7: “Economic development is working — look at the announcements.”
What They Argue:
Supporters highlight ribbon-cuttings, minor manufacturing expansions, new retail, hotel renovations, tourism campaigns, and the City Walk/Riverwalk projects as proof that Hickory is in the midst of a real revival. They point to visible activity and new amenities as indicators that the city is moving in the right direction and that economic development strategies are paying off.
Why They Use It:
These announcements shift public attention from structural stagnation to symbolic wins. Surface-level progress is easier to celebrate than confronting the deeper reality that the region still lacks a modern economic engine.
Rebuttal:
Ribbon-cuttings, boutique rehabs, and sporadic expansions do not constitute structural transformation. They are cosmetic victories in a region that has not built a new economic engine since manufacturing declined. True economic development raises wages, increases productivity, expands opportunity, and strengthens institutional capacity. That is not happening at scale. Announcements are not outcomes, and visible activity does not equal rising incomes, modern industry attraction, or long-term leverage. These projects maintain appearances but do not alter the economic foundation.
Symptom:
Boutique openings, small manufacturing additions, and retail expansion create headlines, but median income, productivity, and institutional capacity remain flat. The core economy continues to depend on low-wage service work and imported labor, while new amenities mask the absence of real structural lift.
—----------------------------------------
Talking Point 8: “We’re not Raleigh or Charlotte, and we shouldn’t try to be.”
What They Argue:
Defenders of the status quo insist Hickory has its own identity and should not be compared to megametro anchors. They argue that different-sized cities play different roles in the state, and that Hickory should avoid aspiring to the density, traffic, or perceived problems of larger urban centers. This framing positions ambition itself as unrealistic or undesirable.
Why They Use It:
The argument lowers expectations. By insisting Hickory occupy a smaller lane, leaders can define even minor gains as success and avoid acknowledging the region’s loss of economic and political relevance.
Rebuttal:
No one is asking Hickory to become a megametro. But every city should strive to matter. Charlotte, Raleigh, Asheville, and Wilmington spent decades building political leverage, cultural relevance, and economic momentum—not by chasing size, but by building value. Hickory can develop its own version of relevance only if it stops treating “small” as an excuse for “weak.” This talking point exists to lower the bar, not to protect identity. A city must matter to its region, its state, and its people, regardless of scale.
Symptom:
Hickory is increasingly excluded from major state-level economic decisions, policy priorities, and growth corridors. The region is not small by strategic choice—it is small by drift. Hickory remains quiet in statewide conversations, underweighted in major planning efforts, and absent from modern economic engines.
—----------------------------------------
Talking Point 9: “The market will correct itself — just give it time.”
What They Argue:
Defenders claim post-pandemic instability is temporary and that both housing prices and wages will eventually normalize. They insist migration trends will shift in Hickory’s favor and argue that the region simply needs patience rather than intervention. This framing portrays current challenges as short-term turbulence rather than a long-term structural reality.
Why They Use It:
Because structural change is difficult, and patience is easier to sell than reform. Promising eventual correction deflects responsibility and minimizes the need for serious policy or economic restructuring.
Rebuttal:
Markets do not correct structural problems. Wage suppression, talent drain, demographic inversion, and institutional burden are not temporary glitches; they form the architecture of Hickory’s current economic model. The market cannot fix issues it helped create. Prices may fluctuate, but wage floors, labor composition, and institutional strain do not self-correct. Without deliberate structural action, these conditions deepen over time rather than improve.
Symptom:
Families become more financially stressed, schools absorb greater social and behavioral burdens, and the labor market grows increasingly polarized. Skilled workers continue to leave, institutions fall further behind, and superficial population growth masks ongoing erosion. Patience is sold while the underlying structure deteriorates.
—-------------------------------------
Talking Point 10: “This kind of reporting is too negative — it hurts the community.”
What They Argue:
This talking point is psychological, not analytical. Critics accuse structural reporting of scaring people, making investors nervous, or painting the region in a bad light. They insist the community needs positivity and argue that honest assessments are harmful simply because they are uncomfortable.
Why They Use It:
Labeling facts as “negative” allows institutions and leaders to avoid confronting them. It turns accountability into a communications problem rather than a structural one.
Rebuttal:
If telling the truth is considered “negative,” then the problem is not the message—it is the condition the message exposes. Civic intelligence is not pessimism; it is responsibility. A city cannot rebuild on selective optimism or curated narratives. Transparency is the foundation of reform. Honest structural analysis feels negative only to those who benefit from ignoring it, but sunlight is not negativity—sunlight is accountability.
Symptom:
Leaders avoid uncomfortable data, residents sense a widening gap between lived reality and official messaging, and public trust erodes. People feel the decline but lack a shared vocabulary to describe it, creating a quiet civic dissonance that undermines confidence in institutions.
—---------------------------------------
Closing Movement
The purpose of this article is not to shame the city or attack anyone in positions of leadership. It is to make something unmistakably clear: Hickory is at a crossroads between the narrative we prefer and the structure we inhabit. The data tells the truth whether we acknowledge it or not. And if we want to rebuild real leverage—economic, educational, cultural, political—we have to start by speaking plainly about where we are.
Sunlight is not negativity.
Sunlight is the first ingredient in growth.
Meta-Point:
These counterpoints exist because your analysis is correct and threatens the comfort of people who benefit from the current equilibrium.
You are asking the region to confront the fact that:
its growth is cosmetic,
its wages are stagnant,
its schools are burdened,
its labor market is imported,
its narrative is outdated, and
__________________________
My Own Time Ω
When I close out a week like this one—after sorting through population curves, income gaps, and every chart that tells the story our civic leaders won’t—I always come back to something simple: Hickory didn’t end up here by accident. We ended up here because for decades we built a structure that rewards stability over strength, affordability over ambition, and silence over honesty. And the bill for that structure is now coming due.
I live within this framework. I work within its structure. I operate through its dynamics.
I’ve spent forty years watching this play out long before the data ever put numbers to it. I am a technologist. I had access to computers at a very young age, and I read the Wall Street Journal in my early teens, when it was still interesting and relevant. Hickory trained people well. We were a command-and-control economy, and that is exactly how our schools operated. Growing up the way I did, I didn’t fit within that structure. I was a dreamer and still am. I don’t drift into fantasy, but I have always been a critical thinker, and yes—because of how my father died, I’ve always felt a bit of doomsday and trouble effervescing around me.
Hickory raised reliable workers: steady hands, people who knew their role and never stepped outside the box. And then there were the young folks who knew how to solve problems on the fly and kept going when the pressure was high. Unfortunately, those types aren’t rewarded like they should be. In the local game of rock-paper-scissors, corporate covers creative.
In local kitchens, warehouses, and plants, you see the same pattern over and over. People get good here. Tough here. Proud here. And the moment real opportunity presents itself, they’re gone. Not because they want to leave, but because Hickory perfected the art of rewarding as little as possible for as long as possible.
I’ve heard the same line from owners, managers, recruiters, and officials since the 1980s:
“We’d love to pay more, but we can’t afford to.”
Everyone knows what that really means: someone else’s profit depends on you never making enough to build a life.
So the metros get the finished product—seasoned workers, young talent, families ready to build a future—and Hickory gets the turnover, the training costs, and the aftermath. We call it low cost of living. They call it free talent acquisition.
This is why none of the talking points we broke down this week feel like “arguments” to me. They feel like the same excuses I’ve heard my entire life—just dressed up and presented at civic luncheons instead of whispered in a walk-in cooler. The names change. The companies change. The operations never do.
And that is why the numbers matter.
Because numbers don’t care about nostalgia.
Numbers don’t care about who’s offended.
Numbers don’t care how many times someone repeats “we’re doing fine.”
They show wage stagnation that never budged.
They show population growth without economic lift.
They show schools carrying burdens that belong to the broader economy.
They show a labor model built on replacement, not retention.
They show a city drifting because it never built the leverage that anchors a future.
The truth is not that Hickory is broken.
The truth is that Hickory is rigged to stay cheap.
I wrote it here sixteen years ago, and several times since:
Cheap begets cheap.
This is the system we inherited, and this is the system that has quietly shaped every generation since the factories fell. And until someone with actual authority is willing to say that plainly, every affordability press release and every glowing population headline is just another way of saying: keep the hired guns hungry.
But here is the part that matters:
We don’t have to keep running this play.
Cities can change their architecture if they understand what they built and why.
A community that understands its own design is capable of redesigning it.
What Hickory chooses now will determine whether we remain a place people stabilize in—or a place people build in. Whether we stay a region defined by cheap labor—or become a region that cultivates, retains, and rewards its own talent. Whether we keep telling an old story—or start writing a new one that carries weight in the future of North Carolina.
Do we want to be that football team that hovers between bad and mediocre? The team focused on making money, not winning championships? The franchise that drafts at the top every year because it never retains its best players?
Our past doesn’t disqualify us.
But denial will.
And as long as I’m here, I’ll keep pulling the numbers, laying out the comparisons, and telling the truth—because this place, and the dream, are still worth fighting for. The next chapter is still unwritten. The question is whether we will keep pretending our stability is strength, or whether we’ll finally decide to build something that makes Hickory essential again.
-------------------------------
Haiku
Stability fades,
Truth reshapes the city’s frame—
New leverage must rise.
Fortune-Cookie Reading
You already know the truth others avoid: a city cannot outgrow the limits it refuses to name. Clarity is your advantage. Keep following the structure beneath the story, and you will start seeing the leverage points others walk past every day.
