Live data from Hacker News

Let’s relocate a bunch of government agencies to the Midwest

vox.com

41–50 of 120 posts

Re: Let’s relocate a bunch of government agencies to the Midwest

#43

Judging by comments it fees like the HN crowd has an incredibly warped view of the Midwest. It is amusing because it is a rather great place to live.

A lot of snobbish comments here IMO, coming from Europe I'm getting an image of the Midwest as a place where 99% people work in agriculture and don't know how to read or write.

Re: Let’s relocate a bunch of government agencies to the Midwest

#44
It's on a different scale, but in the UK the BBC decided to move a lot of their operations out of London. This was party done as a political move to spread the jobs out from the south east of the UK to the north of England, which is in a similar postindustrial situation to the Midwest (I presume).

They needed up moving most of the tech and R&D departments, children's programming, and see news, sport, and radio shows.

Re: Let’s relocate a bunch of government agencies to the Midwest

#45
post #20

Pretty weird to see a discussion of the economy in the midwest without a single mention of Chicago - you know, the third largest city in the US... ;)

What does the city's size have to do with this discussion? I think you are actually giving points to the other side of your argument.

Re: Let’s relocate a bunch of government agencies to the Midwest

#46
post #26

I've worked with a lot of ex-federal employees that left mostly due to cost of living in DC (need a married couple both working with a federal salary to live anywhere close to work) and not enjoying the incredible sprawl of the area. Always fantasized about government jobs being relocated to less populated areas. Would be a great chance to develop better planned cities or help rejuvenate areas. Just a fantasy though.…

It's been done before, check out Brasilia, Yamoussoukro, Naypyidaw more recently.

I think it's fair to say that it's not been a massive success, and that federal employees generally did/do everything they could to stay in the old capital.

Aside from the fact that the entertainment and cultural options available tend to be limited, distance from the rest of the family and friends, as well as the perspective of being tied very strongly to a single employer are usually unappealing.

You run a real risk of losing anyone senior/competent, and keeping only the most junior of your staff, who have no other option but to relocate.

To stand any chance of success, I would think that the process needs to be fairly gradual, with good transport connections with the historical centres of activity.

Re: Let’s relocate a bunch of government agencies to the Midwest

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm suggestioning that American stop subsidizing vast unpopulated areas of its country for the benefit of a subset of the country. Once the subsidies are deverted, the areas will naturally depopulate.

Because unskilled workers (and their children) fare better when uprooted and transplanted into cities??? Farm Bill subsidies have incentivized modes of agriculture that minimize labor inputs, so subsidies have already largely depopulated fly-over country. Are you thinking that these rural folk are getting more than their share of federal services? I don't see how... Interstates have to be maintained anyway, and schoo…

Basically, yes they do. if you build the housing that the market demands, as happens in most cities on Earth, people tend to move there voluntarily.

But we haven't. We've pretended that these urban engines of economic growth and fiscal productivity are simply an area of private real estate investments or money trees for state and federal governments to pluck to feed the less privileged. We've surrendered this massive amenity (the ability to move the jobless to places that can give them jobs) due to quirks of our electoral politics, quirks of our property law, quirks of our economy, and quirks of our welfare system. Instead we've propped up jobs and rural communities with massive subsidization, and watched as the very best that our economy can offer prices itself out of existence.

The Bay Area is only the most extreme example of this; It can cost 20x as much to house someone there, as to house them in Topeka. This is a massive productivity & economic growth success story that we are holding back because we're choking off housing and driving up prices, preventing the population of Topeka from moving there. The concept of natural limitations ("The peninsula is only so big!") is absolute bullshit, because the population density is drastically lower than many far more economically marginal places have achieved. For $2M in _construction costs_ to house each family you could house the population of the entire world, 7 billion people, comfortably in a place the size of the SF city limits.

Re: Let’s relocate a bunch of government agencies to the Midwest

#48
post #20

Pretty weird to see a discussion of the economy in the midwest without a single mention of Chicago - you know, the third largest city in the US... ;)

I'm from Indiana.

Chicago is its own beast, and most midwesterners don't really identify with it and it has its own sort of issues and problems and isn't so representative of the other cities.

And so it goes that you are gonna wind up with different moving benefits if you go to Chicago rather than Detroit, Cincinatti, Louisville, Indianapolis, and so on. (and Different disadvantages as well).

Re: Let’s relocate a bunch of government agencies to the Midwest

#49
post #26

I've worked with a lot of ex-federal employees that left mostly due to cost of living in DC (need a married couple both working with a federal salary to live anywhere close to work) and not enjoying the incredible sprawl of the area. Always fantasized about government jobs being relocated to less populated areas. Would be a great chance to develop better planned cities or help rejuvenate areas. Just a fantasy though.…

This was done in Norway some years ago. With mixed success.

The government departments lost a most of their key people whom had no interest to uproot their kids and their own future career from the Oslo area. Especially as some department moved to some very small provincial fringe towns where future opportunities are limited. Departments moving to larger towns (Stavanger/Bergen/Trondheim) was probably less affected. And it did result in very large increases in travel budgets as meetings still mostly had to be held in Oslo (airport) with other departments and companies.

Though in theory it was a move I supported. To help decentralise and support local economy but also so e.g. fisheries department actually being in an area where fishing is important probably affect their policies etc. But it does come with a cost, they miss the quick collaboration across department and other industries, and most importantly reduced staff contribution in the (potentially very long) transitional period until new local competent people are up to speed. I think a lot of staff did not move and ended up working from home for parts of every week for a few transitional years before moving full time or most likely eventually a suitable person could replace them.

Post reply on HN