Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rural Kansas is dying

newfoodeconomy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 160 posts

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#21

Post by dredmorbius »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #17
jonknee wrote: post #5

This is much less interesting than the rust belt decline or any other number of dying communities. Kansas used to need a lot more people to support farming and thus had enough people around for small towns to have a little life to them. Now they don't. It's a good thing that we can make so much food with fewer people, but it does mean even fewer people will live in rural agricultural communities. We love to romantici…

With the internet, small towns should be more viable in places like Kansas.

Technology tends toward centralisation.

Given the same Internet, a larger, denser, more central location has a greater comparative advantage.

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#22

Post by jonknee »

typomatic wrote: post #16
jonknee wrote: post #5

This is much less interesting than the rust belt decline or any other number of dying communities. Kansas used to need a lot more people to support farming and thus had enough people around for small towns to have a little life to them. Now they don't. It's a good thing that we can make so much food with fewer people, but it does mean even fewer people will live in rural agricultural communities. We love to romantici…

> This is much less interesting than the rust belt decline Can you expand on this? Is it because you don't care about farmers in comparison to industrial workers, or is there a deeper meaning?

Kansas was never bustling, the rust belt was.

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#23

Post by kevin_b_er »

It is cruel, but as long as they continue to vote Republican, they'll see themselves stomped to bits. The reason Donn Teske can't get much out of the Republicans in the legislature is that he's no money to offer them. There's little left for the large businesses to steal from except their land and they'll get that through automation and debt. There's few public services to privatize into the hands of Republicans' sponsors except the roads. And those meatpacking plants? They will automate as soon as they can and scrap the workers.

Meanwhile the national Republicans want to replicate The Kansas Experiment across the country. Expect more pain as the Republican Party's ideal is implemented elsewhere. Survival of the fittest and the Republican voters have showcased they weren't the fittest in themselves or their vote.

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#24

Post by megaman22 »

mjevans wrote: post #6

As far as I'm aware, there's no procedure or help for the orderly shutdown of a locality that is no longer necessary for the greater community of any level of government. I'm not even aware of there being such procedures in place in other countries, let alone the US where this has context.

In Maine, where I grew up, it's not uncommon for dying towns to disincorporate and revert to Unorganized Territories. Services formerly provided by the town revert to either the county government or the state departments.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=469705...

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#25

Post by [deleted] »

Retric wrote: post #2

I think the fact Kansas's population is decreasing is likely a good thing. People generally prefer living other places and automation let's that happen. PS: The average household net worth in Kansas is apparently $424,976 which is well above the US national average.

[deleted]

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#26

Post by jonknee »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #17
jonknee wrote: post #5

This is much less interesting than the rust belt decline or any other number of dying communities. Kansas used to need a lot more people to support farming and thus had enough people around for small towns to have a little life to them. Now they don't. It's a good thing that we can make so much food with fewer people, but it does mean even fewer people will live in rural agricultural communities. We love to romantici…

With the internet, small towns should be more viable in places like Kansas.

You need more than internet access (which is probably not all that great in much of rural Kansas!) for people to want to live somewhere. I mean you can get that anywhere, why pick perfectly flat wheat fields? The small towns were a byproduct of needing a lot of people to grow wheat, they weren't destinations that people chose.

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#27

Post by maxerickson »

mjevans wrote: post #6

As far as I'm aware, there's no procedure or help for the orderly shutdown of a locality that is no longer necessary for the greater community of any level of government. I'm not even aware of there being such procedures in place in other countries, let alone the US where this has context.

Connecticut disbanded counties, either hoisting services up to the state or pushing them down to "towns".

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#28

Post by rcthompson »

Retric wrote: post #2

I think the fact Kansas's population is decreasing is likely a good thing. People generally prefer living other places and automation let's that happen. PS: The average household net worth in Kansas is apparently $424,976 which is well above the US national average.

I assume that average is the arithmetic mean? The mean household net worth is almost certainly inversely related to the population density.

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#29

Post by sologoub »

DanAndersen wrote: post #18

The failed promise of telecommuting is a tragedy of the tech world. I'm a Kansan born and raised in the KC area (suburban rather than rural), and I wish a work-from-home career was more feasible in my line of work. I'd like nothing more than to live in a small Midwestern town; the city-hives hold no real attraction to me. The Internet should have freed more of us to live where we want, but in the most connected point…

Agree that the promise of remote work hasn’t quite panned out, yet.

However, the article is also noting something related: > Today, operators sitting at computers hundreds of miles from the farm can easily steer gigantic harvesters via satellite. Kansas’s agricultural landscape needs fewer and fewer human caretakers.

In a way, they are realizing “telecommuting” for harvester operators and impacting local population. I wouldn’t be surprised if one operator is able to command multiple machines in multiple fields, thereby reducing the total number of operators you need, even concurrently.

As for most “tech work” these days, I feel like we could absolutely do well with remote teams. In some cases I would miss the white boarding sessions, but that’s something you could fly people in for if it’s really needed or use myriad of other tools for.

Post reply on HN