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

31–40 of 160 posts

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#31

Post by chrischen »

sologoub wrote: post #29
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.…

The alternative to virtual density is real density (à la big cities like Tokyo, New York). In my opinion remote technology has not been able to come close with the bandwidth increases of real proximity yet. The promise of VR, telepresence, is still unable to match the benefits of real presence.

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#32

Post by jonknee »

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.

Average household net worth is meaningless. Charles Koch himself is worth ~$60,000,000,000 which comes out to a cool $55,562 per household in Kansas. And that's just one guy!

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#33

Post by stephengillie »

jonknee wrote: post #32
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.

Average household net worth is meaningless. Charles Koch himself is worth ~$60,000,000,000 which comes out to a cool $55,562 per household in Kansas. And that's just one guy!

Such a large outlier! When rural farmers move out of Kansas, they increase the average household net worth in Kansas - when they move away, they stop "dragging down" the average. We shouldn't maximize this metric.

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#34

Post by jpao79 »

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…

How do we know that remote telecommuting work isn't working? If you could telecommute to work and could live virtually anywhere, Kansas would not likely be at the top of the list due to a somewhat harsh winter climate. I'd imagine people would locate somewhere remote but with a temperate climate (i.e. Central California coast, Florida, Colorado, Western Washington, or even Costa Rica, etc.).

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#35

Post by ryanx435 »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #23

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' spo…

I think you have drunk too much of the anti-republican and anti corporate koolaide.

They are not the entirety of the problem and it's weird that you think they are.

A counter example is Texas: majority Republican and a very strong and growing economy.

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#36

Post by sologoub »

chrischen wrote: post #31
sologoub wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The alternative to virtual density is real density (à la big cities like Tokyo, New York). In my opinion remote technology has not been able to come close with the bandwidth increases of real proximity yet. The promise of VR, telepresence, is still unable to match the benefits of real presence.

Don’t know if VR/telepresence has given any real benefit to typical tech work.

That said, my team at a prior employer was distributed between our offices in LA, SF, Seattle, Bozeman MT, Toronto. We met in person no more than once a quarter and did everything else via hangouts, conf calls and slack. Even though we were very spread out, the team was one of the most productive in the org. I don’t know if any tech would have made us measurably more productive.

One argument could be made that we worked on an existing system, but we actually rebuilt completely, while also keeping the old one operational. There was a lot of greenfield work done and a lot of ideation. Periodic in-person sessions helped, but it’s really hard to make an argument that these same ideas would not have come to be without those in-person meetings.

Where I think you need the density you described is in searching for new work and/or funding/company creation. It’s pretty hard to sell convince someone to be your first customer when you never met face-to-face in person.

Hiring remotely should be pretty doable, but requires a leap of faith that many are unwilling to take.

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#37

Post by jonknee »

wyclif wrote: post #9
poulsbohemian wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't seem entirely accurate - Minnesota and Iowa, for example, are crawling with well-respected private liberal arts colleges. The problem historically hasn't been producing an educated population, it has been keeping them there.

It isn't accurate at all. The main reason is farming and agriculture, and the economics thereof. Kansas is dying because its biggest industry is failing.

> Kansas is dying because its biggest industry is failing.

It's not failing, they're producing more than ever. It's just automating. We've been doing that to agriculture since it was developed.

Coal mining isn't too dissimilar FWIW (except it would be great to not mine it at all!), we're currently producing way more coal than when coal country was in boom times. It just uses a ton less people than it used to.

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#38

Post by goseeastarwar »

jpao79 wrote: post #34
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…

How do we know that remote telecommuting work isn't working? If you could telecommute to work and could live virtually anywhere, Kansas would not likely be at the top of the list due to a somewhat harsh winter climate. I'd imagine people would locate somewhere remote but with a temperate climate (i.e. Central California coast, Florida, Colorado, Western Washington, or even Costa Rica, etc.).

His point was that you should be able to live and work from where ever you'd like.

Re: Rural Kansas is dying

#39

Post by state_less »

chrischen wrote: post #31
sologoub wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The alternative to virtual density is real density (à la big cities like Tokyo, New York). In my opinion remote technology has not been able to come close with the bandwidth increases of real proximity yet. The promise of VR, telepresence, is still unable to match the benefits of real presence.

I suppose the benefits depends on the knowledge work. A mathematician might benefit from the quiet solace of the country side, the human bandwidth being of marginal benefit, and instead focus on the problem. When they're ready, they transmit the proof, where it will be studied, reviewed and disseminated (if correct).

If you're not considering the information you receive too heavily, then you'd probably want more synchronization and bandwidth to add value. Call center work, sales over VR (currently done over video phone) and the like.

Post reply on HN