Live data from Hacker News

Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

nytimes.com

51–60 of 164 posts

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#51

Digital nomads will go to places like Thailand where CoL is cheap and internet is fast, I wonder if a small town could emulate that experience. Doesn’t have to be quite as cheap, but won’t give you food poisoning and could be safer too.

I think a big part of the reason (western) digital nomads go to Southeast Asia is for the tropical weather and exoticism. It would be hard for small town America to replicate those experiences.

Exotic locations stop being so after you live in them for a few years. Time zone issues can end up as a real pain, which makes the US rather appealing.

Weather wise most of Florida is really cheap and Hawaii can be surprisingly affordable a few miles from the beach. So, I suspect the digital nomads living in Asia stereotype is more about them being interesting than that many people actually doing so.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#52

Ro Khanna is my hometown progressive. So..obviously..I distrust the politician representing us. Why can’t he do a better job with our multitude of problems? Bay Area is choking. In more ways than one. Talking points is not the same as actually getting them done. It’s just a way to get elected. Again. Also..am I the only one who found the Indian-Pakistani restaurant quip offensive? This is why some of the rest of the…

>Ro Khanna is my hometown progressive. So..obviously..I distrust the politician representing us. As someone not from the Bay Area, will you please explain why this is obvious? > Why can’t he do a better job with our multitude of problems? Perhaps because he has only been in Congress since 2016 and in that time, the Democrats have been in the minority and mostly powerless to do much of anything

Because local constituents have a front row seat wherein we hear what politicians say and what they do and how they do it.

In any average Silicon Valley town(or college town for that matter) where there are more non voting residents than those who can vote, the policies are geared towards everyone and usually not in the interest of those who are long term residents and have voted and have paid taxes.

So politicians have to deliver for both the voting and non voting constituents, but they have to convince the voters to choose what’s sometimes not in their best interest.

This is the reason most politicians lie or back track. It is a most superior skill to be able to convince people to choose what isn’t in their best interest. In California..and especially the Silicon Valley mega region, politicians of all stripe have honed this skill to a fine art form.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but there are claims that for those of us without education, how much we make depends largely on how many educated people we are near. There are a lot of dubious claims about education though. I would take the whole thing with a grain of salt. Some even claim that gaining an education will result in earning more money, all while incomes have remained stagnant for decades upon decades and educational attainment has…

> But what if all you knew was farming? Do you think you'd see a huge pay bump by moving your farm to the Bay Area (or any other major metropolis)? This has been so common throughout history that there is even a name for it (rural flight): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_flight As agriculture is increasingly mechanized, fewer farmers are needed. So it doesn’t really matter if all you know is farming, moving to…

The remaining farmers can make very good money. The median wage for ranchers and other agricultural managers is $66,360/year and this is for generally low cost of living areas.

It’s farm hands that that really benifit from moving to city’s.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but there are claims that for those of us without education, how much we make depends largely on how many educated people we are near. There are a lot of dubious claims about education though. I would take the whole thing with a grain of salt. Some even claim that gaining an education will result in earning more money, all while incomes have remained stagnant for decades upon decades and educational attainment has…

> But what if all you knew was farming? Do you think you'd see a huge pay bump by moving your farm to the Bay Area (or any other major metropolis)? This has been so common throughout history that there is even a name for it (rural flight): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_flight As agriculture is increasingly mechanized, fewer farmers are needed. So it doesn’t really matter if all you know is farming, moving to…

I feel like you have missed some important nuance in my comment or misunderstood the context of our discussion. Rural flight says nothing about moving farms into the city. But, statistically, farmers make substantially more than most. Moving to the city (to find a new career) would not be one's best bet if farming is what they know.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ro Khanna is my hometown progressive. So..obviously..I distrust the politician representing us. As someone not from the Bay Area, will you please explain why this is obvious? > Why can’t he do a better job with our multitude of problems? Perhaps because he has only been in Congress since 2016 and in that time, the Democrats have been in the minority and mostly powerless to do much of anything

Because local constituents have a front row seat wherein we hear what politicians say and what they do and how they do it. In any average Silicon Valley town(or college town for that matter) where there are more non voting residents than those who can vote, the policies are geared towards everyone and usually not in the interest of those who are long term residents and have voted and have paid taxes. So politicians h…

> So politicians have to deliver

Why do they have to deliver for people who don't vote for them? If they're some altruist who wants to do the Right Thing (TM), wouldn't they get replaced real quick by someone who knows who their constituents really are?

But even assuming that they do, why is that so wrong? You make it sound like it's terrible to think about our neighbours, whether they can vote or not.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what if all you knew was farming? Do you think you'd see a huge pay bump by moving your farm to the Bay Area (or any other major metropolis)? This has been so common throughout history that there is even a name for it (rural flight): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_flight As agriculture is increasingly mechanized, fewer farmers are needed. So it doesn’t really matter if all you know is farming, moving to…

I feel like you have missed some important nuance in my comment or misunderstood the context of our discussion. Rural flight says nothing about moving farms into the city. But, statistically, farmers make substantially more than most. Moving to the city (to find a new career) would not be one's best bet if farming is what they know.

Being a farmer these days is capital intensive and heavily mechanized, so even if they make more than most, most can’t be farmers. Even farmers have trouble being farmers these days, because they have to keep up with an increasingly mechanized profession that needs fewer of them every year.

Then most definitely, moving to the city might be your vest bet even if farming is the only thing you know.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#57
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what if all you knew was farming? Do you think you'd see a huge pay bump by moving your farm to the Bay Area (or any other major metropolis)? This has been so common throughout history that there is even a name for it (rural flight): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_flight As agriculture is increasingly mechanized, fewer farmers are needed. So it doesn’t really matter if all you know is farming, moving to…

The remaining farmers can make very good money. The median wage for ranchers and other agricultural managers is $66,360/year and this is for generally low cost of living areas. It’s farm hands that that really benifit from moving to city’s.

Yes, but the number of farmers significantly decreases every single year. What happens to those that are squeezed out? They have to be going somewhere....

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#58

More remote-first companies are the best way to bring jobs everywhere. Remote-first working is a separate and new skill that needs to be developed.

I'm not sure that there is enough demand for remote work. Many people enjoy and even require the social interactions provided at a workplace and don't want solitary remote work.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you have missed some important nuance in my comment or misunderstood the context of our discussion. Rural flight says nothing about moving farms into the city. But, statistically, farmers make substantially more than most. Moving to the city (to find a new career) would not be one's best bet if farming is what they know.

Being a farmer these days is capital intensive and heavily mechanized, so even if they make more than most, most can’t be farmers. Even farmers have trouble being farmers these days, because they have to keep up with an increasingly mechanized profession that needs fewer of them every year. Then most definitely, moving to the city might be your vest bet even if farming is the only thing you know.

> Being a farmer these days is capital intensive and heavily mechanized, so even if they make more than most, most can’t be farmers.

They are already farmers, so that's a moot point. How could you move your farm to the city if you did not have a farm to move?

> Even farmers have trouble being farmers these days, because they have to keep up with an increasingly mechanized profession that needs fewer of them every year.

Mechanization is causing attrition, but I am not convinced it is causing farms to fail. If you are established, it won't be mechanization that gets you.

> Then most definitely, moving tk the city might be your vest bet even if farming is the only thing you know.

Or you could just sell your business, retire off of the proceeds, and live wherever you want (which is probably not the city; I've never heard of a retired farmer keen to move to the city – in fact, rural areas are often thought of as retirement communities for former city dwellers). Like you said, it is a capital intensive business. There is an incredible amount of capital at your disposal.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#60
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Moving from a poor area, where cost of living is generally lower (although not always), to a rich area, where cost of living is generally higher, does not mean that you, yourself, will become rich. For the average person, that only results in skyrocketing costs, leading to a reduction in quality of life. Maybe? but there are claims that for those of us without education, how much we make depends largely on how many…

> but there are claims that for those of us without education, how much we make depends largely on how many educated people we are near. There are a lot of dubious claims about education though. I would take the whole thing with a grain of salt. Some even claim that gaining an education will result in earning more money, all while incomes have remained stagnant for decades upon decades and educational attainment has…

> all while incomes have remained stagnant for decades upon decades and educational attainment has ballooned. How does one earn more money while also earning the same amount of money...?

There are two issues that explain that.

First, the stagnation period begins from an artificially high point. A point where US global economic dominance peaked in the ~20-25 years after WW2, because the other dominant powers were mostly busy rebuilding their decimated cities and infrastructure. The US was able to immediately swivel its industrial base to traditional economic output. It pushed the US share of global manufacturing to over 50%. That extraordinary share of global manufacturing output provided a vast, artificial over-abundance of blue collar jobs. That's a ridiculous comparison point to start from and impossible to replicate (short of blowing up the world again).

Second, most of the compensation growth has gone into benefits that aren't counted in the salary figures that show income stagnation. Per capita healthcare costs have increased by ~$10,000 in 35-40 or so years (a six fold increase), and about ~40% of the US gets its healthcare through an employer.

The median full-time wage is $50,000 in the US. The cost to insure a solo 35 or 40 year old earning that median full-time wage, has gone from $40-$60 per month in the early 1980s, to more like $500-$600 today at a minimum. If you're earning $80,000 as an engineer for example, your insurance compensation might cost the company more like $800 to $1,000 per month.

A family of four - two full-time employed adults - earning $150,000 per year can easily be spending $25k-$30k per year on health insurance.

If you have two people earning $90,000 together, with one child, their insurance cost is going to be $1,500 per month or more - $18,000 per year - representing the equivalent of 20% of their salary. All of our wage growth potential is going into that blackhole of healthcare cost expansion.

The UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, France (elite healthcare systems globally) are all spending $4,000 to $5,000 per capita per year on healthcare costs. The US is spending more like $11,000 to $12,000 ($3.6 to $3.8 trillion per year roughly). The US share of its GDP going to healthcare costs, has about tripled in 40 years, from ~6-7% to ~18-19% today.

That's where most of the wage gains have gone, to a $1.4 trillion per year giant wealth transfer to the people working in all the layers of healthcare. The wage gains have been diverted to subsidize the existence of jobs and wages in healthcare that otherwise would not exist. Admin, doctors, nurses, insurance salespersons, pharma reps, scientists, shareholders, buildings, janitors, and the zillions of other jobs and costs (artificially high wages) in that system that otherwise wouldn't exist if you adjusted the US per capita spending to match other developed nations.

Did you know the US has 3x to 4x (43 CT and 38 MRI units per million people) the number of CT and MRI systems per capita that Canada has (15 CT and 10 MRI units per million people), and about 2x to 3x the number that France has? An example of wage diversion to feed the healthcare monster. That provides jobs that shouldn't exist for healthcare professionals, jobs for repair & maintenance people, jobs for sales people, profit/revenue for GE & Toshiba and so on.

Post reply on HN