Live data from Hacker News

Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

nytimes.com

61–70 of 164 posts

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yea…

This is very well studied and the effect is very real, see https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/best-states...

You only have as much capital as the bank will lend you, and you are often living year to year on whatever your income is (which you’ll need to use a lot to either pay down loans or save so you don’t have to take out loans). And if you are successful, you buy out your less successful neighbor to expand your farm, where does your neighbor go?

Old farmers can probably retire, but what about young ones? They often just give up and move. This has been talked about a lot in the last decade, there is no big mystery or open question about it.

Other countries have it even worse than America; eg Japan.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 yea…

This is very well studied and the effect is very real, see https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/best-states... You only have as much capital as the bank will lend you, and you are often living year to year on whatever your income is (which you’ll need to use a lot to either pay down loans or save so you don’t have to take out loans). And if you are successful, you buy out your less successful neighbor to…

> You only have as much capital as the bank will lend you

There are other ways to acquire capital. I see a lot of people who were doctors, lawyers, and tech professionals in the farming business. That is probably not a coincidence.

> And if you are successful, you buy out your less successful neighbor to expand your farm, where does your neighbor go?

The neighbour retires. If you are the neighbour, why would you sell your piece for any less than is required for you to retire? If you plan to keep working, you may as well keep working your farm.

> Old farmers can probably retire, but what about young ones? They often just give up and move.

The young ones generally don't start in the first place unless they have a line on capital that extends beyond the bank. And so, they also have that capital to sell. But why wouldn't they simply keep on farming?

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cities are seen as stepping stones Absolutely. Humans have a very long history of trying to emulate the rich, and not only with respect to choice of residence, in hopes that doing what they the rich do is the missing link in why they are not rich. We have even seen in the past times where people were leaving the city because that is what the rich had done (favouring large rural estates at the time), leaving the con…

It isn’t that they are copying the rich, they are going from places where there are few opportunities to where their are many opportunities. The Great Migrations, for example, involved African Americans moving from poor southern areas to rich northern cities because they had nothing going on back home, just pointless sharecropping. And you know what: their descendants are probably much richer than of those who stayed…

> It isn’t that they are copying the rich, they are going from places where there are few opportunities to where their are many opportunities.

The appearance of opportunities. Sometimes the opportunities are real, usually not. Plenty of people move to California in hopes of becoming a star, where opportunities are abound, but only end up in dead-end jobs. It is quite likely that those people would have been far better off in a mundane job where competition isn't fierce and where living costs won't destroy you.

> this never had anything to do with “fashion”

Fashion is very much driven by the rich, through hopes that dressing like the rich will result in riches. It has been for as long as we have historical records about fashion. Nobody goes out of their way to dress like a hobo, unless the rich are dressing like hobos for some reason.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#64

well, germany is quite spread out and has lots of tech in smaller towns. It's not always perfect and we are also struggeling with some things, but I think a few approaches can be emulated. First, I think it's important that the small town is not on it's own, but in a close neighborhood of other smaller towns with which it's cooperating a lot. For a serious tech economy, even small towns need a working ecosystem (and…

Germany has a good railway system that connects many (most? all?) small villages with nearby towns with nearby cities. More importantly, its rural population density is an order of magnitude greater than the US, at 237/km^2 vs 35/km^2 (source: https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/rural-population-percen..., https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/rural-population-...). The biggest misconception that I’ve found my friends from other developed countries have about the US is that we are comparable to other developed countries; we aren’t; we’re more comparable to a continent, and more of a second-world country than a first-world one.

Moreover, the US system of government was designed to tilt the scales a bit in favor of rural areas than cities (that was maybe a fair trade-off a couple centuries ago). Combine that structural power dynamic with decades of rural depopulation as smart kids from small towns pursue opportunity in cities (I’m one) and it goes a long way towards explaining why we seem so crazy with our elected officials.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#65
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They deliver promises to people who can’t vote because they spend money and earn money and pay taxes anyways.

An elected politician is not a monarch or a benevolent dictator or an altruistic philanthropist. He is a representative of those who voted for him.

And re: why is this wrong? Because the politicians necessarily have to lie and or fudge facts or back track on promises because there is a fundamental conflict of interest.

A great example of this is California Proposition 1A aka Governer Brown’s bullet train to nowhere. Voters approved $9 billion bond money in 2008. The estimate is 77 billion now. And nothing is done.

That’s money we could have spent locally and to improve our roads and infrastructure. There is no more local governance and only the tyranny of regional governance. We are not homogenized constituents and our needs vary greatly.

Another example is school funding and LCFF..local control funding formula. Which is anything but as it’s a melting pot of school funding and then redistribution. Schools in highly taxed..high density cities are deteriorating with their infrastructure crumbling. With education tied to property taxes, there is so much pressure to create more and more housing stock in Silicon Valley towns that are already beyond carrying capacity. Afterall, a 2 million $ matchbox condo home sold in Cupertino delivers more tax $$$ to the state coffers than a home in Manteca..so why build roads and maintain freeways and create networked public transport to allow the work force to move freely?

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#66
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

Not really.

There where ~2.2 million us farms in 1982. It dropped to ~2 million in 2002 but it’s still ~2 million today.

Many of theses are more hobby projects than giant industrial operations. Even still giant subsidy’s keeps the farm sector from the kind of massive consolidation you see in most industries.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#67
There are several comments here noting that small towns are pretty well wired. I’m fortunate to have just purchased a vacation home in rural Wisconsin (close to family). In DC, I have 100Mbps fiber, a free upgrade from FiOS from the 25Mbps I ordered, with the option to get a gigabit. At my other house, I have a 6Mbps DSL that only delivers 1.5Mbps at best, with a couple hundred Kbps upload. There’s a cell tower only a mile away, but hills and trees obscure the signal; still with two bars I can get 20Mbps on my iPhone. Can I get a reasonable data plan? No. All the data plans cost a lot for a little, and throttle you to 2G after a hundred GB or so of download per month.

My hope is to spend a good portion of every summer working remotely in Wisconsin. I’ll be hard-pressed to make video conferences and pairing sessions work, and I sure won’t be streaming many shows for entertainment in the evenings.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#68

There are several comments here noting that small towns are pretty well wired. I’m fortunate to have just purchased a vacation home in rural Wisconsin (close to family). In DC, I have 100Mbps fiber, a free upgrade from FiOS from the 25Mbps I ordered, with the option to get a gigabit. At my other house, I have a 6Mbps DSL that only delivers 1.5Mbps at best, with a couple hundred Kbps upload. There’s a cell tower only…

Why didn’t you buy a vacation home in a place that’s better wired? We stayed at an AirBnB is Putnam County, NY recently that had very solid 100 Mbps cable. You can get 100 Mbps cable throughout Maryland’s Eastern Shore, and Easton, a town of 15,000, is upgrading its municipal cable system to gigabit.

What does it say about the importance of high-speed broadband access as a differentiating factor that even someone in the tech industry will move somewhere without it? Is that a compelling fact for towns like Easton who believe that investing in municipal broadband will attract more residents?

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#69

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.

There are probably a lot of other reasons that it would not be socially acceptable to admit to.

Being an obvious foreigner can signal you have money and power without you having to say a word about it. In contrast, relocating to a small town in the US wouldn't bring such perks of establishing that the poverty stricken locals should defer to you and cater to you. Instead, you would be an outsider trying to "prove" yourself and get an in socially.

Going to a less developed foreign country allows some people to impose whatever mental models they desire on the landscape without having to try to understand local culture or respect it. To their mind, a less developed country is a social clean slate and folks their should just be grateful a rich Westerner has showed up with money to spend.

If you do run into problems, you can blame it on cultural misunderstanding and try to get a free "out" that no one would give you in a small town in your own country because you are expected to know better than that, even though the laws vary to some degree from state to state within the US.

For example, articles about Westerners drinking alcohol in a Middle Eastern country and being arrested for it are generally viewed sympathetically in the west. Readers are generally on the side of the person who drank alcohol and are critical of the "backwards" country forbidding alcohol. In contrast, if you smoke marijuana someplace where it isn't legal in the US, you get vastly less sympathy from most folks because you are supposed to know better than that.

The idea of moving to some other country that is super cheap and where the living is expected to be easy if you are a Westerner is rooted in historical colonialism. It's really rooted in an expectation of taking advantage of the locals and of their country while telling yourself you are doing only good things for these uneducated heathens -- so viewed because they are not educated in the same things you are educated in, a point of view that stands in part because of your own unquestioned ignorance of their culture and history that you probably think isn't worth studying.

I have considered relocating to another, cheaper country, both because I come from a multi-cultural household and haven't been out of the US in a long time and because I currently have a limited income and the idea of magically solving my financial problems by moving someplace vastly cheaper sounds like a wonderful easy answer. So I understand the appeal.

But I think a lot of people make it work for reasons I find problematic and can't mentally replicate, in part because my mother is an immigrant, so I can't manage to see the local economy as some kind of clean slate that I can impose myself upon and that appears to be a large part of the appeal for some people.

Re: Ways to Bring Tech Jobs to Rural Areas

#70
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

Not really. There where ~2.2 million us farms in 1982. It dropped to ~2 million in 2002 but it’s still ~2 million today. Many of theses are more hobby projects than giant industrial operations. Even still giant subsidy’s keeps the farm sector from the kind of massive consolidation you see in most industries.

> Even still giant subsidy’s keeps the farm sector from the kind of massive consolidation you see in most industries.

The bulk of the massive subsidy received by farms is crop insurance premium assistance though. No doubt a huge benefit if you have a weather disaster, but not anything you see directly until you have a disaster, and that only provides stability in those freak years. I am not sure that alone is keeping farms from consolidating like other industries as most other industries don't have the same kind of instability from the weather.

I would argue that in North America mega-farms, by and large, simply cannot compete with smaller farms. It takes farm expertise to run a farm and one person can only manage so much. Hiring more people with farm expertise is exceedingly difficult as anyone who has farming expertise would prefer to have their own business.

If your thing is developing search engines, chances are you're going to have to align yourself with for Google or Microsoft for the network advantage. You have almost no chance of succeeding on your own in the search engine space at this point. But food is quite different. If you produce food, there is guaranteed to be a buyer for it. There is no real network advantage to working for someone else there like you see in other industries, so why let someone else take their cut off the profit of your labour?

Post reply on HN