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

Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 257 posts

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#121

Post by neuronexmachina »

weberc2 wrote: post #118
nimbius wrote: post #99

speaking as someone who works in a small town in the midwest as an auto mechanic, the people that shot themselves in the foot with this idea were the very ones who proposed it. I got 5 months of free online Python classes from the local government. This was part of some larger state plan to 'revitalize' us as a 'web 2.0' something or other for the 'silicon valley' of the midwest. The whole thing read like snake oil b…

What state is this? How do they require minorities to have ID but not whites? Apologies if these questions are naive, I'm not particularly familiar with midwest politics.

I don't know about the specific state the commenter is referring to, but this article from a couple years ago discusses some of the laws passed that (intentionally or unintentionally) make it more difficult for certain demographics to get an ID: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a...

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#122

Post by Scoundreller »

njarboe wrote: post #102
mrdodge wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was different about America that small towns thrived? The economic system is short sighted, and doesn't always have to drive politics - this may be a recent phenomena.

For a very long time in the US (up to 1970's in Alaska) one had the homestead act that allowed people to claim a large amount of land (160 acres) if you lived on it for five years and improved it. There was a huge amount of land available and this "free" land would create a lot of rural population. People from all over the world came to get a chance to own land. Impossible in Europe basically for a person to be able…

> Most of this land in the lower 48 was gone by 1900 or so and this is what people are referring to when they talk about the closing of the American frontier.

Well, sorta. The feds still own 30-85% of each Western state:

https://assets3.bigthink.com/system/tinymce_assets/944/origi...

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#123

Post by cgoecknerwald »

nimbius wrote: post #99

speaking as someone who works in a small town in the midwest as an auto mechanic, the people that shot themselves in the foot with this idea were the very ones who proposed it. I got 5 months of free online Python classes from the local government. This was part of some larger state plan to 'revitalize' us as a 'web 2.0' something or other for the 'silicon valley' of the midwest. The whole thing read like snake oil b…

I absolutely agree with your call-out. If a company has to have a "good culture" to attract talent, then so does a county, city, or state. Since I no longer have to live in a state that fights against my rights, I may very well choose to live (and therefore work) in other states for the rest of my life.

However, I do wonder if we are over-conflating "rural" with "conservative." Certainly, they are correlated, but I can imagine it's a lot different to live a rural life in California versus Mississippi.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#124

Post by [deleted] »

weberc2 wrote: post #118
nimbius wrote: post #99

speaking as someone who works in a small town in the midwest as an auto mechanic, the people that shot themselves in the foot with this idea were the very ones who proposed it. I got 5 months of free online Python classes from the local government. This was part of some larger state plan to 'revitalize' us as a 'web 2.0' something or other for the 'silicon valley' of the midwest. The whole thing read like snake oil b…

What state is this? How do they require minorities to have ID but not whites? Apologies if these questions are naive, I'm not particularly familiar with midwest politics.

[deleted]

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#125

Post by bskap »

LrnByTeach wrote: post #112
lotsofpulp wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tons of gerrymandered states that result in states' politicians not reflecting the wishes of the majority of the voters, and it's always the rural areas benefiting from the gerrymandering.

There are seven states with only ONE House of representative: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. The reason for the above is that there are so little population ( less than 650,000 )in the whole state. These 7 states each have TWO senators. The reason for this is this is how the country was formed giving 2 senators to each state in the constitution. These 14 senators are alwa…

Not all 14 of them are Republican. Delaware has two Democrats, and Vermont has one Democrat and one Bernie Sanders.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#126

Post by weberc2 »

aurailious wrote: post #120
weberc2 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What state is this? How do they require minorities to have ID but not whites? Apologies if these questions are naive, I'm not particularly familiar with midwest politics.

I'm pretty sure the comment didn't say that.

To be clear, I was responding to this:

> Are you a blue-collar minority? Unless you know exactly when and where to go to get a license, then voting is practically impossible.

How else can you interpret this? Blue-collar minorities are less capable of knowing where/when to get a license than blue-collar whites? Or perhaps the "minority" bit is a red-herring altogether and the salient criterion is "blue-collar"?

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#127

Post by Benjammer »

cgoecknerwald wrote: post #123
nimbius wrote: post #99

speaking as someone who works in a small town in the midwest as an auto mechanic, the people that shot themselves in the foot with this idea were the very ones who proposed it. I got 5 months of free online Python classes from the local government. This was part of some larger state plan to 'revitalize' us as a 'web 2.0' something or other for the 'silicon valley' of the midwest. The whole thing read like snake oil b…

I absolutely agree with your call-out. If a company has to have a "good culture" to attract talent, then so does a county, city, or state. Since I no longer have to live in a state that fights against my rights, I may very well choose to live (and therefore work) in other states for the rest of my life. However, I do wonder if we are over-conflating "rural" with "conservative." Certainly, they are correlated, but I c…

I think you would probably be surprised how similar rural area culture can be on opposite sides of the country.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#128

Post by wcunning »

bargl wrote: post #22
johan_larson wrote: post #13

Maybe we shouldn't be trying to keep these small town alive. Maybe we should focus on shutting them down in an orderly fashion and help the residents move to more dynamic areas, probably in large part by helping them acquire skills that are actually in demand there.

This would be great if we also committed to having a reasonable cost of living in major cities by limiting space per family, doing (at the minimum) townhomes only within a 20 mile radius of the city, and working to give everyone affordable and reasonable housing. I think it's probably easier just to promote remote work.

I personally live in a "small" city specifically to have room for more than that, and I'm still unsatisfied with my small-ish free standing house and lot. In a year or two of saving, I'll be moving to the most rural place I can afford and stand to commute from, so your idea wouldn't be acceptable to me in the slightest. What do we do for the people who want something different for themselves? Is their way of life simply no longer going to be allowed?

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#129

Post by lotsofpulp »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #111
lotsofpulp wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tons of gerrymandered states that result in states' politicians not reflecting the wishes of the majority of the voters, and it's always the rural areas benefiting from the gerrymandering.

Every east coast state from Maine to Maryland is run by the cities in that state. The west coast is almost the same. I don't know if those states are "gerrymandered" in favor of the rural districts but if they are it's not enough to matter because those states are certainly run by the cities. I'm not saying what you've said isn't true. I'm saying it doesn't matter in practice. Gerrymandered or not if the cities want…

Cities have wanted minority rights, legal marijuana, abortion rights, gay rights, public transport, minimum wage, higher education, multitudes of other items for a long time, and I don’t see them getting those without an uphill battle every time. Time and time again, the majority of voters are overruled due to the way the game is setup, and they can’t change the way it’s setup since they would need the political majority (even though they have the voter majority) to do that.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#130

Post by nimbius »

cgoecknerwald wrote: post #123
nimbius wrote: post #99

speaking as someone who works in a small town in the midwest as an auto mechanic, the people that shot themselves in the foot with this idea were the very ones who proposed it. I got 5 months of free online Python classes from the local government. This was part of some larger state plan to 'revitalize' us as a 'web 2.0' something or other for the 'silicon valley' of the midwest. The whole thing read like snake oil b…

I absolutely agree with your call-out. If a company has to have a "good culture" to attract talent, then so does a county, city, or state. Since I no longer have to live in a state that fights against my rights, I may very well choose to live (and therefore work) in other states for the rest of my life. However, I do wonder if we are over-conflating "rural" with "conservative." Certainly, they are correlated, but I c…

I agree. And its not like im here to bash conservatives, its just looking at all these super tech companies like google and apple, its hard to imagine Tim Cook seriously considering locating his business in a state where his ER surgeon could refuse service to him because he is gay. most of our effort to get into the fast lane of "silicon valley" has been a thinly-veiled attempt at doing something, anything, to reduce crime, Fentanyl overdose, and systemic unemployment thats plagued our region since 2008.

The people who are pushing silicon valley just want the money. They dont understand that its more than money and training.

Post reply on HN