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

191–200 of 257 posts

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#191

Post by hardolaf »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #137
jandrese wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of other factors too. No nightlife. Limited restaurant options. Schools that offer only the basics and may be failing. No public transit. Shitty and expensive Internet. No local job hopping opportunities. Limited extracurricular activities for the kids. Lots of anti-intellectual peer groups in the schools. You pay a lot for that cheap house in the end.

The job hopping opportunities can't be overstated. It's the BATNA for salary negotiations with employers, so it basically determines what your salary is going to be.

I moved to Chicago, and from the north window of my building, I can look into the offices of three companies that employ people like me (digital design engineers) that I know of. That view is called the next building.

Within a half mile of where I work, I know of more than 30 companies that I can easily hop to. Within a half mile of the CTA train system, there's more than 100 companies that I can hop to. If I extend my search into the nearby suburbs which are well served by Metra, we're now talking about 200-300 companies. Sure, most are small, but a significant number of them aren't.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#192

Post by DoubleCribble »

nemo44x wrote: post #175
DoubleCribble wrote: post #173

I tend to agree with an idea that's mentioned in the article. Perhaps much of the land in certain flyover states should just return to the bison? While it means most of the towns would disappear, some would greatly succeed. I'd be FAR more likely to regularly visit Podunk-Nowheresville if I could witness the annual migration of 10 million bison. After having traveled to the other side of the planet and seen such a mi…

It's all mainly farmland.

But if left to it's own devices (or with a little assistance from the bison), may return to prairie very quickly. I suspect it wouldn't take long for native grasses to outcompete any residual farmable crops.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#193

Post by hardolaf »

protonimitate wrote: post #46
edaemon wrote: post #5

For what it's worth the submission title here ("Turning small towns into tech hubs isn't working") doesn't appear in the article. The basic reasoning of the article: ...the high-tech industries powering the economy today don’t have much need for the cheap labor that rural communities contributed to America’s industrial past. They mostly need highly educated workers. They find those most easily in big cities, not in s…

If the idea is for the Tech Industry to 'revitalize' these small towns (which I'm not sure I buy into), then the only way to do is to incentivize companies to hire workers from these areas (i.e. better education and early awareness of 'tech jobs'), or incentivize companies to move existing employees to these areas and allow them to work remotely. > The pressure of agglomeration is high in the tech industry Which is f…

The reality is that most cheap talent (i.e. early career engineers) want to live or work in major cities because there's things to do and the quality of life is simply unbeatable compared to living in even an average suburb of a major city let alone in the middle of nowhere.

On top of that, it's much easier to attract top talent from other countries to cities with at least workable mass transit systems.

In moving to Chicago from a large town, my quality of life easily doubled overnight. Grocery shopping is now only an extra 3 minutes out of my way on the way home from the train station instead of an extra 25 minutes out of my way. I don't need to maintain two cars for my wife and I because honestly, we barely drive because there is no need. I'm starting to consider just getting rid of my car entirely. If I want to go and see Broadway plays, I no longer have to travel over an hour by car, hunt for parking, and then walk 5-10 more minutes. If I want to eat out, there's over 100 restaurants just in my ward.

It's just a better life overall.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#194

Post by danans »

badpun wrote: post #187
danans wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t feel that the lack of “diversity” has negatively impacted my development They said they want diversity for their children. That has nothing to do with how your environment impacted you. People are allowed to have preferences so long as in the process of acting on them, they don't trample on others' rights.

That’s... obvious? Of course people have a right to their subjective opinions and preferences. What I’m interested in though is the objective reality of this matter, i.e. whether or not diversity is beneficial for child’s development.

> What I’m interested in though is the objective reality of this matter, i.e. whether or not diversity is beneficial for child’s development.

There isn't an objective reality. Depending on what you personally value, diversity could be a cost, benefit, or neutral for your children. You may not even know the results until much later, and even then it will be hard to discern the causal factors, though you may try to posit them.

It could also just come down to "I like living in a diverse environment because it's more interesting for me, and I'm only going to live once".

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#195

Post by krapp »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #85
thrwthrw93223 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy for you to say as an outsider with a comfortable salaried job. A lot of people in these rural communities aren't educated and live paycheck-to-paycheck. Putting them in larger cities for jobs they aren't qualified and wouldn't be hired for probably isn't the solution.

>Putting them in larger cities for jobs they aren't qualified and wouldn't be hired for probably isn't the solution. If your goal is to make rural people (historically a very hard group for governments to control, everywhere, not just in the US) more dependent on and controllable by the state then it works great. (Yes, I know I'm just stirring the pot by saying this)

All a man needs is a horse and a gun and he can rule the world, right?

I know many rural Americans like to imagine they're still living on the lawless frontier uncorrupted by civilization and Federalism, but.... it's not actually true that they're less dependent on the state than "city folk." Hell, in many cases rural areas are more dependent on the state.

And ironically, it's that pastoral, romantic delusion of the statelessness of rural America that leads to the very same populist ideology that makes them easier to control. Like believing a billionaire globalist with a history of exploiting low wage employees and a loose relationship with the truth is an honest, God-fearing hard working friend of the common man.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#196

Post by ryanwaggoner »

badpun wrote: post #189
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give us the more nuanced view, particularly as it applies to America, a place with a lot of existing diversity and a pretty mixed history with regard to how minorities have been treated? What’s the nuanced case for why Americans shouldn’t care that much about “diversity”?

I feel that the “caring about diversity” is a state- and media-run campaign with a goal to decrease some of the deep-rooted racism that permeates sections of the US’s society. Therefore, for the child upbringing case, as long as a parent is not a racist and is not rasing his children to be one, the crude corrective action of “diversity yay!” is not really necessary. That’s why Polish society is ok despite not caring…

Maybe it’s not that Poland is not racist, but more that you haven’t had the opportunity to prove it until recently: https://m.dw.com/en/poland-racism-on-the-rise/a-36812032

I think any kind of tribalism-oriented bias or skepticism about “the other” is probably something we’re all oriented towards from an evolutionary standpoint. And so getting over that takes “brainwashing”, just like many, many other positive things in society. The concept of equal rights didn’t fall from the sky: we invented it because we thought it’d work better for everyone in the long run. And we have to constantly be reinforcing it or it falls apart.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#197

Post by badpun »

soundwave106 wrote: post #184
badpun wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone coming from Poland, a country that’s pretty much 100% white and Polish, I don’t feel that the lack of “diversity” has negatively impacted my development. It seems to me that people in the US have been brainwashed (in schools, by media etc.) into believing that diversity is always good and lack of diversity is always bad, while in reality it’s not that simple.

It's more the "reaction to diversity" that's the issue, in my opinion. Some areas unfortunately are not terribly friendly to non-white or non-Christian people. This sometimes is reflected in certain laws and may reflect in other cultural ways. This probably is not something any international-oriented company would look positively on, since international companies will have employees from a wide variety of cultures. I…

That cnn article sure is interesting. Poland is supposedly one of more Christian countries in the world, but nothing even close to the stories from that article (losing job or customers after coming out as an atheist) ever happens here. I wonder how common such incidents are in the US.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#198

Post by badpun »

danans wrote: post #194
badpun wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s... obvious? Of course people have a right to their subjective opinions and preferences. What I’m interested in though is the objective reality of this matter, i.e. whether or not diversity is beneficial for child’s development.

> What I’m interested in though is the objective reality of this matter, i.e. whether or not diversity is beneficial for child’s development. There isn't an objective reality. Depending on what you personally value, diversity could be a cost, benefit, or neutral for your children. You may not even know the results until much later, and even then it will be hard to discern the causal factors, though you may try to pos…

There certainly is an objective reality. It may be very hard to determine what it is, but it nevertheless exists. In this case, as long as you define developmental goals (ex. the child develops into kind, responsible, emotionally stable adult etc.), the policies/circumstances, such as being raised in a diverse environment, being allowed to watch TV, studying a lot, always wearing black socks etc. will or will not have impact (positive or negative) on those goals.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#199

Post by pastor_elm »

badpun wrote: post #157
sidlls wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People drastically understate the infrastructure and other issues you note in places outside of major urban centers of technology. My children do not have a net benefit from a huge home on a huge plot of land if the schools are garbage, there are few or no parks, the politics are very conservative, and diversity is lacking.

As someone coming from Poland, a country that’s pretty much 100% white and Polish, I don’t feel that the lack of “diversity” has negatively impacted my development. It seems to me that people in the US have been brainwashed (in schools, by media etc.) into believing that diversity is always good and lack of diversity is always bad, while in reality it’s not that simple.

>I don’t feel that the lack of “diversity” has negatively impacted my development.

Well it certainly has impacted some Poles, considering they can't help but chant 'monkey' when they see a black person[0]

[0]https://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/08/sport/football/poland-rac...

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#200

Post by danans »

badpun wrote: post #189
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give us the more nuanced view, particularly as it applies to America, a place with a lot of existing diversity and a pretty mixed history with regard to how minorities have been treated? What’s the nuanced case for why Americans shouldn’t care that much about “diversity”?

I feel that the “caring about diversity” is a state- and media-run campaign with a goal to decrease some of the deep-rooted racism that permeates sections of the US’s society. Therefore, for the child upbringing case, as long as a parent is not a racist and is not rasing his children to be one, the crude corrective action of “diversity yay!” is not really necessary. That’s why Polish society is ok despite not caring…

> we are just not exposed to races other than ours, so it pretty hard/weird to be a racist).

The US is not mono-racial by any measure, and has a long and troubled history with race relations.

So even taking the questionable argument that Poland isn't "very racist" at face value, it's wouldn't be applicable to the US anyway.

Post reply on HN