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

21–30 of 257 posts

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#21

Post by thrwthrw93223 »

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.

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.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#22

Post by bargl »

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.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#23

Post by ryanmarsh »

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.

Are "we" trying to keep small towns alive?

Also, I don't see why remote workers can't live in small towns. They offer a certain quality of life many desire.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#24

Post by danzig13 »

I work in information systems in a manufacturing company in a small town. The power of agglomeration is quite apparent in its absence.

Most everyone in this company has only ever worked there and accepts the status quo of how things are done. Typically, “the worst way that works.”

It would be nice to be in an area where we could have some turnover and occasionally get people from more mature/professional companies.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#25

Post by ryanmarsh »

thinkingkong wrote: post #7

Small towns cannot be tech hubs, because that's not even what a 'hub' is. It would be the end node, or an outlier constantly. I'm from a small town but we have one huge industry which employs around 80% of the local community. The rest of the folks are in construction, service industries, schools, etc. No amount of effort would turn that region into a tech or innovation hub without it also turning it into a city. Ins…

that's not even what a 'hub' is

Exactly, they're called "economic clusters" for a reason. It's like these municipalities are merely play-acting.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#26

Post by dbcurtis »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #4
fromthestart wrote: post #2

Are these same small towns also insulated from market crashes and recessions? Is there some benefit to greater America from their existence? Edit: apparently people are interpreting my comment negatively. I was seriously asking if these small town communities can act as a sort of buffer during recessions because of their relative isolation, thereby limiting negative effects. I'm not questioning whether they should ex…

That's a good question... I have often wondered if many of our environmental/political problems would be solved if we helped everyone move to major cities. But the city environment undeniably makes many people less happy. Studies have shown a link between urban living and mental illness. So it might be nice to maintain options for humans who thrive in a more rural environment.

How would you expect moving everyone to cities to solve our political problems? When you say that, this is what I hear: "People who have different economic interests from me are not worth an ounce of my empathy, and this would finally shut them up." Sorry to be harsh, but it needs to be said -- that is how rural residents hear you.

Our political problems stem from each group having little empathy for other groups. Empathy == deep understanding without judgement. The thing that put an erratic man-child in the Whitehouse is half the population having utter disdain instead of empathy for the other half, resulting in a highly predictable reaction.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#27

Post by ryanmarsh »

InGodsName wrote: post #17

As someone who has lived in a small town, I'd suggest Government to offer: 1. Cheaper and faster internet in the remote locations. Then people can work remotely, have skype HD chats which don't disconnect in middle. Even free internet with 400gb limit per month per house would be good enough. 2. Faster ecom delivery - If we can order the same machines which city dwellers use, well it would suck less. Leave the rest o…

Cheaper and faster internet in the remote locations.

I think SpaceX Starlink could be a game changer here.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#28

Post by jackbravo »

randomdata wrote: post #8

It seems to be working for the small town I grew up in. However, it gained its tech industry rather organically with a tech business in town hitting the tech lottery. It comes as no surprise that you cannot force an industry to flourish in small towns, or even big cities for that matter.

So your small town has now several small tech companies? Or one that grew and employs now a considerable percentage of the workforce?

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#29

Post by eropple »

madengr wrote: post #9
ryanmarsh wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some benefit to greater America from their existence? Are you asking if there's a good reason why these small towns should exist?

Maybe rural america (energy, food) do Master Blaster style embargo on big cities.

"Rural Americans" own neither the energy nor the food production located near them.

By and large, rural America is subsidized by the rest of America, be they urbanites or large companies. And to be frank, that's fine; I support generally allowing people to find the best way for them to live, within reason. (Where people like me start getting snippy--and we do, we aren't saints--is when that's not acknowledged. "Real Americans" and the like.)

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#30

Post by davidw »

nine_k wrote: post #14
ryanmarsh wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some benefit to greater America from their existence? Are you asking if there's a good reason why these small towns should exist?

Or, maybe, rather, should small towns be additionally supported. Say, there are benefits for the whole nation (and the whole humankind) from maintaining and supporting national parks and national monuments, even if they don't and can't turn a profit. Or, there are various considerations leading to support for local farming, even if it would not make business sense without donations. Are small towns equally important,…

> rather, should small towns be additionally supported.

This is the key question. No one wants to up and remove those towns. The question is: should we subsidize their existence beyond the infrastructure like road, mail, etc... that we already pay for? And if we want to do that, how do we go about it to get the most bang for our buck?

Post reply on HN