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

241–250 of 257 posts

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#241

Post by masonic »

addicted wrote: post #238
ep103 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

abortion and gun control. We can limit the amount of abortion that occurs, without banning abortion (sex education, birth control, health insurance, family planning, adoption center funding, etc). And we can limit the negative impacts of gun ownership on society, without gun bans (NICB, mental health funding, red flag laws, standardized licensing, increased funding for already existing laws, significantly increased p…

I’m sorry, but the left has not only talked about all these things, but they’ve actually pushed legislation for this. The idea that the US left does not even want to talk about sex Ed, birth control, health insurance...mental health funding, funding research on the effects of guns, licensing, etc... is so out of whack from reality. You are basically taking what every one on the US left (almost no one in any sort of g…

  almost no one in any sort of governmental power on the US left has proposed a gun ban
Senator Feinstein (D-CA) advocated for a total gun ban right on "60 Minutes".

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#242

Post by johan_larson »

jriot wrote: post #31
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.

I am a data scientist and work remotely, living in a small town on 3.6 acres. Moving to a city would be terrible, living within a 40 minute drive is plenty close enough. Why do you feel the need to shut down entire communities?

Because once a community has lost its central economic purpose, it tends to develop all sorts of pernicious dysfunctions. If the one factory in a small town closes, the town just lost a lot of its tax-base, so it's hard to pay for services. Many people can't find other jobs, so they end up on the dole or on drugs or on the street. And anyone with options leaves. Such towns are essentially economic zombies. They died a long time ago, they just haven't fallen over yet. This is the case where I think it makes sense to shut down the community, and help the remaining residents build better lives elsewhere.

I have no quarrel with small towns per se. Some host substantial mining or logging or manufacturing operations. Some provide services for large surrounding agrarian areas. Others are bedroom communities for city workers who trade a commute for cheaper living arrangements. These are all fine. These towns have solid economic reasons for existing, and are therefore viable. No problem. But others are not so fortunate.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#243

Post by JeremyNT »

Benjammer wrote: post #127
cgoecknerwald wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but at least you won't find statues of traitorous, racist war criminals lording over you when you go to file paperwork at your local county seat, or Confederate flags proudly displayed at your local state parks.

There's something different about it when it's government sanctioned.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#244

Post by JeremyNT »

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.

The history of the United States as a Caucasian ethnostate looms large here. When people talk about diversity, what that's code for is essentially "not racist," because the legacy of those explicit laws enforcing white supremacy takes generations to untangle - and diversity of population (and integration) is one of the important ways to slowly grind down the residual attitudes.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#245

Post by rukittenme »

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 have lived in three states: Washington, North Carolina, and Tennessee. I have no idea what state you are in to have all of these restrictions. The only thing I can think of is you are conflating many laws from many states across a large time period.

Birth control? An annual (3 years in Washington) cancer screening and check up for your birth control prescription. Possibly covered by insurance but not REQUIRED. Which is different from OUTLAWED. Not that it matters, my wife's birth control costs $85 every three months and we can pay for it with our HSA. That's hardly emptying anyone's bank account especially when you compare it to the ACA which requires every citizen spend >$100/mo on insurance that does mostly nothing!

Bathroom laws? Oh yeah? Which one! There are none currently in existence. There were certainly more than a few that were considered but only one passed and it was repealed!

LGBTQ restrictions on adoption? Adoption by same-sex couples is legal in all 50 states!

LGBTQ workplace protections? There are certainly protections at the federal level. But yes, you're right. Places like North Carolina do not have any laws on the books which expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. But ask yourself, what is the practical effect on LGBTQ people? I would argue there is no effect. You might as well be in California. I have worked at many companies with many LGBTQ people and all of them were safer in their employment than I was! No company wants the backlash that comes from being perceived as anti-LGBTQ. Society has adequately regulated the protection of LGBTQ people where governments have not.

As for the apparent racism of rural areas. Having grown up with a great many black friends I've:

* Never met a black person who could not get a driver's license.

* Never been exposed to a dress code that prohibited black people.

---

Look I have my own gripes about rural living (the South specifically). But I won't lie or live in some bizarre universe where the South is hell on earth.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#246

Post by closeparen »

mrdodge wrote: post #69
mr_tristan wrote: post #43

I suspect this is a much bigger deal in the US, since we have rural power bias built into our political system. Thus, the rural voter has a much bigger "say" in how things run. (Subsequently, if their life continues to get worse, well, I suspect more tendencies towards authoritarianism.) This is where I sense the tension. At least in the US, the political system seems to want to maintain people in rural areas, but th…

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.

When the primary economic inputs were land and undifferentiated labor, there was no use playing in a crowded field.

Now the economic inputs are highly skilled workers and the connections between them.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#247

Post by closeparen »

jriot wrote: post #109
cmorgan31 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's fair to say this person is shutting down entire communities. Isn't the market doing that? The reality of the article is not every town has a flourishing future in the economy. Although the way it is phrased suggests, they are going to pick you up and walk you out of town even if you disagree. Do we subsidize their lives as some have suggested with UBI? Do we try to revitalize industries that failed…

In all honesty, the biggest issue particularly in the south (Hawaii as well) is that most people are content with their lives. They aren't trying to move up the corporate ladder, learn the latest tech etc... They are happy with their jobs, culture, families, and traditions. This mindset clashes with the rest of America, particularly the West coast, were having a family, culture, and traditions are seen as negative to…

“Having a family is seen as negative to society” is a gross mischaractetization of even the most out-there coastal liberal values.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#248

Post by dredmorbius »

jonathankoren wrote: post #170
dredmorbius wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at University of Illinois Urbana Champaign. Supercomputing centre and home of Mozilla, but the talent and firms leave. And they don't head to Chicago either.

Andreesen left and went to Silicon Valley as fast as he could. While NCSA Mosaic was written in Urbana, he started Mosaic Communications (the original name of Netscape) in California, and was hated for years at UIUC after that.

Thanks I meant Mosaic, of course.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#249

Post by lkrubner »

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…

You say that well. I associate this idea with Richard Florida, who has written about the Creative Class and the Tolerance Index:

"The map above shows how metros across the U.S. score on the Tolerance Index, as updated for The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited. The chart below shows the top 20 metros. Developed by my Martin Prosperity Institute colleague Kevin Stolarick, it ranks U.S. metros according to three key variables—the share of immigrants or foreign-born residents, the Gay Index (the concentration of gays and lesbians), and the Integration Index, which tracks the level of segregation between ethnic and racial groups."

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/07/geography-tolerance/2...

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#250

Post by masonic »

masonic wrote: post #241
addicted wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry, but the left has not only talked about all these things, but they’ve actually pushed legislation for this. The idea that the US left does not even want to talk about sex Ed, birth control, health insurance...mental health funding, funding research on the effects of guns, licensing, etc... is so out of whack from reality. You are basically taking what every one on the US left (almost no one in any sort of g…

almost no one in any sort of governmental power on the US left has proposed a gun ban Senator Feinstein (D-CA) advocated for a total gun ban right on "60 Minutes".

Sigh. For the skeptical downvoters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4AcjyuV38

Post reply on HN