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

31–40 of 257 posts

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#31

Post by jriot »

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?

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#32

Post by randomdata »

jackbravo wrote: post #28
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?

Both.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#33

Post by kenmicklas »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #23
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.

> They offer a certain quality of life many desire.

But at an enormous cost to the environment, tax base, and economic resilience of society.

It's legitimate for people in the cities to ask whether they want to keep subsidizing this lifestyle, and whether a better kind of arrangement of land use can be achieved.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#34

Post by snackbugs »

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.

How do do you shut down a town in an orderly fashion?

More to the point, how do you avoid putting the people you displaced from their homes on a high-rent, low-wage treadmill?

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#35

Post by dvtrn »

kenmicklas wrote: post #33
ryanmarsh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They offer a certain quality of life many desire. But at an enormous cost to the environment, tax base, and economic resilience of society. It's legitimate for people in the cities to ask whether they want to keep subsidizing this lifestyle, and whether a better kind of arrangement of land use can be achieved.

whether a better kind of arrangement of land use can be achieved.

What would some examples of this be, in your opinion?

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#36

Post by jhowell »

We've spent so much time and money gentrifying urban areas, now we're going back to the burbs. This is like going back to the mainframe, or from the cloud back to physical hardware. We toggle between the two extremes.

My only hesitation is that the burbs haven't historically been so diverse and welcoming in the past and likely part of the reason "the kids" flee to the city. Maybe that will change.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#37

Post by derblitzmann »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #23
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.

I know I certainly qualify. I cannot wait to leave the city, even though I'll still need to work there.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#40

Post by cmorgan31 »

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?

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? As someone who lives in a small town, what do you think would help those towns and their residents?

Post reply on HN