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

41–50 of 257 posts

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#41

Post by lubujackson »

I grew up in a small town in the Berkshires and recently went back there to see family. It is interesting to see the shift from where it was 100 years ago to where it was when I was a kid, to where it is today (and where it's heading).

100 years ago there was a ton of industry: paper mills, textile mills, marble and limestone quarries. These were supported by a train that ran through town to transports goods to and from Boston, and the town sprouted up organically around these industries.

One by one, they all faded away but when I was little the town still had much of the residual glory: a downtown full of shops, a mahogany-lined library and school, plus a big new mall 15 minutes away. Then as I grew up all the things started to go away. The two drive-in theaters, the entire downtown shopping area, the malls. All of it bottomed out when the Walmart came to town (familiar story...)

But now there is a bit of a revival around art, nature and tourism, which they have been pushing my entire life. The old train tracks are now a walking/bicycle path. The old textile mill is a modern art museum. The shell of its former existence gives the town a very unique character now. But there is a big disconnect between people who grew up there and the tourist mindset, and it's interesting to be able to see and understand both sides of it. The people that are moving there or want to visit there have a COMPLETELY different mindset than the people who do live there, even most the people trying to drum up the tourism.

Most small towns aren't going to revive via tourism, of course, but I think the bigger problem is every small town is trying to find some big "thing" to come save them. A new plant, a new business hub of some sort. Instead they should be focusing on their strengths, such as they exist: cheap housing, open spaces, access to nature, no commuting traffic. Cut out red tape and let people redefine these town husks like hermit crabs changing shells. I think the best approach is to focus on local community elements that are attractive to people who can work remotely. It's got to be success by a thousand cuts, because most of these communities have no chance at a real influx of business.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#42

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

caseyohara wrote: post #19
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the city environment undeniably makes many people less happy. Studies have shown a link between urban living and mental illness. Do you have a link for these claims? Genuinely curious, I've always wondered about this.

This is from the National Institute of Health.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5374256/

I'm not an expert at knowing what studies are good... so someone will probably comment about why this study is problematic, and that's ok.

"Studies have shown that the risk for serious mental illness is generally higher in cities compared to rural areas. Epidemiological studies have associated growing up and living in cities with a considerably higher risk for schizophrenia. However, correlation is not causation and living in poverty can both contribute to and result from impairments associated with poor mental health. Social isolation and discrimination as well as poverty in the neighborhood contribute to the mental health burden while little is known about specific interactions between such factors and the built environment."

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#43

Post by mr_tristan »

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 the economic system doesn't. And I'm not sure a politician running on a platform of "we're gonna get you out of dodge" is going to be very popular.

Advocating for moving people out of rural areas seems like political suicide. I can't find anyone pushing for this idea.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#44

Post by hopefulengineer »

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…

The biggest problem for small and medium communities is brain drain. It's a vicious death spiral because the smart and ambitious kids basically have to move away to large cities to get quality jobs.

The only solution I can think of is incentivizing remote work so people don't have to be concentrated in cities. You might not even have to incentivize it because it's a tremendous advantage as a tech company to be able to recruit from any where in the country where lots of talented people don't want to move for family reasons or don't want to live in a city

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#45

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

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.

Pray tell, where do you expect all those agricultural products, lumber, livestock, and so forth that we all depend on to come from without small towns and rural communities? They have to grow somewhere after all.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#46

Post by protonimitate »

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 for nothing. Old school business ideas and stubbornness is the only reason this is true. Keep your gaudy glass building in the hot new section of downtown if you wish, but let your workers choose where they live and work from.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#47

Post by threatofrain »

I think some small towns become retirement targets because outside of California the spots that fit multiple dimensions of quality like (1) good schools, (2) good incomes, (3) good weather, (4) affordable living, (5) decent commercial activity, etc., you end up with a narrowing space of options.

Some of those towns grow enough to attract a tech company, and will continue to attract growth because it's just harder and harder to get the nice balance of factors.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#48

Post by msluyter »

I'd love the idea of living in a quiet, small community, were it not for a number of practicalities:

Schools -- We're trying to provide the highest possible quality education for our daughter, which means living in the best public school district we can find or within range of the best private school we can afford. And while I'm sure there are exceptions, this means living in a city.

Jobs -- Even though in theory I could work remotely, my wife (a lawyer) couldn't. Wherever we live has to be able to provide employment opportunities for two disparate professions.

Arts/Culture/Etc... -- I take my daughter to the Thinkery (a neat kid's museum here in Austin) monthly. She takes ballet and swim lessons, perhaps music lessons soon. It's important for our family to be in proximity to a vibrant art/music scene.

None of this is meant to denigrate small towns or rural areas, and perhaps there are some areas that provide the above (I'd be curious to hear about them if there were, actually...) I merely mention this to indicate how difficult the project is.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#49

Post by badloginagain »

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…

In theory all you need to make it work is good internet connection. Especially if its remote.

If there was a serious offer from some company where for the same amount of rent in SF, I could have a mortgage on literal acres of land, thats attractive.

Less attractive is the crumbling infrastructure, opioid wildfires, actual wildfires, and aggressively conservative culture.

Gotta try something though, right?

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#50

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

dbcurtis wrote: post #26
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Em…

There is a difference between wondering is something would have an effect, and avocation for that idea. In my second paragraph I talked about a valid reason we should go out of our way to preserve small towns. I'm sorry if my comment gave the impression that I am some type of Nazi who wants to eliminate everyone living in a small town.

I have deep empathy for people living in areas where there economic futures and opportunities are consistently getting worse.

We can either find a way a fix that, so that it is possible to continue to live in rural areas AND have employment opportunities.... OR everyone will end up living in cities regardless.

Much of our political differences come from one group being on an upward financial trajectory and the other group being on a downward trajectory. If our outlooks for the future were aligned of course we would have less differences in regards to political policies on taxation, immigration, the environment or issues like government spending on scientific research.

Post reply on HN