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

61–70 of 257 posts

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#61

Post by camhenlin »

Personally I feel that one way to help small towns is more companies embracing remote work and the benefits that remote work provides. Additionally companies or municipalities must continue to build out high speed infrastructure to support those workers and empower the residents of those areas to have the opportunity to be highly connected.

For many companies, embracing remote work when possible is to their benefit. No longer do they have the small hiring pool of a handful of office locations, but they now have the entire country at their fingertips at very little effort.

My personal experience is that I work remotely outside of a small rural town, and I know two others in my area who do the same, so it seems like this trend may already be happening. The nice thing about this is that there is no hub required! If the job doesn’t need an office, why have one?

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#62

Post by Kalium »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #18

I recently applied to be part of Tulsa, Oklahoma's program offering $10k for tech people to move there. I'm a high income tech person and I love to teach and mentor others (it's literally my business). I never received a response. Not even a, "hey we can't offer you $10k, but here are some other reasons you may still want to move here...". I can live anywhere in the country. I'm not tied to Houston, TX where I live I…

> I flat out do not understand the strategies of these cities who are trying to become tech hubs.

The known-good approach, of spending decades building educational, financial, cultural, and business conditions that enable tech hubs is difficult and slow and expensive. Cities are looking for ways to shortcut this that are palatable to voters who often don't really see a need to change things.

I think you've hit on it: a lot of people and places see tech businesses as something not significantly different from a car plant.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#64

Post by nwhatt »

lubujackson wrote: post #41

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 f…

Well said. I have no data to back this up, but I feel like a lot of remote workers prefer smaller cities that still have lots of amenities - think Portland, Austin, Madison, Boulder.

You present a solid blueprint for even smaller communities to start to attract remote workers.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#65

Post by voodootrucker »

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 I'm reading the latest LinkedIn workforce report correctly, the migration trends are actually from NY and SF to Denver, and from Denver to smaller cities:

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/blog/linkedin-workforce-report...

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#66

Post by illegalsmile »

lubujackson wrote: post #41

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 f…

My small city of approximately 60k is doing just what you describe to bring in people from all over not only for tourism but to live. Relatively cheap housing, easy and relatively quick access to millions of acres of nature, cute downtown, low commute times, etc... There are tech incubators and work spaces here with younger more progressive groups working together in ways this city has never seen. We have growth rate percentages on par with major cities and the area will become more appealing as the larger cities continue to make housing unaffordable and traffic gridlocked. I appreciate what they're doing and know that this change was inevitable. While I hate what it is now I know there are people moving here who love it and I want them to love it as much as I used to.

I have found a new place where the topography essentially places a hard limit on growth and provides me with immediate access to all the things I love to do outdoors. While this makes me part of the problem I know what I want my town/city to be.

So my point is I agree that there is no one solution but rather a holistic approach of building up your best features to appeal to many is the only way for these towns to prosper in the future.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#67

Post by flagfeedingusa »

Kalium wrote: post #54
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're completely correct. We depend utterly on a lot of basic products of small towns and rural communities. That said, just because food and lumber has to be grown somewhere doesn't mean it has to be grown in American small towns and rural communities. My wheat and rice can come from Mexico and Thailand and my beef from Argentina.

Youre a dispicable human, a pathetic excuse for an american and should be thrown out of the country immediately. hang all globalists

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#68

Post by pastor_elm »

sidlls wrote: post #58
badloginagain wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

A good school district in America is a bubble itself. The diversity is lacking and the politics are even worse than conservative. They're self-righteous.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#69

Post by mrdodge »

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.

Re: Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy

#70

Post by sct202 »

voodootrucker wrote: post #65
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 I'm reading the latest LinkedIn workforce report correctly, the migration trends are actually from NY and SF to Denver, and from Denver to smaller cities: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/blog/linkedin-workforce-report...

It looks like that but the magnitude of inbound is 10x outbound.
Post reply on HN