3 ms·

Yes so you want to have every move to the city where the opportunities are. Which may be fine, but imagine for a second someone telling you that 'you should jus

by jbhatab 10y ago

Yes so you want to have every move to the city where the opportunities are. Which may be fine, but imagine for a second someone telling you that 'you should just move from where you are because where you were born isn't good enough'. Not very considerate. Also, they would be thrown into an environment that is wildly different than there own with far less money than everyone else and lack of skillets and knowledge to thrive. They would be an extreme disadvatantage. Now I don't disagree that that may be a solution, but seriously take a step back. Ask yourself if you think you just said is empathatic towards people in rural America? Ask yourself if you had said that about other issues in America. 'Why can't black people just start learning how to code to catch up?' 'Why can't gays just get over not being able to be officially married?' Basically what you're saying is 'why cant people that aren't me adapt to how I operate?'

TuringNYC 10y ago
> imagine for a second someone telling you that 'you should just move from where you are because where you were born isn't good enough' Now imagine telling a corporation that 'you must build your factory only in City X' -- why should they? They will build where they find space at good rents and an industrial ecosystem and workers. What if the factory owner lives in California. So he has to move his life across the country and build in New Hampshire because a rural worker in New Hampshire didn't want to move themselves? How does this make sense?
- dukeluke 10y ago
  Capitalism is blind to political movements, wealth inequality, and full employment. All that matters is the bottom line. This is leading to globalism, automation, and use of illegal immigration which is gutting the lower and middle classes. Would it be best for the corporation? No, of course not. But there needs to be a balance between the lower and upper classes, and right now that balance is not there. A rising economy should benefit everyone. This lack of balance is why populist politicians were so popular this election.
  - TuringNYC 10y ago
    Wouldn't a progressive, Bernie-style [limited] redistribution be better to achieve such a goal? Appropriate corporate tax funded social spending sound like a more efficient way to help everyone than forcing a factory owner in California to move his factory to some random rural area. I don't run a factory, but I am a full-time co-founder of a startup. There is no way I'd move our NYC-based operation to some rural area, there is little to no specialized technical community outside the major cities. For example, would I be able to attend weekly Machine Learning meetups in West Virginia? Would I be able to have lunch regularly with VCs in Ohio? I've been overseas doing a parallel medical trial, in a big city, and still it is very difficult to operate here. The depth of community just doesn't exist. I realize a tech startup isn't a perfect example, but I imagine some of the same concerns would be applicable to factory owners. It is simply not realistic to assume that employers (who already don't have trouble finding talent) should move to where workers are, rather than the opposite.
    - dukeluke 10y ago
      Factories and employers used to put factories in rural areas because of the cheap labor. Globalism has exploited the fact that many other countries don't have the labor laws or quality of life America does, and made it so rural America isn't an economically viable location to put jobs. I'd agree that a Bernie-style form of redistribution would be ideal, but in my opinion, it's important to be politically expedient. America's political system is rigged to the point where even if a redistribution program was passed, it would be removed within a decade. Given the fact that wealth and GDP has never been higher and that corporations are having no problem finding profits, we need to find a way to make rural America an economically feasible location to put jobs again, which means ending or slowing globalization.
    - ebiester 10y ago
      Would it solve problems if we had an equivalent to meetup for online meetups such as the above? If we suggest all can be done online, why aren't our meetups online? Certainly, time zones are an issue, and some meetup functions can be duplicated by a mailing list or forum, but why haven't we figured this one out? (The time zone could be solved by having multiple meetups and people go to the ones which are better for their time, for example.) And a speaker is something is probably easier than the average user group - someone just joins from their house...
- edraferi 10y ago
  Exactly! Viewed by the capitalist system, these communities are useless. People hate feeling useless, even if you give them everything they need to live (the Democrat's solution) So, how do you make economically irrelevant communities viable? I have no idea.
  - zanny 10y ago
    The left solution is not simply throw money at the problem and ignore if it solves it. The basic income movement beneath a lot of this is meant to, over generations, migrate the culture from one where your work defines your value as a human being to one where you are valued for your non-monetary contributions to society as well.
  - tomrod 10y ago
    A good, first approach is to structure incentives to encourage people to move from irrelevant communities. Such as not punishing manufacturing for moving overseas, ending non-strategic subsidies, and similar as the stick, and funding non-profits dedicated to helping people relocate to areas with brighter opportunities. We will have to do these things due to climate change anyway (create policies to handle migration) if the Agricultural Revolution is to ultimately win over Nomadism, we may as well figure out things that work here and now.
  - rumcajz 10y ago
    Make remote work the standard option whenever possible. For example, all the paper pushing work can be easily made remote and distributed to rural areas.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      If you make remote work the standard, why wouldn't a company offshore it to remote workers who are often wildly cheaper due to market forces and market distortions (like minimum wage laws)? There are plenty of English reading/writing/speaking people in India capable of remote work.
  - georgeecollins 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 10y ago
>but imagine for a second someone telling you that 'you should just move from where you are because where you were born isn't good enough' I don't have to imagine it. There are 8 cities between my great-grandfather and me. - Russia (we don't know what city), where my great-grandfather was born. - St. Louis, where my great-grandfather settled as a refugee from the pogroms (he was Jewish). - Chicago, where my great-grandfather relocated for work and my grandfather did undergrad->PhD. - Seattle, where my grandfather moved after graduation and met my grandmother from Ottawa. - Lawrence, KS., where my grandfather got his faculty job and where my parents met. - Rochester, NY. where my parents moved after college. - Milwaukee, WI. because the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle was written during the evenings and delivered in the afternoon, while the Milwaukee Journal was written during the business day and delivered the following morning. My dad was a journalist and my mom was a teacher (they have both changed careers now) and they wanted to have dinner together. - Chicago again, where I went to college. - Berkeley, CA. where I now live for my software engineering job in San Francisco. My family is privileged in many ways (white skin, tradition of going to college, supportive households, etc). But no one in my family's history has had the incredible privilege of being born in a place that remains suitable for an entire lifetime, much less multiple generations of lifetimes. I cannot even comprehend what it would be like to be born in a place I could stay in forever while having a decent career. That must be nice if you can get it. In terms of public policy, I'd consider that kind of luxury to be on par with owning a vacation home. Yeah, it'd be nice if everyone could have that, but there are much more pressing problems to solve.
- taivare 10y ago
  I know people whom moved from my rust belt home town and after the crash in 08' lost job(s). The one person was living in Florida for years before the crash. They were basically strong armed by social services into returning to their home states if they wanted to keep receiving assistance. I imagine they felt family ties would help ease the burden, if said person were back home near family however, in this case his only sister wasn't able to provide much beyond emotional support. I remember reading of similar cases in Hawaii after the crash, in those cases people were given flight vouchers for a resettlement to their home states.
tomrod 10y ago
> imagine for a second someone telling you that 'you should just move from where you are because where you were born isn't good enough'. Not very considerate. Reality doesn't really care about consideration. Are God and Nature then at strife, That Nature lends such evil dreams? So careful of the type she seems, So careless of the single life; That I, considering everywhere Her secret meaning in her deeds, And finding that of fifty seeds She often brings but one to bear, I falter where I firmly trod, And falling with my weight of cares Upon the great world's altar-stairs That slope thro' darkness up to God, I stretch lame hands of faith, and grope, And gather dust and chaff, and call To what I feel is Lord of all, And faintly trust the larger hope. -Tennyson
NotSammyHagar 10y ago
I moved to the west coast from the south because educational and job opportunities were way better. I had finished my bs, but it was a very low avg state school. what i did anyone could. i want to help others but i dont know how.
solatic 10y ago
> Ask yourself if you think you just said is empathatic towards people in rural America? It's not a matter of empathy. There are laws of economics at play. The free market chooses the most competitive products and the most competitive products are made in economic centers. Capitalism favors cities. These economic forces are forces of nature, and opposing them is like opposing the laws of physics. Now, the government can step in to pump money into rural areas in various ways (direct investment, tax credits, etc.), to make their products more competitive. But that's unsustainable, and once you turn on the spigot you can't turn it off without hurting people even more. You want to know what it looks like when the government makes a determination on which areas are going to make which things, market competition be damned, for social reasons? It looks like the Soviet Union. We live in some very weird times if Republicans are getting elected to promote Soviet economic policy in America.

by jbhatab 10y ago

TuringNYC 10y ago

> imagine for a second someone telling you that 'you should just move from where you are because where you were born isn't good enough' Now imagine telling a corporation that 'you must build your factory only in City X' -- why should they? They will build where they find space at good rents and an industrial ecosystem and workers. What if the factory owner lives in California. So he has to move his life across the country and build in New Hampshire because a rural worker in New Hampshire didn't want to move themselves? How does this make sense?

dukeluke 10y ago
Capitalism is blind to political movements, wealth inequality, and full employment. All that matters is the bottom line. This is leading to globalism, automation, and use of illegal immigration which is gutting the lower and middle classes. Would it be best for the corporation? No, of course not. But there needs to be a balance between the lower and upper classes, and right now that balance is not there. A rising economy should benefit everyone. This lack of balance is why populist politicians were so popular this election.
- TuringNYC 10y ago
  Wouldn't a progressive, Bernie-style [limited] redistribution be better to achieve such a goal? Appropriate corporate tax funded social spending sound like a more efficient way to help everyone than forcing a factory owner in California to move his factory to some random rural area. I don't run a factory, but I am a full-time co-founder of a startup. There is no way I'd move our NYC-based operation to some rural area, there is little to no specialized technical community outside the major cities. For example, would I be able to attend weekly Machine Learning meetups in West Virginia? Would I be able to have lunch regularly with VCs in Ohio? I've been overseas doing a parallel medical trial, in a big city, and still it is very difficult to operate here. The depth of community just doesn't exist. I realize a tech startup isn't a perfect example, but I imagine some of the same concerns would be applicable to factory owners. It is simply not realistic to assume that employers (who already don't have trouble finding talent) should move to where workers are, rather than the opposite.
  - dukeluke 10y ago
    Factories and employers used to put factories in rural areas because of the cheap labor. Globalism has exploited the fact that many other countries don't have the labor laws or quality of life America does, and made it so rural America isn't an economically viable location to put jobs. I'd agree that a Bernie-style form of redistribution would be ideal, but in my opinion, it's important to be politically expedient. America's political system is rigged to the point where even if a redistribution program was passed, it would be removed within a decade. Given the fact that wealth and GDP has never been higher and that corporations are having no problem finding profits, we need to find a way to make rural America an economically feasible location to put jobs again, which means ending or slowing globalization.
  - ebiester 10y ago
    Would it solve problems if we had an equivalent to meetup for online meetups such as the above? If we suggest all can be done online, why aren't our meetups online? Certainly, time zones are an issue, and some meetup functions can be duplicated by a mailing list or forum, but why haven't we figured this one out? (The time zone could be solved by having multiple meetups and people go to the ones which are better for their time, for example.) And a speaker is something is probably easier than the average user group - someone just joins from their house...
edraferi 10y ago
Exactly! Viewed by the capitalist system, these communities are useless. People hate feeling useless, even if you give them everything they need to live (the Democrat's solution) So, how do you make economically irrelevant communities viable? I have no idea.
- zanny 10y ago
  The left solution is not simply throw money at the problem and ignore if it solves it. The basic income movement beneath a lot of this is meant to, over generations, migrate the culture from one where your work defines your value as a human being to one where you are valued for your non-monetary contributions to society as well.
- tomrod 10y ago
  A good, first approach is to structure incentives to encourage people to move from irrelevant communities. Such as not punishing manufacturing for moving overseas, ending non-strategic subsidies, and similar as the stick, and funding non-profits dedicated to helping people relocate to areas with brighter opportunities. We will have to do these things due to climate change anyway (create policies to handle migration) if the Agricultural Revolution is to ultimately win over Nomadism, we may as well figure out things that work here and now.
- rumcajz 10y ago
  Make remote work the standard option whenever possible. For example, all the paper pushing work can be easily made remote and distributed to rural areas.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    If you make remote work the standard, why wouldn't a company offshore it to remote workers who are often wildly cheaper due to market forces and market distortions (like minimum wage laws)? There are plenty of English reading/writing/speaking people in India capable of remote work.
- georgeecollins 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

closeparen 10y ago

>but imagine for a second someone telling you that 'you should just move from where you are because where you were born isn't good enough' I don't have to imagine it. There are 8 cities between my great-grandfather and me. - Russia (we don't know what city), where my great-grandfather was born. - St. Louis, where my great-grandfather settled as a refugee from the pogroms (he was Jewish). - Chicago, where my great-grandfather relocated for work and my grandfather did undergrad->PhD. - Seattle, where my grandfather moved after graduation and met my grandmother from Ottawa. - Lawrence, KS., where my grandfather got his faculty job and where my parents met. - Rochester, NY. where my parents moved after college. - Milwaukee, WI. because the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle was written during the evenings and delivered in the afternoon, while the Milwaukee Journal was written during the business day and delivered the following morning. My dad was a journalist and my mom was a teacher (they have both changed careers now) and they wanted to have dinner together. - Chicago again, where I went to college. - Berkeley, CA. where I now live for my software engineering job in San Francisco. My family is privileged in many ways (white skin, tradition of going to college, supportive households, etc). But no one in my family's history has had the incredible privilege of being born in a place that remains suitable for an entire lifetime, much less multiple generations of lifetimes. I cannot even comprehend what it would be like to be born in a place I could stay in forever while having a decent career. That must be nice if you can get it. In terms of public policy, I'd consider that kind of luxury to be on par with owning a vacation home. Yeah, it'd be nice if everyone could have that, but there are much more pressing problems to solve.

taivare 10y ago
I know people whom moved from my rust belt home town and after the crash in 08' lost job(s). The one person was living in Florida for years before the crash. They were basically strong armed by social services into returning to their home states if they wanted to keep receiving assistance. I imagine they felt family ties would help ease the burden, if said person were back home near family however, in this case his only sister wasn't able to provide much beyond emotional support. I remember reading of similar cases in Hawaii after the crash, in those cases people were given flight vouchers for a resettlement to their home states.

tomrod 10y ago

> imagine for a second someone telling you that 'you should just move from where you are because where you were born isn't good enough'. Not very considerate. Reality doesn't really care about consideration. Are God and Nature then at strife, That Nature lends such evil dreams? So careful of the type she seems, So careless of the single life; That I, considering everywhere Her secret meaning in her deeds, And finding that of fifty seeds She often brings but one to bear, I falter where I firmly trod, And falling with my weight of cares Upon the great world's altar-stairs That slope thro' darkness up to God, I stretch lame hands of faith, and grope, And gather dust and chaff, and call To what I feel is Lord of all, And faintly trust the larger hope. -Tennyson

NotSammyHagar 10y ago

I moved to the west coast from the south because educational and job opportunities were way better. I had finished my bs, but it was a very low avg state school. what i did anyone could. i want to help others but i dont know how.

solatic 10y ago

> Ask yourself if you think you just said is empathatic towards people in rural America? It's not a matter of empathy. There are laws of economics at play. The free market chooses the most competitive products and the most competitive products are made in economic centers. Capitalism favors cities. These economic forces are forces of nature, and opposing them is like opposing the laws of physics. Now, the government can step in to pump money into rural areas in various ways (direct investment, tax credits, etc.), to make their products more competitive. But that's unsustainable, and once you turn on the spigot you can't turn it off without hurting people even more. You want to know what it looks like when the government makes a determination on which areas are going to make which things, market competition be damned, for social reasons? It looks like the Soviet Union. We live in some very weird times if Republicans are getting elected to promote Soviet economic policy in America.