4 ms·

I honestly think this would do great things for the country. Politically, I believe a major factor in our divisiveness has been a lack of cross-pollination wit

by _bxg1 6y ago

I honestly think this would do great things for the country. Politically, I believe a major factor in our divisiveness has been a lack of cross-pollination with people who are different from us. People in the city stay in the city, and people in the country stay in the country. It's much easier to empathize with people in your "out-groups" when you know and interact with some of them personally. Economically, while urban centers have been exploding, rural America has been rotting. There's no economic export bringing money to many areas. And without that, entire towns sink into economic decay. Rural America was built on manufacturing, because all it required was cheap land, and that's largely gone now. Imagine a world where cheap land is once again the deciding factor that draws economic activity, because high-income remote-workers are drawn to it and have no other constraints. And then those people spend lots of money in all those little economies. Another aspect that's had a big impact on economic inequality is the growing cost-of-living gap. It's really hard to move to the city and seek a way upward in the world when you can't even hope to afford rent. Spreading out the white-collar jobs geographically could spread out the opportunity economically.

evgen 6y ago
This is not going to change the rural/urban dynamic because people are not going to migrate from high-cost cities to rural areas, they are going to migrate from high-cost cities to slightly lower cost cities that still have an acceptable level of culture/amenities/jobs. Techies and other over-educated people are still going to spend almost all of their time interacting with people of a similar education and socio-economic status. People left rural America for a reason, and a slight deviation from the coastal clustering is not going to change sufficiently to reverse the inevitable hollowing-out of rural counties.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  If these Covid shut downs last for much longer, how much "culture" is any city going to have left to offer? All the bars, restaurants and social gathering activities are going to be depressed for quite a few years.
  - 8bitsrule 6y ago
    Cities have been popular for thousands of years, for a reason. There's a huge demand for 'culture' (a way to get away from home). Yes, a lot of small/old venues/clubs are (and will no doubt continue) folding. Pretty sure the cultural vacuum will quickly fill somehow (maybe in evacuated warehouses?) with 'new normal' artistes. Clever restauranteurs will re-jigger their tactics. Etc.
- _bxg1 6y ago
  There are lots and lots of professionals who would love to just live on some land in a quiet corner of the country if it didn't mean giving up job prospects. And yes, there are people who would stay in cities for the culture and amenities. But I would guesstimate that the split on who would go where given the choice is more like 50/50.
  - 1stranger 6y ago
    50% seems... high. I don't think the majority of people are looking to become pioneers. Are the people who already work from home "live on some land"?
downerending 6y ago
I'm hopeful on this as well. Having lived both in NYC and rural areas (and places in between), I think that people shouldn't have to live in a place like NYC just for the money. Not everyone can be remote, but my job seems to be doing okay with it, and I'm inclined to include a 100%-remote requirement for future job hunts. And to move to a lower-density area next time that comes up.
- thephyber 6y ago
  To point out the obvious, if you aim to job hunt only within the "100% remote"-compatible employers: (1) You used to have a much larger share of the talent in your smaller pool. (2) You will now be the same sized fish in a much larger pond (potentially the whole world). Expect your salary offers to drop and your job search to last much longer unless you are a unique talent.
  - downerending 6y ago
    Not sure I agree with this. The important point is that a lot of employers have learned in the last few months that it really does work to let people work remotely. If so, the pool of employers is now far larger. Also, my comp is currently quite low, rather close to my "I'll just retire" line. Yeah, the offers could drop, but not far without market failure. Finally, I'm well over 50. Turns out that that matters more than anything else we're talking about here.

by _bxg1 6y ago

evgen 6y ago

This is not going to change the rural/urban dynamic because people are not going to migrate from high-cost cities to rural areas, they are going to migrate from high-cost cities to slightly lower cost cities that still have an acceptable level of culture/amenities/jobs. Techies and other over-educated people are still going to spend almost all of their time interacting with people of a similar education and socio-economic status. People left rural America for a reason, and a slight deviation from the coastal clustering is not going to change sufficiently to reverse the inevitable hollowing-out of rural counties.

chrisco255 6y ago
If these Covid shut downs last for much longer, how much "culture" is any city going to have left to offer? All the bars, restaurants and social gathering activities are going to be depressed for quite a few years.
- 8bitsrule 6y ago
  Cities have been popular for thousands of years, for a reason. There's a huge demand for 'culture' (a way to get away from home). Yes, a lot of small/old venues/clubs are (and will no doubt continue) folding. Pretty sure the cultural vacuum will quickly fill somehow (maybe in evacuated warehouses?) with 'new normal' artistes. Clever restauranteurs will re-jigger their tactics. Etc.
_bxg1 6y ago
There are lots and lots of professionals who would love to just live on some land in a quiet corner of the country if it didn't mean giving up job prospects. And yes, there are people who would stay in cities for the culture and amenities. But I would guesstimate that the split on who would go where given the choice is more like 50/50.
- 1stranger 6y ago
  50% seems... high. I don't think the majority of people are looking to become pioneers. Are the people who already work from home "live on some land"?

downerending 6y ago

I'm hopeful on this as well. Having lived both in NYC and rural areas (and places in between), I think that people shouldn't have to live in a place like NYC just for the money. Not everyone can be remote, but my job seems to be doing okay with it, and I'm inclined to include a 100%-remote requirement for future job hunts. And to move to a lower-density area next time that comes up.

thephyber 6y ago
To point out the obvious, if you aim to job hunt only within the "100% remote"-compatible employers: (1) You used to have a much larger share of the talent in your smaller pool. (2) You will now be the same sized fish in a much larger pond (potentially the whole world). Expect your salary offers to drop and your job search to last much longer unless you are a unique talent.
- downerending 6y ago
  Not sure I agree with this. The important point is that a lot of employers have learned in the last few months that it really does work to let people work remotely. If so, the pool of employers is now far larger. Also, my comp is currently quite low, rather close to my "I'll just retire" line. Yeah, the offers could drop, but not far without market failure. Finally, I'm well over 50. Turns out that that matters more than anything else we're talking about here.