11 ms·

> I've heard that people tend to be very different to those you find in a city In a lot of cases this is true - and it's not just about tech. Rural communities

by mdasen 5y ago

> I've heard that people tend to be very different to those you find in a city In a lot of cases this is true - and it's not just about tech. Rural communities are often more religious, more conservative, lower income, lower educated, and have a lot less access to opportunity. Cities also mean that there's often a critical mass for many interests and minority groups. Are you LGBT? Are you a religious or racial minority? Do you have hobbies that might be more unique? Cities have the critical mass for so many groups of people. Before I go further, I want to take a moment to talk about three things: income, education, and opportunity. Someone lacking any or all of those doesn't make them a bad person. However, moving to an area without those things can have an impact on you. In the US, a lot of services are paid for by property taxes collected by the municipality and county. If you move to an area where people are struggling, there isn't the same kind of money for services - and even if your housing is cheaper, you'll be paying a lot more in taxes since you might be going from "above average" to "really rich". Education and opportunity can also be a problem. Do you end up in an area where many have resorted to meth or opioids? Do you end up in an area where chronic unemployment is an issue? Again, this isn't people being bad or anything like that, but it can cause fear and resentment. There was an article (which I can't find right now) about the unionization drive at an Alabama Amazon fulfillment center. Amazon came into a town that basically hadn't had jobs and everyone was living pretty poorly. The article interviewed some people and the sentiment came across as people thinking that the place was dying and even if they wanted a union, they didn't want to risk going back to a place that was a disaster. In rural communities with flood risks, FEMA has bought and demolished properties rather than pay to rebuild them. This ends up gutting the tax base and leaves the community as a shell of itself. If the main store in your town and 5-10% of the houses get bought and demolished, you still have the roads, police, etc. to pay for with a dwindling tax base - and less reason for you to be there. https://mtgis-portal.geo.census.gov/arcgis/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=2566121a73de463995ed2b2fd7ff6eb7 https://mtgis-portal.geo.census.gov/arcgis/apps/MapSeries/in... Check out the census map and select "Population Change" and then zoom in one level so it shows counties. Many rural areas have lost 10-30% of their population over a decade. It isn't fun to be a part of a dwindling tax base. A lot of expenses don't go down as that tax base goes down. Along with this, I'd argue that there's a brain/income/opportunity-drain in a lot of rural communities. People who are richer, have more education, and more access to opportunity are more likely to leave. Are you buying into a location where the future isn't on your side? If you're thinking about the next 20-40 years of your life, I'd argue you need to think about climate change and whether the US will continue to subsidize rural life. If we're going to get serious about climate change, will that mean $10 gas? Even with electric cars, the cost will increase. Will we continue to spend a fortune on roads and other accommodations for rural life? The US spends a huge amount of money on rural telecom infrastructure our of taxes on urban areas. Will places like Amazon start differentiating shipping pricing? It's a lot cheaper for them to deliver in cities where the distance between stops is small. I don't expect anything extreme, but if things are getting 1% worse every year, that starts to add up. All that said, I do think that there are some good rural communities in New England - Central/Western Massachusetts and Vermont especially. You'll find high educational attainment, a population that is relatively stable, access to decent towns and cities, and a liberal enough attitude that won't expect you to conform to the hegemony as much as many rural places. Many of the Western Mass towns even have municipal fiber. I think you'd find enough tech workers around. Honestly, it's hard to say whether a place would be a good fit for you since I know almost nothing about you. Are you white, male, straight, Christian, etc.? A lot of rural places can become easier if you tick those boxes. If you don't tick those boxes, then you might start wondering how you might be treated differently from living in the city. It's also hard to know what you mean by "rural" since the distinction between suburban and rural is hard in the US. In Europe, things drop off to farmland very quickly. In the US, things just sprawl with no clear distinction. Is Saratoga Springs, NY rural? It's certainly a bit far from things and might be the "pastoral" feeling you're looking for, but it still has stuff around. Likewise, there are plenty of locations with very few people that might be an hour from a city like Boston. Boxborough, MA is an hour from Boston while covered in forest. I'd think of it as "suburban", but it might the rural/pastoral feel you're looking for while still being within commutable distance to everything. Maybe you're looking for a place like Saratoga Springs or Ashville, NC or Burlington, VT or Charlottesville, VA. I think those places could be really nice. I would caution about moving to an area that is seeing a lot of population decline that has a big lack of opportunity.

julianlam 5y ago
It seems peculiar to me that there is no standard process for the winding down of city governance when population dwindles. It's probably just the human element. I don't mean to be promoting some sort of libertarian "self-governance is great!" philosophy, just thinking out loud. Imagine a city building game where city expenses increase with each population milestone (due to new positions in local government, new departments, etc.). One would naturally expect that if the city population were to drop below a specific threshold, the appropriate departments would be wound down to curb expenditure. If there aren't enough people to economically support a parks department, then (sadly) let the parks go wild. Perhaps it's just hard to fire someone because an algorithm told you to do so. Real life is messy, after all.
- mdasen 5y ago
  You can wind down certain things, but at what point are you winding down stuff that's more on the necessity side of things? The US has a lot of crumbling infrastructure that needs repair and replacement and I don't think people want to be told "sorry, your house is only accessible by off-road vehicle now." We're spending over $20B to increase rural broadband because people in rural areas don't want to be told "sorry, the population has dropped below a certain threshold so we're winding down the internet in your area to curb expenditure." (And before someone talks about Starlink, SpaceX is looking to get a lot of that money). I think it's also not just about the emotions of firing someone. It's really hard to manage a downward trend - and not from a touchy-feely standpoint. If you're an uncaring machine and people leave, you fire a proportional number of government employees. But that doesn't solve the situation. Every business in the area now has fewer customers. At some point, those businesses close reducing tax revenue further and increasing unemployment more. It's not just the city that feels the pinch of a dwindling tax base - that dwindling tax base means there's also a dwindling consumer base. An important thing to remember is that cities/towns/counties often take out debt for spending that will pay off over time. For example, you want to build a school so you borrow $X and you'll pay it back over the next 30 years. You need to rebuild some roads so you borrow and pay it back over the next 30 years. However, if your population is dwindling, that can leave the town holding debt it can't really pay anymore. If you built a school for 1,000 students and then the population dwindles by 30% over the next 20 years, you're stuck paying for way more school than you need with fewer people paying for it. Ok, layoff some teachers - but you have to lay off more then 30% of the teachers because you're paying for 100% of the school debt and maintenance costs. So you fire 40-50% of the teachers, class sizes go up, the people with the best options (the most educated with the best job opportunities and most money) leave your town eroding the richest part of your tax base and leaving lower income people on the hook for that debt while they escape it...which causes you to fire more teachers which causes more people to leave... I think it's not just that there's a messy human side to it, but that it's hard to manage decline. Ok, you wind down a department. What about the building? Maybe you can sell it, but probably at a loss since you have a declining purchasing base. As you wind down a parks department or library, the richest people are likely to leave. Now your algorithm requires more cuts. And the sad state of it is that it's often not a parks department. It can be things like roads or safe drinking water. There is also a messy human side of it as well, for sure, but it's just hard to manage decline. I can totally see the game: you cut the parks department and the rich people complain, sell their house for 15% below previous market value and leave, and your tax base dwindles more. You cut after-school programs and more rich people complain about the town and schools and leave - and your tax base dwindles more. You try to attract new residents to YouVille and cartoon characters say, "I want a town that invests in its schools," and "everyone I know is talking about leaving YouVille."

by mdasen 5y ago

julianlam 5y ago

It seems peculiar to me that there is no standard process for the winding down of city governance when population dwindles. It's probably just the human element. I don't mean to be promoting some sort of libertarian "self-governance is great!" philosophy, just thinking out loud. Imagine a city building game where city expenses increase with each population milestone (due to new positions in local government, new departments, etc.). One would naturally expect that if the city population were to drop below a specific threshold, the appropriate departments would be wound down to curb expenditure. If there aren't enough people to economically support a parks department, then (sadly) let the parks go wild. Perhaps it's just hard to fire someone because an algorithm told you to do so. Real life is messy, after all.

mdasen 5y ago
You can wind down certain things, but at what point are you winding down stuff that's more on the necessity side of things? The US has a lot of crumbling infrastructure that needs repair and replacement and I don't think people want to be told "sorry, your house is only accessible by off-road vehicle now." We're spending over $20B to increase rural broadband because people in rural areas don't want to be told "sorry, the population has dropped below a certain threshold so we're winding down the internet in your area to curb expenditure." (And before someone talks about Starlink, SpaceX is looking to get a lot of that money). I think it's also not just about the emotions of firing someone. It's really hard to manage a downward trend - and not from a touchy-feely standpoint. If you're an uncaring machine and people leave, you fire a proportional number of government employees. But that doesn't solve the situation. Every business in the area now has fewer customers. At some point, those businesses close reducing tax revenue further and increasing unemployment more. It's not just the city that feels the pinch of a dwindling tax base - that dwindling tax base means there's also a dwindling consumer base. An important thing to remember is that cities/towns/counties often take out debt for spending that will pay off over time. For example, you want to build a school so you borrow $X and you'll pay it back over the next 30 years. You need to rebuild some roads so you borrow and pay it back over the next 30 years. However, if your population is dwindling, that can leave the town holding debt it can't really pay anymore. If you built a school for 1,000 students and then the population dwindles by 30% over the next 20 years, you're stuck paying for way more school than you need with fewer people paying for it. Ok, layoff some teachers - but you have to lay off more then 30% of the teachers because you're paying for 100% of the school debt and maintenance costs. So you fire 40-50% of the teachers, class sizes go up, the people with the best options (the most educated with the best job opportunities and most money) leave your town eroding the richest part of your tax base and leaving lower income people on the hook for that debt while they escape it...which causes you to fire more teachers which causes more people to leave... I think it's not just that there's a messy human side to it, but that it's hard to manage decline. Ok, you wind down a department. What about the building? Maybe you can sell it, but probably at a loss since you have a declining purchasing base. As you wind down a parks department or library, the richest people are likely to leave. Now your algorithm requires more cuts. And the sad state of it is that it's often not a parks department. It can be things like roads or safe drinking water. There is also a messy human side of it as well, for sure, but it's just hard to manage decline. I can totally see the game: you cut the parks department and the rich people complain, sell their house for 15% below previous market value and leave, and your tax base dwindles more. You cut after-school programs and more rich people complain about the town and schools and leave - and your tax base dwindles more. You try to attract new residents to YouVille and cartoon characters say, "I want a town that invests in its schools," and "everyone I know is talking about leaving YouVille."