Comment by thirdsun | Hacker News Reader

Comment by thirdsun | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It's not Amazon, its not 'big box' chains, its that the city no longer has a production base and so the fraction of GDP this space used to produce has gone away.

I disagree. In my opinion this development is very much related to Amazon and e-commerce in general. I'm living in a rural region that saw a lot of retail disappearing, yet I really don't see people cutting back or buying less. They just buy elsewhere. And who could blame them? Researching products online provides way more information than your small store around the corner could offer. Selection is vastly superior on the internet - not just on Amazon and big brand stores, but countless of stores catering to niche interests. Those have never been around here. However even general goods like clothing, mainstream tech, etc. - very often I know what I want and find myself just as certain that it's not available locally. Just the other day I needed a new vacuum and decided to get a specific Miele model. Before ordering I wanted to see if I could get it immediately in a 30 minute drive radius and contacted several stores that were featured on Miele's list of retailers. Poor websites all over the place. So I sent an e-mail to all of them, asking if could come by later and pick up the specific model if it's available. No store replied within the day, none of the stores had the model which I was looking for, which wasn't very niche either. Didn't matter - later that day I ordered from Amazon and had it delivered the next day via Prime.

I'm sorry, but when it comes to information, selection, availability and convenience there's simply no local competition for e-commerce.

Amazon like most consolidators can still prosper amoungnst the ruins.

I grew up in a rural mostly farming community. The farming part started dying when I was in school in the 90s. Now it's throughly dead. People are still surviving, but the "rich" folks are teachers, cops, and government workers who commute an hour to the state capital.

When you drive though you can see the decay -- unpainted house here, barn with a hole in the roof there, dollar general store popping up over here. It's the inner city replicated in the countryside. There's more misery than there was 20 years ago.

it's interesting that the 'rich' folks are government workers. maybe that's the employment model of the new normal in a LOT of places.

it makes me wonder if, really, that's the model that has always been the norm, historically.

i mean, when i think about the civil service jobs in the UK, or the true original civil service jobs in China going back centuries, i see a system where the brightest, most motivated minds compete for a limited number of government job posts - because those are the best jobs available.

occasionally in history, there are times when the private sector offers paths to affluence for the masses, but mostly, that's not what happens. mostly, we're trying to get a legally protected, high-benefit position in government. most of the time, historically, that's the most lucrative path.

Gov't workers can't be outsourced overseas and they're usually able to pay well. This is why after an industrial base is wiped out, the only people making a decent salary work for the state.

But these towns are going to keep getting wiped out until we free up the concentration of capital that favors dense urban areas

> until we free up the concentration of capital that favors dense urban areas

What is this supposed to mean? Is "favor[ing] dense urban areas" somehow wrong? What dark force is driving this concentration of capital? What is necessary to free it?

Consolidation in finance and other sectors has made it difficult or impossible for small and medium business to survive. As regional banking dries up, its dramatically more difficult for firms to get loans, even for working capital.

There's no reason for large banks to lend money. They can print money via the Fed to get their assets and lend money to the highest quality borrowers or those with explicit government guarantees. The traditional regional banking model was much better for everyone.

"They can print money via the Fed to get their assets..."

I don't think that's how it works.

Are you (and kesselvon) suggesting that otherwise viable businesses are getting wiped out because they are in small towns? And the reason for that is that regional banking is "drying up"?

That seems improbable to me, especially at a time when so much capital is looking for a decent return

Also, as I asked, what does this have to do with "dense urban areas" being "favored"?

> Consolidation in finance and other sectors has made it difficult or impossible for small and medium business to survive

reminds me of the VC / startup landscape

I wonder a lot about this. Everyone I know in my hometown works in some sort of local service industry -- for the most part city government, healthcare, or construction. The factories are all closed down, there's very little office space, and it's a bit too far from the regional capital to commute. I really wonder what economy all the service workers are there to support.

Couple of years ago I was wondering why the hate on government workers in places like this. And then had the thought. My dad worked for the government as an engineer. But he made probably 80% of prevailing bay area wages. Thought is once you get out into less flush parts of the US the government jobs probably pay much better than prevailing wages. Breeds resentment.

It's not only in places like that. Even in Los Angeles, some residents have the feeling that government workers are a kind of protected elite class, mostly insulated from the free market's demands for ever increasing productivity and efficiency, global competition, economic cycles and the high cost of health care and retirement.

See, for example: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-dwp-cont...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com