Hacker News Reader

Comment by aantix | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

No. As someone who lives in such a town, there aren't any "tradeoffs" that one would assume. There's just increased limitations and downsides. For example with suburban and exurban sprawl being such a problem that means that traveling further and further to work becomes the norm if you don't live in one of the "desirable" cities. Which necessitates a car in the U.S. because public transport is for some stupid reason seen as antithetical to existence. Purchasing options are also extremely limited, because the economic strength required for diversity doesn't exist. It's either big box retail for almost all purchases or nothing. This also means that as time goes on the area gets economically weaker, as the wealth is being extracted by those national and international chains and being absorbed into the national and international economies instead of being circulated around the local economy like what would happen with a corner store or boutique shop. With both of those factors it's unlikely you'd be able to get a worthwhile loan for any niche business either, meaning you can't diversify the local economy without already being wealthy. If you're wealthy that negates the entire reason for moving to a low cost of living area in the first place. And if you're not wealthy, say you lost the job that you moved to take advantage of in the first place. If you can't land remote work your workplace prospects without having to move again are much lesser because of the above stated reasons.

> It just means you may have to roll up your sleeves and help create the community you want.

Citation needed. There are so many of these small towns that are hurting surely, you can find a single example or anecdote that backs up the claim that this is a plausible much less obvious solution.

The numbers indicate that levels of poverty are higher in those small towns per-capita in the US [1]. And these studies have yet to include the impact of COVID-19. Anecdotally, every small town I know of saw wages go down and housing prices increase in the pandemic.

Also wages in urban areas are growing faster than rural areas [2]. So your lifetime earning potential is dramatically impacted by being in a smaller town. That may be a good choice for many people but if the argument is that you will be better off financially the numbers don’t support that.

[1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rur... [2] https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/Research/Interactive...

As one of the top comments in the link point out, pick a smaller town, your salary will be smaller to match (if there's even a job available in something you want to do, are trained in doing, are good at, etc.). You still aren't coming out ahead like one would with the economic advantages that were handed out to an earlier generation.

Assuming software engineer, work remote.

This may vary by country. In Canada, even small towns have vanishing affordability, especially compared with income.

The proportion of rural and small town sales hit a record high. Suburban and urban, a record low. According to the national association of realtors.

https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/nar-finds-share-of-first-ti...

Not a single deal to be found in all of Canada?

You only need to find one house. Aggregate numbers aren’t useful.

>Pick a smaller town

In Canada, good luck getting non-dialup if you move too far out. Getting decent Internet service is harder when you go remote.

Starlink.

> Pick a smaller town, a couple of hours outside of these locations, and there’s plenty of approachable housing.

The housing is cheap for a reason. Usually, the infrastructure is derelict turning what should be a 20 minute shopping trip to an 2 hour ordeal, there's nothing to spend your time other than some shoddy old bar selling moonshine and an improvised shooting range, there are no other young people, there is no Internet worth being called that (although Starlink has changed at least that equation), and on top of that comes the political disconnect between urban and rural areas.

Theres tons of stuff to do!! Make a gocart. Build a barn. Raise some animals. Make a telescope! motorize it. Make statues, do electronics, paint, write poems, sing, play violin outside as loud as you want! Garden!

Modern people really have forgotten how to have fun without malls and expensive shit! Dig a hole. Make a hil. BLOW IT UP. MAKE A BONFIRE. HUGE PARTY.

Ah, yes, have tons of fun in or around your own home because there's jack around it for miles and miles.

Also, most of the homes that are being built in the sub/ex-urban neighborhoods that people are moving into have HOAs that prohibit at least half of that stuff and lot sizes that prohibit the other half.

I hate HOA too! Shouldnt be illegal! Guess I gotta move even more remote then.

> Theres tons of stuff to do

Agreed, but kids generally want to play around with other kids, and the more rural a place gets the less kids it has.

I find that small towns are one of the few places where kids regularly play outside.

The tapestry has changed in large suburban neighborhoods. Kids stay inside so much more. It’s sad.

People should have more kids! I bet being an only child in a rural setting is tough. I only had my one brother but it was awesome.

Great comment. I think HN commenters tend to skew young and urban and it's always nice to remind people that there is not one universally correct way to live. There can be more to life than typical urban amenities like restaurants, cafés, nightlife, clubs, museums, parks, boutique shopping and so on.

I wonder if the distribution of creativity is truly low in humans or if people just havent gotten the opportunity to cultivate it because of the culture.

Starling absolutely changes this equation.

Politics change as the people do. You have the opportunity to build the community you want. And own a home at very reasonable price, leaving money for so many more experiences.

And some of the “desirable” cities, their public schools are arguably worse than any small school, rural experience. SF public schools have an atrocious reputation.

The article is about England, not San Francisco and the assumptions do not hold about internet, school quality, rural areas being undesirable or much else really…

Starlink changes everything about Internet access.

“Undesirable” - living in an area with a great home at reasonable price with beautiful views vs paying rent maybe forever or living with parents indefinitely?

Which feels the most painful?

Eventually when you can’t afford something, you find a new set of trade offs or build it from the ground up.

The point you're missing here is that in England (which the article is about), living in "the countryside" is not cheaper than living in a city in many cases, other than London - it's been more desirable to live in rural areas for a long time for a lot of people. It's practically a rite of passage for young professionals starting families to moving out of London to a village in the Cotswolds or Mendips.

Starlink doesn't really change much in England either, where reasonable rural internet access has been prioritised for a long time. Perhaps it makes Scottish islands more accessible though.

This is a very negative view of non-urban life that isn't reflected by any of the non-urban places I've lived.

It's reflected in all the non-urban places I've lived including the current one. Though the internet situation is improving with the FCC's rural broadband initiative.

Fair enough, hurray for anecdata.

My house has cable, but Mom's farm is on satellite (Hughes, then Exede, now Starlink). It's finally acceptable. My understanding is that the county took a RBI grant that was contracted and them absconded with, but I wasn't living here at the time and don't know the details.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com