Can Tech Save Small Town America?

theodp writes "Declaring that small town life no longer has to be separate from financial success thanks to technology, Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos told North Dakota state officials to take hope in people such as Napster's Shawn Fanning. Interesting remarks, considering that Fanning conceived Napster in small-town Boston and the jobs Amazon's brought to rural areas don't exactly scream financial success."

still mostly an exception

I think ultimately whether a town (small, that is) can be a place to be financially successful depends on:

• what constitutes a small town
• what constitutes financial success

Limited anecdotal cases show one can set up shop and make money in small town, USA, but a lot of what drives economies and business requires socially connected communities, typically large (larger than small towns).

People are still social creatures, business products are still tangible, and communities larger than small towns provide optimal management and distribution. I'm not sure this will change much in the forseeable future.

Yes, some people may make their fortune in small towns, but it remains the exception. And some big-money companies may toss a financial bone at small towns, but it remains only that. They're not developing a community, they're saving money -- it's little more than rural out-sourcing.

And for IT folks considering putting out a small town shingle, you can do it, but you'd better be good, and you'd better be prepared to sacrifice most of the small town life you'd anticipate, because, to land big-money gigs, you're going to have to be good above and beyond to assuage the suspicions of clients, and you're going to have to travel a lot, because they're still going to want to get a lot of face time with you.

Re:still mostly an exception

Funny, I was just reading a paper on this exact subject [frb.org]. A couple of economists, having noticed that similar businesses tend to clump together even on an intra-city scale, studied the pattern of business siting decisions in New York. (For instance, graphic design-related businesses are concentrated in Chelsea and along 23rd Street. Why?) Skip the boring regression analyses, which just formalize what you already know intuitively, and you have a good summary of why geography still matters--and always will.

Re:still mostly an exception

People are social creatures. But the outgoing aspect of it applies more to singles or couples without children. Couples with children have no time to go be social. They instead desire the benefits of a small town, (knowing your neighbor, letting your kids go out and play and not worrying, etc). Small towns a really the way outsourcing should be done. Put people who are raising families in smaller towns with less to do but a more friendly, (and inexpensive), environment.

I think that the angle for small towns is not small businesses working for big businesses, but big businesses setting up departments in small towns. A programming group set up in a small town should have better cohesion and while the big company can win the work on its big public image, the close-knit aspect of the small town center where the work is actually done can make the good product.

Re:still mostly an exception

Speaking of the family thing, I grew up in a small town in rural Alaska- about 10,000 people. It would be a great place to raise a family, except for two things. First, I don't have a family. I want one. But almost every girl who had anything going for her

Yes... and no

On the yes side: It is nice to have access to things that you wouldn't before the internet. You don't have to travel to a mall or specialty shop. This makes living in a less urban city not nearly the negative it used to be

On the no side: The mom and pop shops have dried up, losing a lot of the local economy. Towns that cannot adapt die. Neighbors do not talk to neighbors as much (why go outside), and the "homeyness" goes away.

Bottom line: Things change. For those who can adapt, it is a good thing. For those who cannot it is bad.

Real Question, based on headline!

Can technology ever solve social problems?

And now, for no additional charge, I provide the answer!
No!

Translation

Translation: we can drive down wages and increase management bonuses if we do this. This has nothing, I repeat NOTHING to do with saving small town America. CEOs don't give a rat's ass about small town America. What they do care about is increasing their profits, and if they can use our nostalgia for the past to get it, all the better.

Re:Translation

Well duh. All businesses want to increase profits. In fact, I greatly suspect you're not much different, and you even do stuff to try to increase your own salary. Shame on you!

I would LOVE to live in a small town. I was born and raised in one, and I hate the big city life. I would gladly trade a third of my salary for the same job in a small town. No commute, no traffic, no crime, affordable homes, friendly people. Someone, please exploit me!

These articles drive me nuts

All of these articles drive me crazy. I ran a business in "small town" America -- it was a retail store. I made sure my prices were just as competitive as Amazon or other dotcoms, and the local customers loved it to a point.

Yet the small town was the reason I had to leave the business. They wanted more sales tax revenue (which made me less competitive than the dotcoms once you factored in almost 9% additional cost). They wanted to raise minimum wages, which made it impossible to stay competitive with the dotcoms. They wanted me to add a bathroom once I doubled my square footage (I was the most successful ma-and-pa retail store in that town's history). They wanted me to add an additional handicapped parking spot (which ended up occupying more than 22% of my total available parking spots even though I had never had one handicapped customer in 4 years of business -- we sold sporting equipment).

In the end, I wouldn't surive even if a paperwork error forced us out of business anyway. The demands of small town USA made it so I couldn't be make it in small town USA.

People move to small towns often to get away from the high overhead of living in the urban areas. Rural living can often mean rural salaries. Yet the rural communities that I ran 2 out of my 3 retail stores in were trying very hard not to be rural. Taxes went up (sales, property and residual regulatory user fees). Citizen services went WAY up (volunteer fire and ambulance squads because taxpayer funded unions).

In the end, small town USA will destroy itself by pretending it can mimic the high debt, high tax world of the big city. The only thing they don't realize is that they will chase away the customers that drove to small town USA to save a buck or three. Who will pay for the "gentrification" changes then? Tech companies? Ha!

I hate to disagree but,

Jeff is more wrong than he is right. Tech companies are going to spring up in areas where techies are, that means mostly (good) university towns. Also, if the startups do get lucky, I think the newly minted founders would rather live in a nice(?) area than some backwater where the only hangout is some spit-and-saw-dust joint.

Small-town ISP's, call centers, etc.

In high school I worked for a local ISP that became the states second-largest. They were, and are, very successful. They now offer wireless to most of the southeastern part of this state.

Yes, this state is in the midwest. It is not impossible to be successful in a tech business in the midwest. There are a lot of success stories you don't hear about. One area that has a lot of potential and success stories is call centers. People from the midwest have a very neutral accent and make good people to talk to on the phone - and have a far lower cost of living than many other areas of the country (exclusing possibly the south - not a shot at the south, its where I'm living now).

-everphilski-

Re:Small-town ISP's, call centers, etc.

Sorry. Not a big fan of divulging personal information on the public forum :)

But to cite some references, here are some (inbound) call centers in the midwest:

Company I used to work for went from a local ISP consisting of 4 guys in a basement (I was guy

Technology, but not electronic

Technology can save old small town America, but it will be the technology of the past. Organic farming will play a large role, as will the re-opening of hospitals and schools in smaller centers so there are shorter distances for people to travel. The Internet will lend a hand of course, but improving communication and the need to go large distances for some school classes where there are good teachers for some subjects. It will also spread problem solving, for things like how to combat thistle without spraying. People will work in the fields, and live healthier lives with better locally grown food. The field work will give jobs to children looking to get into trouble if they can't find something interesting, and a way to make money to boot.

If we want to keep what we had, we have to find new ways to bring about how we were doing it in the first place.

Yea, that's really success.

Did anyone read this link [lexisnexis.com] from the summary?

The folks get to ride a bus for 3 hours each day to/from work. Their shift is really a 12-hour shift because of this, since they get it at 15:00 and get home around 03:00. The day shifters get 9.50$ US/Hour, and night people get 50 cents more (a whole 4$ more/day; 1,040$ more/year).

Given 52 weeks with 5 business days, 8 hours/day, gives a salary of $19,760 before taxes for the day shifters. Is that above the US poverty line? In Saskatchewan (where most of basic healthcare is taken care of, and things like food are a bit cheaper), our poverty line is around $16,000/year. Any medical problem in the US is going to cost hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars -- I've seen what your drugs cost at the corner store. If you adjust it, I'd say they're probably pretty close to the poverty line.

Adjusting the 8/hour wages for the true 12/hour day with commute, the poor folks are actually earning $6.34 an hour, which is a lot closer to minimum wage. You can argue that the time on the bus isn't lost to them, but I don't see them being able to pursue most hobbies, clean their houses, or be there for their children in that time.

So, in fact, tech is not saving small town America. These folks are just as poor and not well off as any inner-city folks who have to bus for hours to work for almost nothing, while their children are home alone. They live in poverty, and they have no time to themselves for self development.

Go save someone else

'Small towns' dont need your 'saving'. Some of us like 'small town America'. We moved away from the city for a reason. you can keep it, and your concepts to yourself and leave us alone. We dont need the crime, filth, taxes, traffic jams, etc.

Sure mod me down, but im not alone in my feelings.

Re:Go save someone else

How is this flamebait? The guy's being honest, and everything he said is true.

There's a big tendency in this country to suggest that anything that's not on the upper northeast of the country or on the left coast isn't worth living in.

I'm not sure how people can say that. When I listen to those people talk, they complain about (1) Housing prices, (2) how bad the schools are, (3) how bad the traffic is, and (4) the crime. (Basically, in that order). Then they turn right around and say how they could never live in "fly-over country".

But, you can get a damn big house for $200,000-$300,000 (like between 2000 and 3500 square feet), some great schools (if you pay attention to where you buy), traffic that actually moves at more than 20 miles per hour on the expressway, 4) lower crime rates.

Granted, no everyone likes small town America. If you tried it for a number of years, or grew up here, you gave it a shot.

But, if they don't want to live in a place they have no direct experience with, that's up to them.... however, ripping on a place when you have no experience with it... well, that makes you look foolish and very close-minded.

They did a study here.

I think it was the Canadian government that did a study of the benefits of internet access to small towns.

They basically found that it helps people find jobs in the cities faster, thus accelerating the exodus from the rural areas.

So yeah, I guess it helps small towns - by reducing the unemployment rate and breaking the cycle of despair and addiction that plagues so many of the people that live there.

Cultural Capital Issues

Not to rain on this particular parade, as I'd love to see certain areas I've lived in remain viable, but one of the issues for knowledge-economy is intellectual openness. How many small towns are going to put up with educated outsiders full of "Ideeers" coming in and changing things? If they have some experience (i.e. upstate NY, which used to have Kodak, Xerox, etc), then it's a return to a more profitable era, but for other regions, it's going to be "you dress funny, eat the wrong foods, don't worship our God often enough and we won't even get started on your foreign car". The school systems are also generally in need of upgrading to attract the type of workers that IT or other high-tech needs, and that starts even more conflicts. In modern societies with functioning educational systems, this idea might work. In many parts of the US, it's probably not worth the trouble.

Look at places such as Binghamton/Owego NY (I'm sure you have your local equivalents); even with a moderate-sized public university present, approximately 3 hours from NYC and Philly, very reasonable property, and a skilled workforce downsized from IBM, you can't attract enough investment to do better than limp along here. No local tech business of any size has been started to replace what's been lost, and the local governments aren't willing to take any meaningful steps to either encourage entrepeneurs or relocation by established businesses. Extrapolate this experience to some former wheat depot in Kansas, and you begin to see the problem.

I would put more money on relocation to the inner-city, gentrification, and reuse of brownfields than I would outsourcing to rural america. A cleaned-up Joiliette or Gary, IN, would be far more attractive than Snakenavel, KS.

Re:Cultural Capital Issues

i suggest that you tread carefully around the stereotype of the backwoods hick bigot lest you play into the city-slicker know-it-all stereotype. you have every right to disagree with the faith and values of Snakeville, KS and/or Islamabad, Afghanistan. but you would be wise to offer them the benefit of some doubt.

you can find competent knowledge workers among every race, creed, and sexual proclivity. i know some excellent software engineers who are "young earth creationists." their rational skills have been honed by virtue of defending their right to breath against eye-rolling Darwinists. in fact, out-groups are often the source of highly competent experts. it takes zero brainpower to roll the eyes and affirm conventional wisdom. and unless you're going to reengineer the Origin of the Species unconventional personal notions do not get in the way of the work.

i hope the a post-geographic society of smart folks collaborating where each person's talents are exercized regardless of their personal context. i tend to agree with you about Joliette and/or Gary (Grand Rapids, MI is quite comfortable), but if one can't work with a team-member from Snakenavel (and i'm not suggesting you can't), i won't want him on my team.

But we are talking past each other a little. I've focused on the local boy who chooses to telecommute from Hickville to the Big Apple, and you're talking about the city slicker who moves to Green Acres. If Snakeville, KS wants to prosper by attracting city slickers, then it had better make them comfy, otherwise they'll just up and move to Bugtussle. This dynamic could make for some interesting satellite communities...

Exhibit A = me

I just moved from Washington DC to a small riverfront town in Maryland to start my business. A large component of this decision -- aside from the reduction in stress -- was the ability to function on less money than I could in the city. A new business doesn't make a lot of money, but when your overhead is low you have more time to make it work for you. In the city, my overhead would have been too much. It's also cheaper to buy property in a small town than a city like DC.

Huh?

I don't quite understand the editorialization on the summary. Theodp tries to make it sound like Amazon.com's hiring practices are bad for rural America. But his links don't support that. They talk about having to bus workers in from out of town (as far away as the next state) to work seasonally in the warehouses.

But it's not like Amazon is turning down local workers in favor of out of town workers. According to one of the articles linked "more than 85 percent of the yearly labor needs are supplied by the local labor pool. Staff management works with local employment agencies, recruits at colleges and works with high schools to provide jobs for graduating seniors," and "we first start with the local labor pool, then broaden our search." Amazon is employing the locals and out of town people (which also help the locals by staying in hotels paid for by Amazon and patronizing locals businesses).

Amazon has also set up education programs to help potential-workers complete their GED, and supported other local programs. "Amazon.com has partnered with the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, Team Taylor County and Kentucky Adult Education to form the Go, Earn, Do program, which helps people earn their GED." According to an Amazon spokesman, "we've hired several graduates of the program so far and as the program grows we hope to hire even more."

So I really don't see Theodp's snarky objection to Amazon and Bezo's stand on how tech helps out rural areas. If anything, the articles he links actually support Bezos' claims.

Bezos' remarks on Shawn Fanning are on the mark, too. Sure, Fanning was in a Boston dorm room when he wrote Napster, but it's not like he needed the massive infrastructure of a huge city to do it, just an Internet connection. As Bezos points out, "that's the kind of thing people can do anywhere. They can do it in Seattle, they can do it in North Dakota."

So pretty much all of the editorializing in the summary is wrong, and doesn't seem to server any purpose other than to troll us. I guess I bit.

(An off topic ad hominem: theodp@ aol.com ? On Slashdot? Puh-leaze. I see September still hasn't ended.)

Screaming Financial Success

Maybe it doesn't scream financial success to you, but the something like a call-center job is pretty good compared to a lot of small-town jobs.

Why?

Serious.... why would we want to save small town America? It's like asking if tech can save hunter and gatherers.... Small towns are a way of life that are dying out for a reason. What we should be doing is making the transition as painless as possible....

Re:Yeah but...

Where are you going to find knowledgeable development/admin,etc staff in an Amish village somewhere?

Well, I think the real problem with and Amish SysAdmin is that its pretty hard to admin a machine without buttons ...

Re:the answer to outsourcing

Of course rural America understands technology. Let's see you operate or repair some of the newer combines, tractors, or farm implements. Rural America has always pushed the bill on farm and industrial technology. There is no reason why computers couldn't