Match.com, except for places to live?

[Phoenix84]

I thought this was an interesting opinion piece.

www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/28/can-match-com-help-rural-america-be-great-again.html

"So how do you fix a problem that started nearly 200 years ago with the advent of the Industrial Revolution? Is it even possible?



You bet. Just ask South Dakota.



Faced with a dwindling rural population, political leaders in Pierre created a savvy recruiting tool – DakotaRoots.com – and related marketing campaign to peak the interest of young workers.



The pitch was personal. Business leaders, state government officials, and average citizens all reached out to those applicants who expressed a desire to be a Dakotan. These civic leaders worked hard to ensure that interested professionals found the right city and the right job. Sometimes that even included personal phone calls.



Their efforts paid off. More than 4,000 people now call South Dakota home because of the Dakota Roots program.



Success like this rarely goes unnoticed. Other states – such as Idaho and Wyoming – have adopted similar programs too.



While these initiatives are laudable, critics rightfully point out that these outcomes are relatively modest. Rural America doesn’t just need a few thousand people to rebuild its economy. It needs millions.



In the language of entrepreneurs, these matchmaking efforts are an important beta test but, unless they are scaled, will have limited impact.



And that is the key to repopulating rural America. There are millions of people who are looking for a new or better life. And there are thousands of unique communities that want to give them just that."


Note, I'd prefer to keep politics out of the discussion.  I found the concept of creating a match making service for cities or places to live intriguing, and how it could possibly be used to get middle class families and young professionals to move from high COLA areas like NYC, San Francisco, and Washington DC to more rural states/cities.

What do you think?  Is this something that would work?  Would you consider using an app like this that matched you with a "ideal" job/location?  Is there a future in something like this?  What do you think of local communities offering incentives to get people to move there?

[Tennesseer]

What ever works.

FarmersOnly.com founder on why rural Americans need their own dating site

[Deleted]

Sound good to me. Why not?

[tskeeter]

Not all that different from what DW and I did to pick a location to retire in.  Used some web sites that recommended locations based on what criteria you entered and how important you rated each attribute.  Discarded some recommendation based on additional research.  Visited some of the targeted locations.  If jobs had been tied into other data it would have been even better.  Been living in one of the recommended locations for over 10 years.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 29, 2017 18:09:52 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

What ever works.

FarmersOnly.com founder on why rural Americans need their own dating site

Sure, but the opinion piece was about using a website that instead of using algorithms to match you up with a date, they'll match you up with a place (in this case a more rural place) to live.

[Tennesseer]

Mar 29, 2017 20:00:01 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 29, 2017 18:09:52 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

What ever works.

FarmersOnly.com founder on why rural Americans need their own dating site

Sure, but the opinion piece was about using a website that instead of using algorithms to match you up with a date, they'll match you up with a place (in this case a more rural place) to live.

I know that. But I also know it's tough for rural/farming folks to meet like-minded folks who may want to hook up for marriage and such. Just another way to populate rural areas. Not easy to socialize as fsrmers.

[alabamagal]

Are there jobs in rural America? I know there are in South Dakota, but you can't recruit people if there are no jobs.

I lived for 30 years in a town of 100k in the middle of a large rural farming area. The farms were primarily peanuts, cotton, pecan groves. All are mechanized farms and require little labor. Small towns were dying. There were no jobs.

Aside from the idealistic version of small town life, I don't think that is a problem. There is a reason that they are small.

Even in a town of 100k, there are limited shopping opportunities, limited cultural opportunities. If I wanted to go to a pro sports or decent concert it was 3 or 4 hour drive.

For the people who moved to South Dakota, I wonder how many stay after they dig out from the first winter.

[giramomma]

If millions move to rural areas, are they rural anymore?


Here's some definitions of rural:
of or relating to the country, country people or life, or agriculture. (Miriam Webster)
in, relating to, or characteristic of the countryside rather than the town (Google)

And the gov't
"ERS researchers and others who analyze conditions in "rural" America most often study conditions in nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) areas, defined on the basis of counties. Counties are the standard building block for collecting economic data and for conducting research to track and explain regional population and economic trends. Nonmetro counties include some combination of: that are not part of larger labor market areas (metropolitan areas)."

open countryside,
rural towns (places with fewer than 2,500 people), and
urban areas with populations ranging from 2,500 to 49,999

www.nal.usda.gov/ric/what-is-rural

What do you think of local communities offering incentives to get people to move there?

There's a bill in our state legislature to begin a student loan forgiveness program for young people that want to own smaller family farms.

Our state also has a student loan forgiveness program for folks in the medical field. Think Northern Exposure..

I think these things are good. Obviously, rural folks need medical attention. And the large mega farms are not embraced by all.

Personally, I would never move to a rural area. I mean, sure, housing runs half of what we pay for a house in a MCOLA, but so do salaries. You also have to drive a whole lot more.  I used to have family that lived in a small town...of about 15K. It's a 1.5 hour drive to the biggest city which is 64K. That 1.5 hour drive...that's in one direction.

I also like being close to top rated hospitals, etc. I like having choices of stores, restaurants, etc. I want big libraries open for more than 25 hours a week.  (DH's grandma lived in city of about 1K. She was a widower for over a decade; before that a SAHM/W. The running joke between her and the public library in town was that she read all of the books they had to offer and had to often request books from other cities.)

That said, I think not all small town living is the same. minnesotapaintlady has got access to good medical care, etc. I'm inclined to think her location is the exception, not the norm.

ETA:
In our state...folks living in rural areas also have some pretty big issues to overcome if they want to draw folks.

School systems are disbanding because how they are funded. Lawmakers also passed a law saying that teachers don't have to be certified anymore because in some rural areas, they couldn't find certified teachers to fill positions, like say teaching shop class.

NO ONE wants to put broadband internet in rural areas. Not the gov't and not businesses.

The funding of roads is really contentious in our state right now. This is a quote from a lawmaker pulled from today's news in my state "X said townships in the rural district are hurting for road and bridge funds."

[Phoenix84]

Mar 29, 2017 20:07:46 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

Are there jobs in rural America? I know there are in South Dakota, but you can't recruit people if there are no jobs.

I lived for 30 years in a town of 100k in the middle of a large rural farming area. The farms were primarily peanuts, cotton, pecan groves. All are mechanized farms and require little labor. Small towns were dying. There were no jobs.

Aside from the idealistic version of small town life, I don't think that is a problem. There is a reason that they are small.

Even in a town of 100k, there are limited shopping opportunities, limited cultural opportunities. If I wanted to go to a pro sports or decent concert it was 3 or 4 hour drive.

For the people who moved to South Dakota, I wonder how many stay after they dig out from the first winter.

Jobs and infrastructure are the biggest obstacles I see.  Sure, you can move to a small town but will there be a job for your profession there?  But on the other hand, how can a job exist if there is no one to fill it?  It's kind of a chicken and the egg situation.

I've always maintained that the federal government should de centralize out of DC.  Sure, keep the white house and congress there, but there's no reason all the federal agencies have to keep their headquarters in the DC area. 

Move the department of Agriculture to Iowa.  Move the pentagon to Georgia.  Move the department of homeland security to Colorado.  You can move any agency almost anywhere.  And if you do that, you suddenly have tens of thousands of jobs in a place that never had them before.  Granted, most of those jobs would be filled by outsiders, but it would definitely be a shot in the arm to the local economy. 

And it'd be good from a strategic/military perspective. 

[Bonny]

Mar 30, 2017 9:52:54 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 29, 2017 20:07:46 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

Are there jobs in rural America? I know there are in South Dakota, but you can't recruit people if there are no jobs.

I lived for 30 years in a town of 100k in the middle of a large rural farming area. The farms were primarily peanuts, cotton, pecan groves. All are mechanized farms and require little labor. Small towns were dying. There were no jobs.

Aside from the idealistic version of small town life, I don't think that is a problem. There is a reason that they are small.

Even in a town of 100k, there are limited shopping opportunities, limited cultural opportunities. If I wanted to go to a pro sports or decent concert it was 3 or 4 hour drive.

For the people who moved to South Dakota, I wonder how many stay after they dig out from the first winter.

Jobs and infrastructure are the biggest obstacles I see.  Sure, you can move to a small town but will there be a job for your profession there?  But on the other hand, how can a job exist if there is no one to fill it?  It's kind of a chicken and the egg situation.

I've always maintained that the federal government should de centralize out of DC.  Sure, keep the white house and congress there, but there's no reason all the federal agencies have to keep their headquarters in the DC area. 

Move the department of Agriculture to Iowa.  Move the pentagon to Georgia.  Move the department of homeland security to Colorado.  You can move any agency almost anywhere.  And if you do that, you suddenly have tens of thousands of jobs in a place that never had them before.  Granted, most of those jobs would be filled by outsiders, but it would definitely be a shot in the arm to the local economy. 

And it'd be good from a strategic/military perspective. 

They WANT to be close together. There are a lot of high level one on one meetings that happen and it's not as effective with phone or even a skype-type meeting.

There are de-centralized parts of the Fed government but if you want to advance to the highest levels you are going to do time in D.C.

Look at the Silicon Valley situation. Some of the highest priced real estate in the country yet most tech companies want to be there. Sure they will set up satellite locations in cheaper areas yet H.Q. remains. You have to ask yourself why is that?

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2017 0:21:11 GMT -5 giramomma said:

NO ONE wants to put broadband internet in rural areas. Not the gov't and not businesses.

Wireless broadband covers a lot of area though.  According to Broadbandnow.com 90% of MN residents and 86% of WI have 25mbs available to them.  I know there are a lot of counties that are sitting at 50-60% coverage, but there are a crap ton of northern lakes counties that I think of as being really away from it all that are listed as 75-80% coverage. 

broadbandnow.com/Minnesota

[billisonboard]

My small town has 2,600 people.

[swamp]

Mar 30, 2017 10:52:29 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Mar 30, 2017 0:21:11 GMT -5 giramomma said:

NO ONE wants to put broadband internet in rural areas. Not the gov't and not businesses.

Wireless broadband covers a lot of area though.  According to Broadbandnow.com 90% of MN residents and 86% of WI have 25mbs available to them.  I know there are a lot of counties that are sitting at 50-60% coverage, but there are a crap ton of northern lakes counties that I think of as being really away from it all that are listed as 75-80% coverage. 

broadbandnow.com/Minnesota

Here I am posting from a rural area on broadband cable internet.

This area still needs more coverage, but the population centers are wired.

[alabamagal]

Mar 30, 2017 10:29:05 GMT -5 Bonny said:

Mar 30, 2017 9:52:54 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jobs and infrastructure are the biggest obstacles I see.  Sure, you can move to a small town but will there be a job for your profession there?  But on the other hand, how can a job exist if there is no one to fill it?  It's kind of a chicken and the egg situation.

I've always maintained that the federal government should de centralize out of DC.  Sure, keep the white house and congress there, but there's no reason all the federal agencies have to keep their headquarters in the DC area. 

Move the department of Agriculture to Iowa.  Move the pentagon to Georgia.  Move the department of homeland security to Colorado.  You can move any agency almost anywhere.  And if you do that, you suddenly have tens of thousands of jobs in a place that never had them before.  Granted, most of those jobs would be filled by outsiders, but it would definitely be a shot in the arm to the local economy. 

And it'd be good from a strategic/military perspective. 

They WANT to be close together. There are a lot of high level one on one meetings that happen and it's not as effective with phone or even a skype-type meeting.

There are de-centralized parts of the Fed government but if you want to advance to the highest levels you are going to do time in D.C.

Look at the Silicon Valley situation. Some of the highest priced real estate in the country yet most tech companies want to be there. Sure they will set up satellite locations in cheaper areas yet H.Q. remains. You have to ask yourself why is that?

One of the few things I have read about the current "government reform" movement is the statement that the government is to serve the people, not to serve the government. 

Your example of silicon valley is on point, but there are other areas where other industries are centered, and not necessarily in Washington.  Oil industry in on gulf coast, but Energy Department is in DC.  Pharma is in NE, but FDA is in DC area.  There is little agriculture in DC area, but that is where Department of Agriculture is.  Maybe is the heads of the VA were out talking to Veterans, they would realize that their administrators were cooking the books to make themselves look good. 

[billisonboard]

My county has 22.8% access to broadband. broadbandnow.com/Washington

I have about 10 mbps.

[Bonny]

Mar 30, 2017 12:36:51 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

Mar 30, 2017 10:29:05 GMT -5 Bonny said:

They WANT to be close together. There are a lot of high level one on one meetings that happen and it's not as effective with phone or even a skype-type meeting.

There are de-centralized parts of the Fed government but if you want to advance to the highest levels you are going to do time in D.C.

Look at the Silicon Valley situation. Some of the highest priced real estate in the country yet most tech companies want to be there. Sure they will set up satellite locations in cheaper areas yet H.Q. remains. You have to ask yourself why is that?

One of the few things I have read about the current "government reform" movement is the statement that the government is to serve the people, not to serve the government. 

Your example of silicon valley is on point, but there are other areas where other industries are centered, and not necessarily in Washington.  Oil industry in on gulf coast, but Energy Department is in DC.  Pharma is in NE, but FDA is in DC area.  There is little agriculture in DC area, but that is where Department of Agriculture is.  Maybe is the heads of the VA were out talking to Veterans, they would realize that their administrators were cooking the books to make themselves look good. 

You're right that the government should be serving the people. But the point I was trying to make is that the top government depts. are going to want White House/Congressional access and vice versa.

And those industry lobbyists are in DC for a reason!

[Phoenix84]

Mar 30, 2017 12:59:01 GMT -5 Bonny said:

Mar 30, 2017 12:36:51 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

One of the few things I have read about the current "government reform" movement is the statement that the government is to serve the people, not to serve the government. 

Your example of silicon valley is on point, but there are other areas where other industries are centered, and not necessarily in Washington.  Oil industry in on gulf coast, but Energy Department is in DC.  Pharma is in NE, but FDA is in DC area.  There is little agriculture in DC area, but that is where Department of Agriculture is.  Maybe is the heads of the VA were out talking to Veterans, they would realize that their administrators were cooking the books to make themselves look good. 

You're right that the government should be serving the people. But the point I was trying to make is that the top government depts. are going to want White House/Congressional access and vice versa.

And those industry lobbyists are in DC for a reason!

I think it'd be possible if there was the will to do it.  I could see in the early days before internet and modern air travel, why large groups would need to be in the same area to function.  But that's not so in 2017.

And as I said, there is a strategic reason to do this too.  If something happens in DC, bad weather, nuclear strike, pandemic, it essentially shuts down the whole government.  If the government is spread out, losing one city doesn't mean we lose everything.

You are right in that I don't anticipate it happening any time soon.  The government changes course at the speed of an albatross.

[Bonny]

Mar 30, 2017 13:54:01 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 30, 2017 12:59:01 GMT -5 Bonny said:

You're right that the government should be serving the people. But the point I was trying to make is that the top government depts. are going to want White House/Congressional access and vice versa.

And those industry lobbyists are in DC for a reason!

I think it'd be possible if there was the will to do it.  I could see in the early days before internet and modern air travel, why large groups would need to be in the same area to function.  But that's not so in 2017.

And as I said, there is a strategic reason to do this too.  If something happens in DC, bad weather, nuclear strike, pandemic, it essentially shuts down the whole government.  If the government is spread out, losing one city doesn't mean we lose everything.

You are right in that I don't anticipate it happening any time soon.  The government changes course at the speed of an albatross.

4" of snow will do it.

I just don't think it's going to change. Power wants to be around power.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

If the government is spread out, losing one city doesn't mean we lose everything.

Have you never watched the History Channel special about the secret bunkers?

[wvugurl26]

There are underground tunnels between my DC buildings. Very handy when there are protestors outside one.

Treasury moved a big section to WV. The DC area people didn't want to move. Then you are limited to that one agency, you can't move around to get promoted.

And now 15-20 years later I can definitely say there aren't more jobs because of them. Maybe temporarily but the area has lost so many other jobs it's probably a net loss.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Mar 30, 2017 15:05:11 GMT -5 Bonny said:

Mar 30, 2017 13:54:01 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I think it'd be possible if there was the will to do it.  I could see in the early days before internet and modern air travel, why large groups would need to be in the same area to function.  But that's not so in 2017.

And as I said, there is a strategic reason to do this too.  If something happens in DC, bad weather, nuclear strike, pandemic, it essentially shuts down the whole government.  If the government is spread out, losing one city doesn't mean we lose everything.

You are right in that I don't anticipate it happening any time soon.  The government changes course at the speed of an albatross.

4" of snow will do it.

I just don't think it's going to change. Power wants to be around power.

it wilL also cost a ton of money to build or rent buildings to house all these depts. Can you imagine the amount of space needed for the Pentagon alone?

[tskeeter]

I was thinking about the original post.  I've been doing a lot of genealogy research on ancestors who settled on the MN prairie, not far from the SD boarder, so was thinking about how things have changed since the 1870's.

Why has the population declined?  Fundamentally, I think it comes down to a lack of jobs and lack of services.

Since the tractor replaced the horse, the demand for labor in agriculture has dropped to just a fraction of what was required before 1900.  For example, my ancestors took a wagon load of grain, about 1,000 pounds or so, 50 miles to the nearest railroad to sell it.  The trip took a week.  Today, we'd put about 40,000 pounds of grain in a truck, make the trip, and be home before lunch.  About 80 weeks of labor has been eliminated.  Similar kinds of labor reductions have occurred in other aspects of farming.  This has allowed the size of family farms to increase.  My ancestors had a large farm, at 320 acres.  Today, the family farm that my cousin's wife own a part of is the 4,000 acres the family owns, plus the 3,000 acres they lease from other property owners.

Another thing that has changed is the number of jobs that used to exist in every small farm town.  To keep travel times to a reasonable level, there was a town every five or ten miles.  Each town had a bank or two, farm implement dealers, grain elevators, a couple of general merchandise stores, a couple of grocery stores, two or three auto sales and auto repair shops, a bakery, two or three restaurants, a lawyer or two, a doctor, a couple of electricians, a plumber, a lumber yard, a school with a full complement of teachers, churches with ministers, a creamery, a butcher, and a variety of other services.  Today, my relatives drive over to the WalMart that is 20 or 30 minutes (20 miles) away, passing through a couple of small, dying, farm communities on the way. Why WalMart?  The merchandise selection is much better than a small town store can offer.  About all that is left in the small town where my Mom grew up is a gas station, the grain elevator, and a couple of businesses that are more hobby than business.  When it took a couple of hours to get to town, all those small towns and the related services made sense.  Today, when you can get 50 miles to the town that has become the regional business and shopping center in an hour, all those small towns are obsolete.

The decline in the number of jobs in rural areas has translated in to a reduction in available services.  Most of us don't want to go 20 miles or more every time we need a loaf of bread or want a new pair of shoes.  (The base criteria DW and I used to decide where we would move the last time was the town had to be big enough to have both a Home Depot and a Starbucks.). Even if you can work from a rural home, convienience is an important decision factor for many folks.

[billisonboard]

I heard it once that 1 American farmer feeds more people than farmers of any other country.  And also that 1 American farmer has more money invested in equipment than farmers in any other country.  It is a trade off.

[tskeeter]

Apr 3, 2017 14:37:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I heard it once that 1 American farmer feeds more people than farmers of any other country.  And also that 1 American farmer has more money invested in equipment than farmers in any other country.  It is a trade off.

Both are probably true.  Just think about the hundreds and hundreds of miles of super fertile soil spread across the heartland of the US.  The yields you can get off of topsoil that is four and five feet deep are fantastic.  Then think about the amount of mechanization in US agriculture.  The fact that a California dairy "farm" is about 1,800 head of cattle allows for a fully automated milking parlor, where a cow can be milked without coming in contact with a person.

You also mentioned the cost of farm equipment.  Consider that at $350K, a tractor costs more than a Ferrari.  And that a farm will often have three or more tractors as well as other equipment, and might have a $700K+ combine, too.

[Deleted]

Our neighbor kid works for one of those super dairies. They just bought a 120 foot wide sprayer to the tune of 485K. He said they bring in a semi load of sand every day for bedding cattle.