 |  | shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR
| Re: Depends on where the jobs come from I saw on one of the late night news shows about a year ago that one company bought up a huge chunk of a small rural town and employed alot of people there in support jobs and brought tech support home from india because having it in the rural area was a cost wash with having it in india and made alot of customers happy. I would love to see this happening more. Plus the higher ups in the company were able to live alot better in rural area than the comute they had to drive daily and the taxs they no longer had to pay in property tax. It was a win win situation for them. I wish this would happen more | |
| | 
footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | Unemployment is low, but it's still there. New jobs don't have to pull employees from established jobs. | |
| | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Depends on where the jobs come from said by footballdude  :Unemployment is low, but it's still there. New jobs don't have to pull employees from established jobs. In my county and the surrounding counties( all rural ) unemployment is 8% on a good month. Closer to 10% most of the time.
I don't know how companies think outsourcing to India helps them? Whenever "Steve" or "Glenn" or "Linda" call me up with their thick Indiain accents and broken english, I hang up. hell put a call center in my area. People work here for $6 an hour anyways. Can't be any cheaper than that in India considering all the costs. I'd rather talk to Billy Joe Bob from Tennessee than "Allan" from Bombay. | |
| | JimF
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
| Your economics is a little amiss. If a company finds it profitable to move the jobs to a rural area, it is very likely a net benefit, or else it would not be done, considering the cost of the move. If a city can no longer afford to maintain its infrastructure, then they should reduce it. That is the same with businesses or individuals. Preventing the movement of people (or goods in the case of imports) is merely protectionist. It only helps those being protected, but is a net loss to the U.S. economy. | |
| | bigskank
join:2002-06-07
Norman, OK
| said by LiamJunket :Because if the jobs are just moving from the already wired cities, all that does is leave people living in a city that can no longer afford to maintain the infrastructure already there. So, all this proposed rural upgrading is valuable to the US as a whole only if it results in a net gain for the US. Not completely true. If companies move to small towns, there's economic incentive for them to do so. Having cheaper resources (lower taxes, cheap land, etc...) available to them allows them to do two things: either expand as a company (meaning creation of more jobs) or pay their investors more (meaning more money available to be spent or re-invested by consumers). Both of these result in net gains for the U.S. economy.
Further, workers in rural areas gain benefits to. Housing in rural areas is, almost without exception, substantially cheaper than in urban centers. Taxes are generally cheaper. Commute times are less (less gas being used, less cost for wear/tear on the car, more time to engage in consumer spending/recreation activities). This leads to consumers having more time/money to invest in activities that don't dump their cash into over-inflated housing mortgages or foreign oil companies. Again, both are a net benefit for the U.S. economy.
Also, as rural areas expand to meet infrastructure needs of a rising population, this creates jobs as well. While this may be offset some by a loss of jobs in the city, it at the very least equals a wash. Odds are, a lot of infrastructure in cities isn't paid for by cities. It's paid for by states or the feds (highways, utilities, etc...). Things like schools will expand/contract to meet population needs (in theory), so the cost there should level out over time as well. | |
| | | |
|
|
Broadband is no Economic Panacea
·
Depends on where the jobs come from