Slashdot Mirror
Vermont Will Give You $10K If You Move There and Work Remotely (fastcompany.com)
If you've been dreaming of moonlight in Vermont -- and getting a re-location subsidy -- "the time has come to make your maple-syrup-coated dreams a reality," reports Fast Company:
[F]or those who relocate this year and can prove that they have full-time remote jobs, it's possible to get paid back for moving expenses, internet bills, or membership in a coworking space... The program offers up to $5,000 a year for two years.
For the state, the program is one way to try to address its shrinking population. "We're the second-to-smallest state in the nation, and we're also getting older, so we really need to make sure there's more of a workforce here," says Joan Goldstein, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Economic Development, which is running the Remote Worker Grant Program. The entire state has a population of a little more than 600,000, roughly the size of Louisville, Kentucky.
Vermont also recognized that a growing number of Americans work remotely -- nearly two-thirds of companies today have remote workers, and one recent survey found that hiring managers think it will continue to become even more common -- and that many city dwellers elsewhere are struggling with rent on increasingly overpriced apartments... The median home value in Brattleboro, roughly two hours from Boston, is less than $200,000; a one-bedroom apartment a short walk from the local co-op (and a small coworking space) goes for $850 a month.
The budget for 2019 is $125,000, and will be given out "on a first come, first served basis."
Vermont also recognized that a growing number of Americans work remotely -- nearly two-thirds of companies today have remote workers, and one recent survey found that hiring managers think it will continue to become even more common -- and that many city dwellers elsewhere are struggling with rent on increasingly overpriced apartments... The median home value in Brattleboro, roughly two hours from Boston, is less than $200,000; a one-bedroom apartment a short walk from the local co-op (and a small coworking space) goes for $850 a month.
The budget for 2019 is $125,000, and will be given out "on a first come, first served basis."
I have a few questions:
1) is there surfing in Vermont?
2) will I have to wear socks when I go outside in December?
3) is pot legal?
If you can't answer "yes" to all three of these questions, it's going to take more than $10k to get me to go there.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Here's the original: https://slashdot.org/story/18/...
Wish /. could get some editors at some point. This shit has been going on for decades now.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
you think excessive taxation might have something to do with it ??
that extra 25 people every two years is really going to make a difference.
Is that a typo? Because that only covers 12.5 people, which doesn't sound newsworthy.
I assume it's $125,000,000?
If I recall, the Free State Project was trying to get people to move to New Hampshire, not Vermont. I don't think they were offering to pay anyone to move either.
Why would the government cut the budget up that much rather than just letting business do it?
The trouble is the proof with the government, but with business it's either a contract or a job meaning it is based on a product or management.
The problem with the government doing it is that it is mandated before, then a budget is made, then it's a shitshow to get through it and once it's gone it's over with and done for and the taxpayers funded an experiment for nothing. With business it is a shitshow for HR or the procurement department, but at least they have a product to count on not another set of paperwork that proves "employment and remote".
I don't understand it, why not just have everyone get a base salary and let those that want to work earn? There's plenty of money, the real desire is control or progression of a linear story (both failed in all examples of history).
Not often I get to see Vermont in the news. Yay. I'm a multi-generational native (yes, my family makes maple syrup).
In the hopes of dispelling some myths and inaccurate stereotypes, I'm happy to answer questions. I happen to live in a tiny ( under 4000) rural town, and on top of that, on the outskirts of it. Despite that I have 50/25 Mbit DSL. If I lived in the center of town I'd have the option for 100Mbit, 500Mbit, or even 1GBit FttH. So being rural doesn't necessarily mean junk internet... although it can, so check before you move.
In under an hour I can be in Vermont's largest "city" (Burlington). If I need a proper city experience, in just about 2.5 hours I can be in Montreal which honestly I enjoy a lot more than our next-closest big city, Boston. The border isn't an issue, since living near the border makes it easy to get a NEXUS card, which is basically fast-lane across the border for $50/5y and includes PSA pre-check at airports and Global Entry.
Yes, we have farms and cows and cheese and maple syrup and all that. We also have kick-ass skiing and lots of other great outdoor activities. Oh, and if you're not used to it: NO BILLBOARDS. It can be quite the pleasant shock for those new to the area... and jarring for us natives when we travel outside of the state.
The communities can be quite tight which is a nice thing... you really get to know the people in your area, and feel less anonymous than living in a city. People are quite generous and helpful with all sorts of things. Towns love to put on gatherings and events that bring everyone out for some reason or another. There's amazing food, and the proliferation of farms provides no shortage of fresh, high-quality produce and meat if you like to cook (or even if you don't, the better restaurants will use the local farms. Some BnB's even have their own gardens). People really care about the environment here... organic farming, trees, conservation, recycling, renewable energy, etc. Heck, even my house produces more solar power than I consume. You can find many die-hards who are truly "off the grid", self-sufficient and doing the whole homesteading thing. There's even a yearly festival/event/gathering called Solar Fest (not just about solar) if you're really into that.
Older crowd can be a bit conservative (not all, plenty of ex-hippies and all that... we're the source of Ben & Jerry's, Bernie Sanders, Bill McKibben, et al) but the younger generations lean strongly liberal. We currently have a republican governor but oh well... our Lieutenant Governor is progressive/democrat so he keeps him in line.
Home prices are all over the place, depending on where you live. You can get a sub-$100K home all the way up to multi-million dollar mansions (I know of a $10M one specifically). Places like Shelburne, Charlotte, and a few others with properties on Lake Champlain are popular with rich active/retired doctors, lawyers, and 2nd vacation homes for crazy rich people elsewhere.
So yes, worth considering. Questions? Ask and I can try to help.
They might give me $10k, but then they'd suck down about $9,000 in income taxes the first year. And another $9,000 the next year.
For as over populated as it's becoming, I'll stick with my income tax free state.
If Vermont wants to improve their population problems, they should focus on fixing their tax structure. Or contribute some to global warming!
In Pittsburgh, $800 a month plus utilities gets me a duplex with a backyard, a garage, 2 bedrooms, etc. in a middle class nice neighborhood. $10k is not enough to make me to go to Vermont. Guessing is this aimed more at West Coast people.
Once there is sufficient money behind this, I'll buy a couple buildings, move in a few thousand H-1B remote workers, and charge them California rates of rent.
I can probably fit 20-30 of them in a 2 bedroom apartment. /s
PROS: Vermont is beautiful, co-ops are decent, there are a few nice days, and most people are nice. CONS: disease carrying ticks.
And it could have easily been Wyoming, rather than New Hampshire. Both awfully cold states.
What's "wrong" with Vermont is that they'd like to have more jobs attracting people there. Rather than trying to attract more companies, they've decided to try to attract people like me, who can take our jobs with us wherever we want to go.
That's an interesting idea because they don't have to provide infrastructure for the company headquarters, but they get us spending our money in Vermont. Essentially they would be exporting tech work to the rest of the country. It's an interesting idea. We'll see how it turns out.
I have a few questions:
You forgot to ask the most important question, that will shut down Vermont as a possible option to live over California:
4) Do they have human feces covering the sidewalks and outdoor walls in major cities?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
sign me up.
A doorbuster is a deeply discounted item which is only available in limited quantities. The idea is that you use it to entice a lot of people to visit your store, but you only have to sell (at a loss) a small number of your doorbuster item. The people who missed out will browse the store (not wanting to have wasted their time and gas getting there), and hopefully they buy enough stuff to offset your losses on the doorbuster.
With a budget of $125k/yr and an enticement of $5k/yr per person, only 25 people will get the money. I suspect the process of confirming you qualified for the program will be long and dragged out, so you won't actually know if you'll receive the money until long after you've moved to Vermont and set down roots there. That way they're hoping to entice a few thousand people into moving there, while only having to pay 25 of them.
I'm sure they are doing other, probably more traditional things to try to attract companies.
*THIS* program is testing a different approach.
None. The state is full of conservatives. Just not the kind you're talking about. We're the kind who believe in paying our bills, treating our neighbors decently, helping out when someone needs help, banking locally, actually maintaining our infrastructure. You know Bernie gets in trouble regularly because he's not anti-gun, right?
I'd move to Verrrrrrrmont (it's cold!) rather than commute from San Jose to Palo Alto.
Very small pilot schemes require a relatively large overhead per unit of service delivered, thus will not look cost-effective. Trials have to be sufficiently large. Also if the trial is too small then there is no way to measure, in a statistically significant way, the results.
i assume dennys needs help.
If they were serious then they would have had a much larger pot of money, as it is it sounds like a publicity stunt.