Chip Cutter, Editor at Large at LinkedIn, posted this article a couple weeks ago, and it certainly sparked a whale of a lot of commentary. Clearly the concept hit a nerve with folks all over the map. It’s about providing monetary incentives for the young and educated to move to small towns.

My gut reaction to anything like this is always that it’s a wasteful use of funds. But I’m only opposed in that case to government incentives, because I don’t see the justice in taking from one person (in taxes) and giving to another. Plus I don’t like governments trying to pick economic winners and losers, because from what I’ve seen it almost always ends poorly.

But in this case, the incentives are privately funded. And that hit a soft spot in my heart. When private donors commit their funds this way, it shows a belief in the cause that isn’t there with tax funding. Plus, I believe it’s become critical that the US find ways to repopulate the countryside. This may help.

And as my initial comment to Chip’s article there on LinkedIn says, I think it’s got potential, in that it could appeal to new college graduates carrying big student loans.

At the time I mulled over whether it would work at all, with a few other ideas popping into my head, but I decided not to get into that in my comment. So my LinkedIn pal Melinda Arnson, in her comments about the article, beat me to the punch on a few of the notions I was mulling over, like whether the incentives would have “holding power” for someone “coming home” versus moving for the incentive alone, and whether the person getting the incentive would come out ahead with a full cost vs. benefit analysis. She went further with other thoughts that never occurred to me, including the much more limited opportunities in a small town to jump from company to company for better job opportunities, and the more limited options for home entertainment like satellite TV and Internet service providers. All great stuff, Melinda!

As the comments to Chip’s article continued to roll in, it was interesting to see the emotions: Liberals angry that the small towns were likely conservative. Older people angry at the incentives being aimed at the young, and non-college-educated people angry that they’re aimed at college grads. Anger at the incentives subsidizing the companies in the community, rather than the companies paying their own way. (As an aside, I’ve seen this in other venues, and it showed up in spades here too: big city people openly expressing their disdain, contempt and hatred of small town folks. What’s up with that?) And there were a whole bunch of people expressing an interest in taking part.

Personally, since the money is coming from donors who know what it’s being used for, I don’t see a problem with it being targeted at specific groups of people. (I believe one astute commenter said the same thing.) Based on the interest level, it may prove to be effective.

Again, I think anything with a shot at bringing people back into smaller communities is a good thing. But I think keeping them there is the bigger challenge. There were lots of comments about the lack of cultural amenities and other entertainment opportunities. Plus, the reckless abandon with which companies lay off these days means that the jobs these “scholarship winners” land to support themselves and their families may not be around forever.

That being said, there is a definitive shift in American culture in which people have a greater desire to stay near their families, as opposed to moving far away to make a new life for themselves as generations past have done. That could play in the favor of the organizations trying to lure people “home.”

I have two recommendations for making this more effective.

The first is for the folks in the towns offering the incentives. Money talks, for sure. But it won’t make an enduring citizen. You should also set up a means by which you canvass the thoughts of these new residents, and find out what will keep them around long-term. I know from my own experience moving around the country that one big thing is opportunities to become part of the community, to make friends and have activities outside work. These folks a lot younger than I certainly have their own wants and needs, too.

The second is for our state and federal governments. I’m a big believer in free trade and free markets. But we can see from the past couple decades that they can devastate small communities that often rely on a single company or industry for jobs and the health of the local economy. There has to be an effective way to offset the “creative destruction” that improves the national economy, but can destroy a small town in the process. Assistance and support for creating new economic opportunities will help keep the new citizens around – and help the ones who were already there avoid the despair that has been part of the burgeoning epidemics of depression, suicide and opioid addiction.

In the end, reading the comments as they collected below Chip’s post and contemplating the concept at great length, I’ve landed as a staunch supporter. What a great way for private donors to show their love for their towns, and their belief in infusing new blood to make them even better.