It is argued that in some parts of the world, there is a regulation published by the officials with a view to talking enterprises and companies into shifting their operations from metropolitan areas to regional locations. In my perspective, this propensity can reduce urban pressure and lower business costs, while firms themselves may encounter stumblocks associated with recruitment and market access.
To begin with, relocating organizations to rural areas eases tensions from increased population. In fact, through this action, authorities can alleviate traffic congestion, housing shortages, and infrastructure strain in cosmopolitan cities due to the dramatic expanse of inhabitants. Another merit is that operating costs including rent, labor, and overhead in non-populated regions are usually a real bargain. This is because of the lack of awareness from land purchasers as well as a small number of residents living there. Therefore, enterprises and institutions can make use of them to cut down their budget on these costs significantly and lean towards enhancing products' quality and sustainable development.
Nevertheless, this trend may prevent associations in regional places from seeking or retaining talented employees compared to ones in hustle and bustle cities. Fewer amenities and support services for laborers could be the factors for this demerit. As a consequence, efficient innovatives can not be frequently given from non-skilled employees, leading to the decline in the revenue stream and reputation of the businesses. Furthermore, being far from economic centers can restrict firms' access to key markets and strategic customers. They cannot always follow consumer behaviors and market demand in order to conduct prompt and suitable solutions. This results in the imbalance and deficiency when confronting against counterparts who are prioritized in populated centers.
In conclusion, I believe that while moving to rural areas benefits organizations' development through urban pressure and lower business costs, its negative impacts concerned with employment and exposure to the market should not be disregarded.
To begin with, relocating organizations to rural areas eases tensions from increased population. In fact, through this action, authorities can alleviate traffic congestion, housing shortages, and infrastructure strain in cosmopolitan cities due to the dramatic expanse of inhabitants. Another merit is that operating costs including rent, labor, and overhead in non-populated regions are usually a real bargain. This is because of the lack of awareness from land purchasers as well as a small number of residents living there. Therefore, enterprises and institutions can make use of them to cut down their budget on these costs significantly and lean towards enhancing products' quality and sustainable development.
Nevertheless, this trend may prevent associations in regional places from seeking or retaining talented employees compared to ones in hustle and bustle cities. Fewer amenities and support services for laborers could be the factors for this demerit. As a consequence, efficient innovatives can not be frequently given from non-skilled employees, leading to the decline in the revenue stream and reputation of the businesses. Furthermore, being far from economic centers can restrict firms' access to key markets and strategic customers. They cannot always follow consumer behaviors and market demand in order to conduct prompt and suitable solutions. This results in the imbalance and deficiency when confronting against counterparts who are prioritized in populated centers.
In conclusion, I believe that while moving to rural areas benefits organizations' development through urban pressure and lower business costs, its negative impacts concerned with employment and exposure to the market should not be disregarded.