9 ms·

You obviously don't live in the Seattle area. You can't move closer, because real estate is literally twice as expensive as where you currently live, and you ca

You obviously don't live in the Seattle area. You can't move closer, because real estate is literally twice as expensive as where you currently live, and you can't change jobs because all the jobs are in the same places with the crummy commutes. About the only factor you can optimize is picking jobs that are along mass transit routes.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Uh, I think you're being very dismissive here. There are many rational reasons for urban business. Being able to get rental real estate for your business. In the suburbs you now need a loan, credit, collateral, 30% down, etc to build your own building as there generally isn't a rash of empty floors on skyscrapers like cities do. Being able to have face to face meetings frequently with your investors, board members, and bankers and other people who hold your pursestrings. Being able to find investors in the first place. Picture two similar business plans. One by a group in the far out suburbs and one nearby. As an investor, which one would you lean towards, especially if you expect yourself to do any hands on work or attend board meetings? Being able to get to the airport and mass transportation hubs quickly. Being able to wine and dine investors and customers in places that will impress them. Being able to court youngsters and urban professionals who want a city life and won't even interview in the suburbs. (Hi! This is me and almost everyone I know.) Being near urban universities for the above reasons and job fairs. Being near your competitors to help you poach their staff. Being able to work with a local government that understands business needs and not being subjected to a 'board of elders' of out of touch 70 year old suburban retirees who will bikeshed the shit out of any proposal of yours and NIMBY you to death. Being able to quickly expand by taking more office space instead of, you guessed it, building another fucking building. Being able to order 1gb fiber and have in here in 30 days as opposed to 360 days in the suburbs and that's on top of paying tens of thousands of dollars for that last mile to your office, which they will need to dig up just for you. ...and yes, maybe some perks of city life as you mention. Work life should have pleasant parts and it helps attract talent.
eru 10y ago
I am living and working in Central London. Thank you. Why can't you move? If real estate is twice as expensive, just pick a place half the size? Don't you value your own time---wasted in commuting---at any positive dollar figure at all? If you spend an hour commuting each way for 21 days a month, that's 52 hours a month extra that you spend on `work', even if your employer doesn't gain anything from it.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  Because, for whatever reason, he likes owning a house. Which is doublespeak for him feeling entitled to live in a huge and inefficient property for no reason other than him liking it.
  - Slaul 10y ago
    How is it wrong for him to want to live in a house because he likes it?
    - AdrianB1 10y ago
      He is not. He is wrong when he wants the government to force companies to bring jobs to his front door ("influencing companies", if you like smooth talk). It is his choice to live in a good place OR next to a good job. It is not government's problem in any case.
  - gph 10y ago
    That's not really doublespeak. And it doesn't have to be less efficient to own a house. Can't put solar panels on my apartment roof. Can't plant much of a garden to localize some of my consumption. If you were really eco-conscious you could probably get more gains out of owning your own house. Especially since most houses have already been built, whereas most of the new construction I see in my city (Baltimore) is going towards mixed-use condos/apartment towers for all the trendy folks wanting to live downtown. If they really cared about the environment and efficiency they'd be fixing-up the thousands of run-down homes.
SilasX 10y ago
This is why I've suggested economic measuring well-being with the metric "discretionary income per hour lost to work" (DIPHLoW). discretionary income: income minus taxes and base housing costs hour lost to work: time at work plus time commuting or otherwise stuff you wouldn't otherwise have to do That metric captures dynamics like "yeah there are jobs, but with much higher cost of living, so it cancels out the DIPHLoW" and "yeah you can live where it's cheaper but you have to commute an extra 90 minutes, which eliminates the impact on DIPHLow".
- eru 10y ago
  That's a good concept. Can you come up with a sexier name? (Or am I not getting a pun here?)
  - SilasX 10y ago
    Heh, that's the best I can come up with; just aimed for it being pronounceable (diff-flow). No pun intended, except maybe that it's the "difference" you keep that "flows" to stuff you can actually enjoy? Edit: Also thought of "discretionary income per UnFree hour" (DIPUPH) ... not sexy either though.
    - abledon 10y ago
      (DIPHLoW). sounds like Diplo, one of the most popular musical artists on the global top 50 (https://twitter.com/diplo https://twitter.com/diplo).... so I think the abbreviation already 'fits' into popular cultures vocabulary of pronunciation, it just has to now tie in a new meaning to the word instead of 'Hugely Successful DJ'
- eru 10y ago
  Thinking some more about, it would also make sense to look at some isotonic function of disposable income and disposable hours left (after work, commute, etc). This is to capture that increasing working hours from 8h to 24h a day even when pay would be more than tripled, would leave you with a very sad life. (Shadow) price of time would be a good one, too? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_price https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_price) In some sense, that's the same as marginal cost of your time, expressed in dollars or some `utils' or `hedons'. Then you can say, eg taking a longer commute for a cheaper house would value my time at 30 hedons per hour---but spending time with my daughter is worth at least 50 hedons per hour. So it would be bad trade-off.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

Uh, I think you're being very dismissive here. There are many rational reasons for urban business. Being able to get rental real estate for your business. In the suburbs you now need a loan, credit, collateral, 30% down, etc to build your own building as there generally isn't a rash of empty floors on skyscrapers like cities do. Being able to have face to face meetings frequently with your investors, board members, and bankers and other people who hold your pursestrings. Being able to find investors in the first place. Picture two similar business plans. One by a group in the far out suburbs and one nearby. As an investor, which one would you lean towards, especially if you expect yourself to do any hands on work or attend board meetings? Being able to get to the airport and mass transportation hubs quickly. Being able to wine and dine investors and customers in places that will impress them. Being able to court youngsters and urban professionals who want a city life and won't even interview in the suburbs. (Hi! This is me and almost everyone I know.) Being near urban universities for the above reasons and job fairs. Being near your competitors to help you poach their staff. Being able to work with a local government that understands business needs and not being subjected to a 'board of elders' of out of touch 70 year old suburban retirees who will bikeshed the shit out of any proposal of yours and NIMBY you to death. Being able to quickly expand by taking more office space instead of, you guessed it, building another fucking building. Being able to order 1gb fiber and have in here in 30 days as opposed to 360 days in the suburbs and that's on top of paying tens of thousands of dollars for that last mile to your office, which they will need to dig up just for you. ...and yes, maybe some perks of city life as you mention. Work life should have pleasant parts and it helps attract talent.

eru 10y ago

I am living and working in Central London. Thank you. Why can't you move? If real estate is twice as expensive, just pick a place half the size? Don't you value your own time---wasted in commuting---at any positive dollar figure at all? If you spend an hour commuting each way for 21 days a month, that's 52 hours a month extra that you spend on `work', even if your employer doesn't gain anything from it.

antisthenes 10y ago
Because, for whatever reason, he likes owning a house. Which is doublespeak for him feeling entitled to live in a huge and inefficient property for no reason other than him liking it.
- Slaul 10y ago
  How is it wrong for him to want to live in a house because he likes it?
  - AdrianB1 10y ago
    He is not. He is wrong when he wants the government to force companies to bring jobs to his front door ("influencing companies", if you like smooth talk). It is his choice to live in a good place OR next to a good job. It is not government's problem in any case.
- gph 10y ago
  That's not really doublespeak. And it doesn't have to be less efficient to own a house. Can't put solar panels on my apartment roof. Can't plant much of a garden to localize some of my consumption. If you were really eco-conscious you could probably get more gains out of owning your own house. Especially since most houses have already been built, whereas most of the new construction I see in my city (Baltimore) is going towards mixed-use condos/apartment towers for all the trendy folks wanting to live downtown. If they really cared about the environment and efficiency they'd be fixing-up the thousands of run-down homes.

SilasX 10y ago

This is why I've suggested economic measuring well-being with the metric "discretionary income per hour lost to work" (DIPHLoW). discretionary income: income minus taxes and base housing costs hour lost to work: time at work plus time commuting or otherwise stuff you wouldn't otherwise have to do That metric captures dynamics like "yeah there are jobs, but with much higher cost of living, so it cancels out the DIPHLoW" and "yeah you can live where it's cheaper but you have to commute an extra 90 minutes, which eliminates the impact on DIPHLow".

eru 10y ago
That's a good concept. Can you come up with a sexier name? (Or am I not getting a pun here?)
- SilasX 10y ago
  Heh, that's the best I can come up with; just aimed for it being pronounceable (diff-flow). No pun intended, except maybe that it's the "difference" you keep that "flows" to stuff you can actually enjoy? Edit: Also thought of "discretionary income per UnFree hour" (DIPUPH) ... not sexy either though.
  - abledon 10y ago
    (DIPHLoW). sounds like Diplo, one of the most popular musical artists on the global top 50 (https://twitter.com/diplo https://twitter.com/diplo).... so I think the abbreviation already 'fits' into popular cultures vocabulary of pronunciation, it just has to now tie in a new meaning to the word instead of 'Hugely Successful DJ'
eru 10y ago
Thinking some more about, it would also make sense to look at some isotonic function of disposable income and disposable hours left (after work, commute, etc). This is to capture that increasing working hours from 8h to 24h a day even when pay would be more than tripled, would leave you with a very sad life. (Shadow) price of time would be a good one, too? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_price https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_price) In some sense, that's the same as marginal cost of your time, expressed in dollars or some `utils' or `hedons'. Then you can say, eg taking a longer commute for a cheaper house would value my time at 30 hedons per hour---but spending time with my daughter is worth at least 50 hedons per hour. So it would be bad trade-off.