4 ms·

> why not spread the economic development out a bit? An interesting idea. Maybe this could be done by lottery -- choose 10% of people who live in the trendy co

> why not spread the economic development out a bit? An interesting idea. Maybe this could be done by lottery -- choose 10% of people who live in the trendy coastal areas at random and force them to move to, say, Detroit, or Akron, Ohio. (note: not a serious proposal)

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
If it's not a serious proposal, then why did you say it? Is there some criticism of my comment implied in your comment that I'm missing?
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  How are you proposing to "spread the economic development out a bit"?
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Bad hygiene. https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/36518392 https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/36518392
- eberkund 9y ago
  Yes, clearly. You made a suggestion but provided no reasonable explanation towards implementing it. If people one to live in one area how do you suggest spreading out the economic development without something similar to the sarcastic suggestion you're replying to?
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    I don't need a solution on hand to recognize a problem. IMO, the issue is not urban development, it's country-wide development. We definitely can't approach that problem by worrying about zoning laws. Here is an interesting article[1] on the issue that talks about regional inequality, its causes, and possible solutions. Basically, a reintroduction of anti-trust laws would do a lot to turn things around. [1] https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and...
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      "I don't need a solution on hand to recognize a problem." I hate to use this word, but complaining about a problem without proposing a solution is basically just whining. As far as anti-trust goes, Walmart has done more to equalize the playing field for rural and "underserved" areas than all the public policy think tanks in the history of the world.
      - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        Walmart is exactly the kind of company that we need anti-trust legislation for. Walmart comes to rural areas, extracts massive amount of money, and doesn't replace all the workers that were displaced. The fact that they happen to sell things a bit cheaper doesn't offset the local economic damage they do.
        Turing_Machine 9y ago
        "Walmart comes to rural areas, extracts massive amount of money" They "extract massive amounts of money" by providing goods that people in the area want to buy. "and doesn't replace all the workers that were displaced." Typical rural areas didn't have any jobs to begin with. Now they do. Granted, a Walmart job isn't the greatest one in the world, but it sure beats no job at all.
        TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        > Typical rural areas didn't have any jobs to begin with. Now they do. Those rural areas had jobs before Walmart came into town. It's not like people lived without dishes or lawn mowers before Walmart was here. Demand was met with small businesses, and profits were almost always kept in the local economy. With Walmart, those profits are extracted out of the area, causing an economic drain on the area.
        Turing_Machine 9y ago
        > Those rural areas had jobs before Walmart came into town. No, they did not. Do you know what the word "rural" means?
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    The main reason people flock to the Bay Area is because of the growth in the Tech industry. However, as we all know, there is very, very little technical reason that has to be there, or could not be spread out. The only reason really is the concentration of developers, and that VCs don't want to leave the peninsula. If we could change VC attitudes toward "You HAVE to be in the Bay Area," that could go a long way to spreading these things out, and stopping the explosion of housing prices up there.
    - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
      Network effects are real and networking, as in meeting face-to-face, seems to have real tangible benefits that people are willing to pay what-seem-like-ridiculous costs to have.
      - pascalxus 9y ago
        That's what we hear repeated over and over. But, I don't believe it to be the truth. I think it's far more simple. They're already here and they don't want to move.
        dredmorbius 9y ago
        "They" could move. But you'd need to convince a lot of "them" to move. And you'd have to coordinate that move to a single second locale. The network effects and low-friction of local contacts are real. Distance is time and time is money. All take energy, infrastructure, and capital. Ironically, the more ephemeral a product, the more concentrated its development, because the one thing you need to work on it is people (including all the support and acilary staff). An earlier example of this was Hollywood. Films can be shot anywhere, and the end product was a few cans of celluloid that could be shipped to theatres. But it was the actors, and cameramen, and catering staff, and carpenters, and electricians, and equipment support, and musicians, and effects people, and .... that were expensive. And who'd clustered in Los Angeles. Factors that did lead to spreading out the industry? Language. And occasionally government regulation limiting the import of American film. But France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, India: all developed their own local film industry, of at least some size, in large part because Hollywood couldn't make talking pictures their audiences could understand. (Also: cultural, location, and other factors, but language was a biggie.) So the friction of what language are we going to develop in (as in human language) actually lead to a decentralisation of production. Ironically: better and more efficient technology leads to greater density, not less. Though it's rapidly running up against housing-as-asset as a massive problem.
  - pascalxus 9y ago
    Create incentives for companies to leave areas like the bay area and move to areas like Detroit, Cleveland, etc. Places that actually need more jobs. People follow the jobs, they have no choice unless their rich enough to not need a job.
    - lotsofpulp 9y ago
      People (especially young) like beaches, mountains, mild weather, low humidity, socially liberal environments, and money. Thats why you see growth and high prices in SF/Denver/Austin/Seattle/LA/NYC/San Diego/etc. Quite frankly, I think the market, in this case, will fix the problem. If people want to live in the popular places so much, then they will put up with whatever they have to. If people get fed up, then they will demand enough pay to make the employer consider moving to a not as popular place. The real problem is each individual, especially smarter ones, are able to produce so much more than before that there aren't that many quality jobs to create that pressure for higher wages so they're stuck making ends meet. The solution is...to be smart and have a valuable skill set.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

If it's not a serious proposal, then why did you say it? Is there some criticism of my comment implied in your comment that I'm missing?

Turing_Machine 9y ago
How are you proposing to "spread the economic development out a bit"?
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Bad hygiene. https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/36518392 https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/36518392
eberkund 9y ago
Yes, clearly. You made a suggestion but provided no reasonable explanation towards implementing it. If people one to live in one area how do you suggest spreading out the economic development without something similar to the sarcastic suggestion you're replying to?
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  I don't need a solution on hand to recognize a problem. IMO, the issue is not urban development, it's country-wide development. We definitely can't approach that problem by worrying about zoning laws. Here is an interesting article[1] on the issue that talks about regional inequality, its causes, and possible solutions. Basically, a reintroduction of anti-trust laws would do a lot to turn things around. [1] https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and...
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "I don't need a solution on hand to recognize a problem." I hate to use this word, but complaining about a problem without proposing a solution is basically just whining. As far as anti-trust goes, Walmart has done more to equalize the playing field for rural and "underserved" areas than all the public policy think tanks in the history of the world.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      Walmart is exactly the kind of company that we need anti-trust legislation for. Walmart comes to rural areas, extracts massive amount of money, and doesn't replace all the workers that were displaced. The fact that they happen to sell things a bit cheaper doesn't offset the local economic damage they do.
      - Turing_Machine 9y ago
        "Walmart comes to rural areas, extracts massive amount of money" They "extract massive amounts of money" by providing goods that people in the area want to buy. "and doesn't replace all the workers that were displaced." Typical rural areas didn't have any jobs to begin with. Now they do. Granted, a Walmart job isn't the greatest one in the world, but it sure beats no job at all.
        TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        > Typical rural areas didn't have any jobs to begin with. Now they do. Those rural areas had jobs before Walmart came into town. It's not like people lived without dishes or lawn mowers before Walmart was here. Demand was met with small businesses, and profits were almost always kept in the local economy. With Walmart, those profits are extracted out of the area, causing an economic drain on the area.
        Turing_Machine 9y ago
        > Those rural areas had jobs before Walmart came into town. No, they did not. Do you know what the word "rural" means?
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  The main reason people flock to the Bay Area is because of the growth in the Tech industry. However, as we all know, there is very, very little technical reason that has to be there, or could not be spread out. The only reason really is the concentration of developers, and that VCs don't want to leave the peninsula. If we could change VC attitudes toward "You HAVE to be in the Bay Area," that could go a long way to spreading these things out, and stopping the explosion of housing prices up there.
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    Network effects are real and networking, as in meeting face-to-face, seems to have real tangible benefits that people are willing to pay what-seem-like-ridiculous costs to have.
    - pascalxus 9y ago
      That's what we hear repeated over and over. But, I don't believe it to be the truth. I think it's far more simple. They're already here and they don't want to move.
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        "They" could move. But you'd need to convince a lot of "them" to move. And you'd have to coordinate that move to a single second locale. The network effects and low-friction of local contacts are real. Distance is time and time is money. All take energy, infrastructure, and capital. Ironically, the more ephemeral a product, the more concentrated its development, because the one thing you need to work on it is people (including all the support and acilary staff). An earlier example of this was Hollywood. Films can be shot anywhere, and the end product was a few cans of celluloid that could be shipped to theatres. But it was the actors, and cameramen, and catering staff, and carpenters, and electricians, and equipment support, and musicians, and effects people, and .... that were expensive. And who'd clustered in Los Angeles. Factors that did lead to spreading out the industry? Language. And occasionally government regulation limiting the import of American film. But France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, India: all developed their own local film industry, of at least some size, in large part because Hollywood couldn't make talking pictures their audiences could understand. (Also: cultural, location, and other factors, but language was a biggie.) So the friction of what language are we going to develop in (as in human language) actually lead to a decentralisation of production. Ironically: better and more efficient technology leads to greater density, not less. Though it's rapidly running up against housing-as-asset as a massive problem.
- pascalxus 9y ago
  Create incentives for companies to leave areas like the bay area and move to areas like Detroit, Cleveland, etc. Places that actually need more jobs. People follow the jobs, they have no choice unless their rich enough to not need a job.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    People (especially young) like beaches, mountains, mild weather, low humidity, socially liberal environments, and money. Thats why you see growth and high prices in SF/Denver/Austin/Seattle/LA/NYC/San Diego/etc. Quite frankly, I think the market, in this case, will fix the problem. If people want to live in the popular places so much, then they will put up with whatever they have to. If people get fed up, then they will demand enough pay to make the employer consider moving to a not as popular place. The real problem is each individual, especially smarter ones, are able to produce so much more than before that there aren't that many quality jobs to create that pressure for higher wages so they're stuck making ends meet. The solution is...to be smart and have a valuable skill set.