9 ms·

Genuinely curious : What's a good alternative to setting a population limit per city ? Having lived in cities that are crumbling under poor infrastructure, unc

Genuinely curious : What's a good alternative to setting a population limit per city ? Having lived in cities that are crumbling under poor infrastructure, unchecked growth, excessive pollution (from vehicles, stuck in endless traffic jams), shortage of water/electricity, I wonder what can be done to fix this. Everyone from across the country wants to migrate to a few big cities that provide good employment. We shouldn't stop them from seeking opportunities but at the same time the local government has to ensure a minimal quality of life for the existing residents. What would be a short term solution (implementable in 1-3 years) that can balance this ?

nawitus 9y ago
As long as people are migrating, people are voting with their wallets that a city "crumbling under poor infrastructure" etc. is better than whatever place they're migrating from.
- jakubp 9y ago
  But people already in that city can't vote with their wallets to stop the immigration.
  - nawitus 9y ago
    They can vote by moving to another place?
    - mantas 9y ago
      Or they can vote in government that would put population cap...
    - jakubp 9y ago
      Maybe. But that would mean people with lower standards replace people with higher standards. I don't think it's the right direction.
- Al-Khwarizmi 9y ago
  It's better for them individually, and under the current conditions. That doesn't mean that changing the conditions (e.g. by some measure that reduces population of the largest cities) cannot bring a situation where the average person ends up better. In ML terms, the local gradient may be leading you to a local optimum. By the way, individual people aren't good at all at evaluating invisible, long-term costs like that of pollution and its health risks.
- gaius 9y ago
  people are voting with their wallets that a city "crumbling under poor infrastructure" etc. is better than whatever place they're migrating from I don't think that's true, because of imperfect information. A person living in a remote rural location may believe that they can can have a better life in a city, then make the journey at a high price (relative to their own resources) then arrive and find that it's not what they expected and they have no way to get home. I will wager a significant proportion of those impacted by this policy fall into that category.
jakobegger 9y ago
I don't think there are any short term solutions, but there are a lot of medium/long time things you can do. One policy I have found very interesting is to require developers to "invest" in the neighbourhood in exchange for building permits. For example, the government could require developers to pay for public infrastructure before they can build (eg. they need to pay a part of a new subway line, or they need to renew the sewer system etc.) This helps address the problem that there is lots of capital available for building new stuff, but nobody wants to pay for maintenance.
yulaow 9y ago
Most people just move to the big cities because there there are the jobs which pay better (and the chance to hop between them in case of being fired, without having to relocate) A good start could be just to make remote all the jobs that can be made remote, but of course this would not cover a big part of jobs which need a whole team in the same location and specialized machinery (Eg the whole manufacturing sector)
- mcny 9y ago
  > A good start could be just to make remote all the jobs that can be made remote, but of course this would not cover a big part of jobs which need a whole team in the same location and specialized machinery (Eg the whole manufacturing sector) Marissa Mayer raised the question of in-office vs remote at Yahoo! and I am still not convinced either way. If we had a robust basic income, we should just let go of people who we feel are dead-weight on our team? https://archive.fo/ThVv9 https://archive.fo/ThVv9 On the other side of the spectrum, the concept of a "manufacturing city" in China PR is troubling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91s87s2Ar20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91s87s2Ar20 What happens when someone is not capable of working anymore?
  - yulaow 9y ago
    I think we all know that the Marissa Mayer "war" on remote jobs was just a PR move to facilitate a rapid mass layoff without negative moral repercussions on the rest of the Yahoo teams. We should not take her words as a serious reflection on the issue
    - IronKettle 9y ago
      I was at Yahoo from 2010-201X. It was really bad. Tons of remote employees you couldn't count on to give you the time of day, let alone do anything meaningful. Was the problem remote jobs? No, probably not. The problem was complacency: Complacent employees who didn't want to work and used remote jobs as an excuse not to do anything. Complacent managers who didn't know how to manage remote employees and didn't want to learn. Did we have remote employees who were amazing? Hell yeah. Did lazy employees overwhelmingly choose to become remote because it was the easiest way not to do any work? Hell yeah. There were more than a few stories (not from management, even) about employees who hadn't even logged in in a couple months. It was beyond the typical "bad employee gets no work done," it was just "bad employee doesn't work one iota." My takeaway was that managing remote employees is a skill that many managers don't possess, and bad employees knew that and capitalized on it very effectively. So you're correct that it was a move to facilitate a rapid mass layoff, but the part that's unsaid there is that the people being laid off were overwhelmingly the worst employees anyway. Their managers should've been given the boot as well.
peteretep 9y ago
London has a green belt -- an area of land around it which is legally protected. This makes the cost of living in London prohibitive, and limits growth.
- iagooar 9y ago
  What does "legally protected" mean in this context? What makes that land different? Genuinely curious.
  - chillydawg 9y ago
    It means planning permission is very rarely granted for new buildings and usually only in exceptional circumstances or when it is a public facility. Planning law in the UK has special protections for areas designated as green belt.
- walrus1066 9y ago
  Not sure how much it limits growth, people just cram into ever smaller living spaces, or commute in from towns further away.
  - peteretep 9y ago
    It was 8.3m 100 years ago, and it's 9.1m now.
    - delecti 9y ago
      There were a couple notable wars in that time though.
      - vkou 9y ago
        England was barely affected by the first World War. France, Germany, Austria, Serbia, the Ottoman Empire, and Russia bore the brunt of the fighting. And compared to the other belligerents, it was barely affected by the second, too. British colonial policies during the war killed more of their own subjects in India, then the Germans ever did on the home isles. (For anyone wondering why India sought independence... Well, that was a factor.)
CuriousSkeptic 9y ago
Why not simply increase property taxes? Or, long term, lease all properties at market rate.
dublidu 9y ago
Moving government jobs out of these mega cities. This is mentioned in the article as something Beijing planned to do. US should also move some jobs out of DC and into a cheaper area that needs a job boost.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Moving government jobs = moving the lobbyist coterie that would move with them? Or would those stay in DC as the power in politics remains?
mentos 9y ago
Incentivize remote work?
closeparen 9y ago
1) Move away from internal combustion vehicles as the basis of your transportation system. Use rising productivity to grow public transit capacity. Concentrate new developments and migrants into central areas where cars aren’t needed. 2) Zone most blocks for (high quality, safe) towers and make others into parks.

nawitus 9y ago

As long as people are migrating, people are voting with their wallets that a city "crumbling under poor infrastructure" etc. is better than whatever place they're migrating from.

jakubp 9y ago
But people already in that city can't vote with their wallets to stop the immigration.
- nawitus 9y ago
  They can vote by moving to another place?
  - mantas 9y ago
    Or they can vote in government that would put population cap...
  - jakubp 9y ago
    Maybe. But that would mean people with lower standards replace people with higher standards. I don't think it's the right direction.
Al-Khwarizmi 9y ago
It's better for them individually, and under the current conditions. That doesn't mean that changing the conditions (e.g. by some measure that reduces population of the largest cities) cannot bring a situation where the average person ends up better. In ML terms, the local gradient may be leading you to a local optimum. By the way, individual people aren't good at all at evaluating invisible, long-term costs like that of pollution and its health risks.
gaius 9y ago
people are voting with their wallets that a city "crumbling under poor infrastructure" etc. is better than whatever place they're migrating from I don't think that's true, because of imperfect information. A person living in a remote rural location may believe that they can can have a better life in a city, then make the journey at a high price (relative to their own resources) then arrive and find that it's not what they expected and they have no way to get home. I will wager a significant proportion of those impacted by this policy fall into that category.

jakobegger 9y ago

I don't think there are any short term solutions, but there are a lot of medium/long time things you can do. One policy I have found very interesting is to require developers to "invest" in the neighbourhood in exchange for building permits. For example, the government could require developers to pay for public infrastructure before they can build (eg. they need to pay a part of a new subway line, or they need to renew the sewer system etc.) This helps address the problem that there is lots of capital available for building new stuff, but nobody wants to pay for maintenance.

yulaow 9y ago

Most people just move to the big cities because there there are the jobs which pay better (and the chance to hop between them in case of being fired, without having to relocate) A good start could be just to make remote all the jobs that can be made remote, but of course this would not cover a big part of jobs which need a whole team in the same location and specialized machinery (Eg the whole manufacturing sector)

mcny 9y ago
> A good start could be just to make remote all the jobs that can be made remote, but of course this would not cover a big part of jobs which need a whole team in the same location and specialized machinery (Eg the whole manufacturing sector) Marissa Mayer raised the question of in-office vs remote at Yahoo! and I am still not convinced either way. If we had a robust basic income, we should just let go of people who we feel are dead-weight on our team? https://archive.fo/ThVv9 https://archive.fo/ThVv9 On the other side of the spectrum, the concept of a "manufacturing city" in China PR is troubling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91s87s2Ar20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91s87s2Ar20 What happens when someone is not capable of working anymore?
- yulaow 9y ago
  I think we all know that the Marissa Mayer "war" on remote jobs was just a PR move to facilitate a rapid mass layoff without negative moral repercussions on the rest of the Yahoo teams. We should not take her words as a serious reflection on the issue
  - IronKettle 9y ago
    I was at Yahoo from 2010-201X. It was really bad. Tons of remote employees you couldn't count on to give you the time of day, let alone do anything meaningful. Was the problem remote jobs? No, probably not. The problem was complacency: Complacent employees who didn't want to work and used remote jobs as an excuse not to do anything. Complacent managers who didn't know how to manage remote employees and didn't want to learn. Did we have remote employees who were amazing? Hell yeah. Did lazy employees overwhelmingly choose to become remote because it was the easiest way not to do any work? Hell yeah. There were more than a few stories (not from management, even) about employees who hadn't even logged in in a couple months. It was beyond the typical "bad employee gets no work done," it was just "bad employee doesn't work one iota." My takeaway was that managing remote employees is a skill that many managers don't possess, and bad employees knew that and capitalized on it very effectively. So you're correct that it was a move to facilitate a rapid mass layoff, but the part that's unsaid there is that the people being laid off were overwhelmingly the worst employees anyway. Their managers should've been given the boot as well.

peteretep 9y ago

London has a green belt -- an area of land around it which is legally protected. This makes the cost of living in London prohibitive, and limits growth.

iagooar 9y ago
What does "legally protected" mean in this context? What makes that land different? Genuinely curious.
- chillydawg 9y ago
  It means planning permission is very rarely granted for new buildings and usually only in exceptional circumstances or when it is a public facility. Planning law in the UK has special protections for areas designated as green belt.
walrus1066 9y ago
Not sure how much it limits growth, people just cram into ever smaller living spaces, or commute in from towns further away.
- peteretep 9y ago
  It was 8.3m 100 years ago, and it's 9.1m now.
  - delecti 9y ago
    There were a couple notable wars in that time though.
    - vkou 9y ago
      England was barely affected by the first World War. France, Germany, Austria, Serbia, the Ottoman Empire, and Russia bore the brunt of the fighting. And compared to the other belligerents, it was barely affected by the second, too. British colonial policies during the war killed more of their own subjects in India, then the Germans ever did on the home isles. (For anyone wondering why India sought independence... Well, that was a factor.)

CuriousSkeptic 9y ago

Why not simply increase property taxes? Or, long term, lease all properties at market rate.

dublidu 9y ago

Moving government jobs out of these mega cities. This is mentioned in the article as something Beijing planned to do. US should also move some jobs out of DC and into a cheaper area that needs a job boost.

r00fus 9y ago
Moving government jobs = moving the lobbyist coterie that would move with them? Or would those stay in DC as the power in politics remains?

mentos 9y ago

Incentivize remote work?

closeparen 9y ago

1) Move away from internal combustion vehicles as the basis of your transportation system. Use rising productivity to grow public transit capacity. Concentrate new developments and migrants into central areas where cars aren’t needed. 2) Zone most blocks for (high quality, safe) towers and make others into parks.