3 ms·

I think it's more likely that access will always be available, however 'immigrants' quality of life will be far lower. That's already the way it plays out here

I think it's more likely that access will always be available, however 'immigrants' quality of life will be far lower. That's already the way it plays out here as far as I can tell. Young people with regular jobs live in single rooms in flatshares or their parents' homes (if they have that access). In middle age I expect them to live in small flats whilst their parents lived in large homes. Over longer time periods, quality of life will decrease across the board and most will be in worse accommodation than the previous generation. The issue we're facing I think is more that this sort of centralization of productive work is unsustainable. You can't* just stuff the entire population of the UK into London, or the entire population of the US into SF, NY, etc. They'd be bloody awful places to live. * well, you can. I don't think we should.

closeparen 8y ago
I don’t think one enormous city is a great idea, but yes, most of the US should end up living in a handful of places that look more like Manhattan than postwar suburbia. Automobile-scaled development does incredible damage to our physical and social environments.
CM30 8y ago
This is why remote work is going to become increasing necessarily, and why bosses/managers/CEOs need to give up the whole 'everyone in the same building between 9-5' idea once and for all. Software engineers, marketers and other folks with similar service jobs do not need to be in the same building as the rest of their team. That'd fix a few issues right away: 1. It'd fix Silicon Valley's housing prices, since tech workers wouldn't be buying all the houses/apartments. This would remove a pool of people making hundreds of thousands a year from the equation, and ideally causing prices to drop down to an affordable value. 2. It'd mean the actual workers who need to live their work (teachers, nurses, retail staff, etc) would likely be able to afford more, since they wouldn't be competing with software engineers for the same properties). 3. It'd give people an incentive to move to smaller towns/cities/not end up crammed into a single area. Does that mean sprawl? Not necessarily, it could mean other large towns and cities in the UK and US could benefit from a higher population rather than the likes of London/New York/San Francisco sucking up new residents by the million. 4. And in future, maybe it could kill off the idea of immigration/emigration too, at least for the most part. The fact you have to live in a wealthy country to get a high paying job is one of the things that makes stuff like the H1B scheme so lucrative. The idea employees have to be watched over in the same building like prisoners or school students is one of the reasons these house prices are so high and everything is becoming so centralised.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Videoconferencing is still drastically higher friction than circling in front of a whiteboard. Heads-down coding is only part of the job; it’s also to work through ideas with other people. More realistically, tech workers will be able to live in cheaper cities a couple hours away (ie Sacramento) and commute only 1-2 days a week
closeparen 8y ago
Yeah, I think this is right. But eventually, the reluctant housemates may become a large enough voting block to legalize apartments.

closeparen 8y ago

I don’t think one enormous city is a great idea, but yes, most of the US should end up living in a handful of places that look more like Manhattan than postwar suburbia. Automobile-scaled development does incredible damage to our physical and social environments.

CM30 8y ago

This is why remote work is going to become increasing necessarily, and why bosses/managers/CEOs need to give up the whole 'everyone in the same building between 9-5' idea once and for all. Software engineers, marketers and other folks with similar service jobs do not need to be in the same building as the rest of their team. That'd fix a few issues right away: 1. It'd fix Silicon Valley's housing prices, since tech workers wouldn't be buying all the houses/apartments. This would remove a pool of people making hundreds of thousands a year from the equation, and ideally causing prices to drop down to an affordable value. 2. It'd mean the actual workers who need to live their work (teachers, nurses, retail staff, etc) would likely be able to afford more, since they wouldn't be competing with software engineers for the same properties). 3. It'd give people an incentive to move to smaller towns/cities/not end up crammed into a single area. Does that mean sprawl? Not necessarily, it could mean other large towns and cities in the UK and US could benefit from a higher population rather than the likes of London/New York/San Francisco sucking up new residents by the million. 4. And in future, maybe it could kill off the idea of immigration/emigration too, at least for the most part. The fact you have to live in a wealthy country to get a high paying job is one of the things that makes stuff like the H1B scheme so lucrative. The idea employees have to be watched over in the same building like prisoners or school students is one of the reasons these house prices are so high and everything is becoming so centralised.

closeparen 8y ago
Videoconferencing is still drastically higher friction than circling in front of a whiteboard. Heads-down coding is only part of the job; it’s also to work through ideas with other people. More realistically, tech workers will be able to live in cheaper cities a couple hours away (ie Sacramento) and commute only 1-2 days a week

closeparen 8y ago

Yeah, I think this is right. But eventually, the reluctant housemates may become a large enough voting block to legalize apartments.