> I love NYC. I want to do open source and I want to live in comfort in this city. Godspeed. I'm all for subsidizing open source development, at a level that c

> I love NYC. I want to do open source and I want to live in comfort in this city. Godspeed. I'm all for subsidizing open source development, at a level that can probably only come from taxes. One _tiny_ step in this direction was recently proposed by https://twitter.com/paulmromer/status/1065278677649432576 https://twitter.com/paulmromer/status/1065278677649432576 (let federal research grants fund open source). Still the above quote really exemplifies for me what the last several years have struck me as the artist-ification of a segment of developers: expectation of creative control and compensation, at once, with very low barriers to entry. At the same time we seem to have a bifurcation of developer compensation, not as extreme as with artists (though maybe even more extreme if FANG founders counted as developers), perhaps more like lawyers, though the evidence I guess is unclear https://danluu.com/bimodal-compensation/ https://danluu.com/bimodal-compensation/ I doubt subsidy of open source development is going to produce a large number of FANG level compensated positions, unless that is an explicit policy choice, with high barriers to entry for such funding. But it could produce a large number of "living wage" positions. Also have to look at the living cost side, which in elite cities is exacerbated by subsidies to property owners and elite industries such as finance. For "living wage" positions occupied by subsidized artists, developers, or a host of less desirable jobs, to be comfortable in elite cities, subsidies to elites have to be cut and/or elites have to be taxed so that their demand goes down. Also of course allow cheap housing.