5 ms·

Viewing individual preferences in a utilitarian fashion... sure I guess you can argue there exists some wage-distance premium at a given price to make sure that

by u10 7y ago

Viewing individual preferences in a utilitarian fashion... sure I guess you can argue there exists some wage-distance premium at a given price to make sure that a given job is filled. That being said non-pecuniary have strong effects, which is why individuals will pay out the nose to live in the city with amenities rather than commuting 2 hours a day. I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements.

nordsieck 7y ago
>> It's simple: teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagement, plumbers, etc. won't be able to live there. Nor do they need to. > I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements. To the extent that there are no people who will do the jobs (i.e. they won't pay $ + time to live close enough), those jobs will need to offer more money, or go unfilled.
magduf 7y ago
>I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements. I don't think this is hard at all: I'm not suggesting that people spend 3 hours commuting each way, plus 8 hours working. I'm suggesting they spend 6 hours commuting (both ways), and 2 hours working, and get paid for 8 hours, and the business hire 4x as many people to get the job done because of this. I'm sure they can find plenty of people willing to spend much of their workday commuting, and only having to do 2-4 hours of actual work, provided they're paid for it all. This will, of course, result in much higher prices for local goods and services, but the locals can afford it; they're wealthy landowners, after all.

by u10 7y ago

nordsieck 7y ago

>> It's simple: teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagement, plumbers, etc. won't be able to live there. Nor do they need to. > I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements. To the extent that there are no people who will do the jobs (i.e. they won't pay $ + time to live close enough), those jobs will need to offer more money, or go unfilled.

magduf 7y ago

>I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements. I don't think this is hard at all: I'm not suggesting that people spend 3 hours commuting each way, plus 8 hours working. I'm suggesting they spend 6 hours commuting (both ways), and 2 hours working, and get paid for 8 hours, and the business hire 4x as many people to get the job done because of this. I'm sure they can find plenty of people willing to spend much of their workday commuting, and only having to do 2-4 hours of actual work, provided they're paid for it all. This will, of course, result in much higher prices for local goods and services, but the locals can afford it; they're wealthy landowners, after all.