5 ms·

This argument has been made for decades. Isn't it about time we realised that people live somewhere amongst social capital they have built up throughout their

This argument has been made for decades. Isn't it about time we realised that people live somewhere amongst social capital they have built up throughout their lives. And therefore business capital should move where the people are - to avoid damaging that social capital. Not the other way around. Ultimately people work to live. Those who live to work are a tiny minority. With modern technology there is little excuse. Fewer and fewer enterprises require physical concentration to operate.

ljf 7y ago
This - and to add to that, the high value of this social capital when you have lower financal capital. Someone to help with the kids, relax with, help you fix your car, have a cheap evening or weekend of hanging out with. When you move it can take years to build all that up again. You might be able to do without it all, but you either have to pay to replace it or go without.
- icebraining 7y ago
  But that implies we should centralize in cities, so people don't have to move if they lose their jobs. Getting a few companies to a small town just means that when one fails, workers are more likely to have to move at a later stage in life, when they already have kids and a mortgage and such. Better for them to move to a hub when they're young. Plus their children will already be born in a hub, so they won't have to move at all.
  - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
    I agree with what you said but how many people can afford to have families in hubs like you assume?
    - jefftk 7y ago
      (author) The main reason it's expensive is because supply restrictions have pushed housing far above the cost of construction. We could fix this by allowing more construction, which is what I'm arguing for in the post.
  - ljf 7y ago
    I'm not arguing in either direction, just pointing out that moving can have a high cost. I've moved a lot, but I'm lucky to have been largely about to afford to pay for support when I've not yet been able to build support networks.
lazyjones 7y ago
> Isn't it about time we realised that people live somewhere amongst social capital they have built up throughout their lives. It's often the case, but SF, NYC, London are very popular outliers, so why can't other regions be? It's not social capital, it's expected quality of life that makes people move to NYC for work and makes dilapidated areas unattractive.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  I'm not sure about that, take a look at any of the who's hiring threads and note how nearly all the UK jobs are in London.
  - ReptileMan 7y ago
    Yes because London is best for the Founders, VC, Investors, Board of Directors and C level executives. Not because it is best for employees.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  > ...it's expected quality of life that makes people move to NYC for work and makes dilapidated areas unattractive. I can't speak to Britain, but in the U.S. there are more people that do not live in SF or NYC than do. Other than people with niche interests (musical theater, startups, finance), most Americans, even young adults, aren't sitting around wondering how they can swing a big move to New York City. It's much more normal to move to a regional big city, but in those cases the jobs are likely outside the city center as downtown. It's worth noting that NY and California would be stagnating if it weren't for immigration. Immigrants seem to be the ones who see places like SF and NYC as their big chance for a new quality of life.
indigochill 7y ago
>Isn't it about time we realised that people live somewhere amongst social capital they have built up throughout their lives. This is situational. There are also people who for whatever reason (usually work for parents) have moved around throughout their early years, thus they have little social capital to fall back on once they reach adulthood. In their case, moving to where the opportunity is makes a lot of sense because that's what they grew up with. I do agree with you, though, that a lot of jobs are location-bound that needn't necessarily be, although there is a management overhead in incorporating remote workers. I hope as time goes by more managers will learn how to work with remote staff and that opportunity will become more widely available.
sgt101 7y ago
Jobs and companies are rather ephemeral, migration is disruptive of community and family, and demands not just housing but also infrastructure (roads, transit, sewers, power, schools, health). We should understand the value of community and family and moderate the need for migration and make careful use of existing infrastructure. The North of England and cites like Pittsburgh and Detroit are cases in point.
- ddxxdd 7y ago
  Once upon a time, a rising tide of economic progress would lift all boats in all communities all around the country. Nowadays, we're in a bizarre reality where a 200% productivity gain among the average worker nationwide means a 1500% productivity gain in the top 10% of counties, coupled with a 55% productivity loss in the bottom 90% of counties. (Numbers generated randomly for illustrative purposes). One would expect that productivity-boosting technology such as computers, robots, cell phones, and various forms of automation would increase productivity for nearly every person on every square inch of this planet. That is no longer the case, and it is something I plan to study in depth at a later date.
  - paulsutter 7y ago
    Those would be really interesting statistics to know, anyone know where we could get actual numbers? Also be interesting to know his much is due yu concentration of professions and how much to local network effects.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    > Once upon a time, a rising tide of economic progress would lift all boats in all communities all around the country. I think this hasn't been true for centuries. Moving rural to the cities has been documented since the 1700's very clearly by economists.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      It may be true that all boats were being lifted before, but some more than others. Or at least the gap between the boats wasn’t as big as it is now.
ozim 7y ago
Problem is that "business capital" is also the same as "social capital". Rich people have influence because they hang out with other rich people. If you want to have startup you have to hang out with rich people so they invest in it or they buy your services. You don't want to have your company 10 hours or more away from customers. It can argued that it does not matter as much for Google, but if you are a product owner of a "FizzBuzz maker", you need social capital with high ranking people in organization so they don't cut your budget. In the end it works the same, that you have to play golf with the right people so they trust you and don't cut your funding. Of course, it is not enough just to hang out with right people. Don't get me wrong, because hanging out with people will validate all skills so if person doesn't deliver no one is going to hang out with such person. There was an article on HN not long ago with a line "Talent is distributed equally. Opportunity is not.", because social capital in big cities is much more valuable than in country side. In terms of money, in terms of no one is going to talk to you, in big city you can find new friends easier.
icebraining 7y ago
> With modern technology there is little excuse. Fewer and fewer enterprises require physical concentration to operate. True, but they're still a small minority of jobs; and those people will need/want services provided by workers of professions that do require physical presence, who will have an incentive to move away to big cities. So the only way to sustain that is to have a group of extremely highly paid remote workers, who can pay a premium to keep those other service workers in the area. Meanwhile, everyone who doesn't have a customer service job nor a remote one will move away, so you're left with a bifurcated pool of workers. Doesn't really sound like a great community to me. The alternative is for remote workers to live mostly isolated from non-remote workers, but I can't see that spreading beyond a few exceptions. EDIT: Now that I think of it, we already have those bifurcated communities, in the form of areas to where people with money move after retiring (which also frees them from the physical part of the job). I guess they're reasonably popular.
mister_hn 7y ago
Unfortunately a lot of jobs do require presence in the office, especially in particular sectors where the perception of increased security working in the office is misleading. I hope more and more companies move to remote working, but it's still a hard concept
mattr47 7y ago
I'd argue that the average person lives in order to work. It is ingrained in our minds from an early age, and why we have not gone down to a 15 hour week that was first proposed as the path ahead by Keynes in 1930. In the FIRE community you would find that the majority of people are working in order to live. Most people with consumer debt are trapped in this too.
zimablue 7y ago
Technology doesn't seem to be (in terms of what people can cheaply get hold of) there yet though? Amd as soon as it does get there, you'd arbitrage to third world guys not Western guys who want to live in Thaliand. We're in a situation where we have offshore (Indian) tech hires and it's hard to coordinate on technical matters, even in a company where we have unlimited access to fancy VC rooms. When we flew them over for a bit everything was far easier. My boss thinks expensive digital whiteboards would make a big difference, but actually more than the money there's a political/social cost to buying big, visible things to sit in public sight in an office. So why would you hire a Western guy for 3x the price and pay the exact same communication cost? Western and sitting in the same building or 3rd world country no other option seems to make sense.

ljf 7y ago

This - and to add to that, the high value of this social capital when you have lower financal capital. Someone to help with the kids, relax with, help you fix your car, have a cheap evening or weekend of hanging out with. When you move it can take years to build all that up again. You might be able to do without it all, but you either have to pay to replace it or go without.

icebraining 7y ago
But that implies we should centralize in cities, so people don't have to move if they lose their jobs. Getting a few companies to a small town just means that when one fails, workers are more likely to have to move at a later stage in life, when they already have kids and a mortgage and such. Better for them to move to a hub when they're young. Plus their children will already be born in a hub, so they won't have to move at all.
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  I agree with what you said but how many people can afford to have families in hubs like you assume?
  - jefftk 7y ago
    (author) The main reason it's expensive is because supply restrictions have pushed housing far above the cost of construction. We could fix this by allowing more construction, which is what I'm arguing for in the post.
- ljf 7y ago
  I'm not arguing in either direction, just pointing out that moving can have a high cost. I've moved a lot, but I'm lucky to have been largely about to afford to pay for support when I've not yet been able to build support networks.

lazyjones 7y ago

> Isn't it about time we realised that people live somewhere amongst social capital they have built up throughout their lives. It's often the case, but SF, NYC, London are very popular outliers, so why can't other regions be? It's not social capital, it's expected quality of life that makes people move to NYC for work and makes dilapidated areas unattractive.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I'm not sure about that, take a look at any of the who's hiring threads and note how nearly all the UK jobs are in London.
- ReptileMan 7y ago
  Yes because London is best for the Founders, VC, Investors, Board of Directors and C level executives. Not because it is best for employees.
humanrebar 7y ago
> ...it's expected quality of life that makes people move to NYC for work and makes dilapidated areas unattractive. I can't speak to Britain, but in the U.S. there are more people that do not live in SF or NYC than do. Other than people with niche interests (musical theater, startups, finance), most Americans, even young adults, aren't sitting around wondering how they can swing a big move to New York City. It's much more normal to move to a regional big city, but in those cases the jobs are likely outside the city center as downtown. It's worth noting that NY and California would be stagnating if it weren't for immigration. Immigrants seem to be the ones who see places like SF and NYC as their big chance for a new quality of life.

indigochill 7y ago

>Isn't it about time we realised that people live somewhere amongst social capital they have built up throughout their lives. This is situational. There are also people who for whatever reason (usually work for parents) have moved around throughout their early years, thus they have little social capital to fall back on once they reach adulthood. In their case, moving to where the opportunity is makes a lot of sense because that's what they grew up with. I do agree with you, though, that a lot of jobs are location-bound that needn't necessarily be, although there is a management overhead in incorporating remote workers. I hope as time goes by more managers will learn how to work with remote staff and that opportunity will become more widely available.

sgt101 7y ago

Jobs and companies are rather ephemeral, migration is disruptive of community and family, and demands not just housing but also infrastructure (roads, transit, sewers, power, schools, health). We should understand the value of community and family and moderate the need for migration and make careful use of existing infrastructure. The North of England and cites like Pittsburgh and Detroit are cases in point.

ddxxdd 7y ago
Once upon a time, a rising tide of economic progress would lift all boats in all communities all around the country. Nowadays, we're in a bizarre reality where a 200% productivity gain among the average worker nationwide means a 1500% productivity gain in the top 10% of counties, coupled with a 55% productivity loss in the bottom 90% of counties. (Numbers generated randomly for illustrative purposes). One would expect that productivity-boosting technology such as computers, robots, cell phones, and various forms of automation would increase productivity for nearly every person on every square inch of this planet. That is no longer the case, and it is something I plan to study in depth at a later date.
- paulsutter 7y ago
  Those would be really interesting statistics to know, anyone know where we could get actual numbers? Also be interesting to know his much is due yu concentration of professions and how much to local network effects.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  > Once upon a time, a rising tide of economic progress would lift all boats in all communities all around the country. I think this hasn't been true for centuries. Moving rural to the cities has been documented since the 1700's very clearly by economists.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    It may be true that all boats were being lifted before, but some more than others. Or at least the gap between the boats wasn’t as big as it is now.

ozim 7y ago

Problem is that "business capital" is also the same as "social capital". Rich people have influence because they hang out with other rich people. If you want to have startup you have to hang out with rich people so they invest in it or they buy your services. You don't want to have your company 10 hours or more away from customers. It can argued that it does not matter as much for Google, but if you are a product owner of a "FizzBuzz maker", you need social capital with high ranking people in organization so they don't cut your budget. In the end it works the same, that you have to play golf with the right people so they trust you and don't cut your funding. Of course, it is not enough just to hang out with right people. Don't get me wrong, because hanging out with people will validate all skills so if person doesn't deliver no one is going to hang out with such person. There was an article on HN not long ago with a line "Talent is distributed equally. Opportunity is not.", because social capital in big cities is much more valuable than in country side. In terms of money, in terms of no one is going to talk to you, in big city you can find new friends easier.

icebraining 7y ago

> With modern technology there is little excuse. Fewer and fewer enterprises require physical concentration to operate. True, but they're still a small minority of jobs; and those people will need/want services provided by workers of professions that do require physical presence, who will have an incentive to move away to big cities. So the only way to sustain that is to have a group of extremely highly paid remote workers, who can pay a premium to keep those other service workers in the area. Meanwhile, everyone who doesn't have a customer service job nor a remote one will move away, so you're left with a bifurcated pool of workers. Doesn't really sound like a great community to me. The alternative is for remote workers to live mostly isolated from non-remote workers, but I can't see that spreading beyond a few exceptions. EDIT: Now that I think of it, we already have those bifurcated communities, in the form of areas to where people with money move after retiring (which also frees them from the physical part of the job). I guess they're reasonably popular.

mister_hn 7y ago

Unfortunately a lot of jobs do require presence in the office, especially in particular sectors where the perception of increased security working in the office is misleading. I hope more and more companies move to remote working, but it's still a hard concept

mattr47 7y ago

I'd argue that the average person lives in order to work. It is ingrained in our minds from an early age, and why we have not gone down to a 15 hour week that was first proposed as the path ahead by Keynes in 1930. In the FIRE community you would find that the majority of people are working in order to live. Most people with consumer debt are trapped in this too.

zimablue 7y ago

Technology doesn't seem to be (in terms of what people can cheaply get hold of) there yet though? Amd as soon as it does get there, you'd arbitrage to third world guys not Western guys who want to live in Thaliand. We're in a situation where we have offshore (Indian) tech hires and it's hard to coordinate on technical matters, even in a company where we have unlimited access to fancy VC rooms. When we flew them over for a bit everything was far easier. My boss thinks expensive digital whiteboards would make a big difference, but actually more than the money there's a political/social cost to buying big, visible things to sit in public sight in an office. So why would you hire a Western guy for 3x the price and pay the exact same communication cost? Western and sitting in the same building or 3rd world country no other option seems to make sense.