6 ms·

They are miserable people who want to make things worse for remote workers because if everybody can't have something then nobody can.

by bzb3 6y ago

commandlinefan 6y ago
... even if letting the people who can work remotely do so is a net win overall for everybody when you consider the reduced environmental impact.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  And if continued forever, reduced pressure on high housing costs, which currently hit lower income earners very hard.
  - bradlys 6y ago
    That’s purely a regulation issue. We could easily have more affordable housing by increasing supply. If you move people from one area to another without changing supply, you’re just gonna cause issues in the next area.
    - realbarack 6y ago
      But if the "one area" is one of ~10 expensive cities and the "another" is 100s of smaller cities, suburbs and large towns, it's much easier to build to meet the change.
      - bradlys 6y ago
        Theoretically but that’s just a burueacratic hurdle. Struggling towns would likely build if they knew people would come in but could get stonewalled by local people too. (Don’t let in them city slickers!) The issue is regulation. And I think it’d be better if we just allowed for taller buildings in some of these areas rather than sprawling out everything. Many people don’t want a SFH with a little yard and are happy with an apartment.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  Is this the fallacy of goodharts law? Just straight up killing all the poor people is also a net overall win too but that's not what we want either.
  - Dominisi 6y ago
    Nah, I think he is pointing out that if more remote work becomes the norm, urban areas will see an exodus to more rural, cheaper areas to live, and the demand for living spaces will decrease lowering the costs of rent in urban areas where most poor people live.
    - throwlaplace 6y ago
      No he's saying that less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs. I'm saying I disagree because if the goal were maximizing some kind of utility function then I have an even better solution. Re your point: obviously you're unfamiliar with the effects of white flight to the suburbs on inner cities. White people (read: wealthy people) have already made that migration in the 50s and 60s and took all of tax revenue with them, leading to places like Detroit and South side Chicago. It was only during the 2000s that they've migrated back to cities. Heading back to the suburbs will repeat history that's literally only 50 years old. Edit: alright which part am I wrong about mr downvoter
      - commandlinefan 6y ago
        > less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs No, he's saying that if some people work from home and some other people don't, fewer people will commute, the environment we all share will benefit, but people who can't work from home can still do their jobs. (Source: am the one who said it)
        throwlaplace 6y ago
        Great. Now map out for me what happens to counties that get the bulk of their tax revenue from property taxes and then use that tax revenue to preserve and improve the environs of that county? Just think about it for two seconds: how good is park beautification on one side of the train tracks vs the other? Is that because of commuting or something else? >, but people who can't work from home can still do their jobs seeing as how service jobs can't be done from home this prompts the question: for whom exactly are these people going to be providing services when all of the remote workers have fled to the suburbs? so will they actually be able to "do their jobs"?
throwlaplace 6y ago
Every time there's an article on hn highlighting how a vulnerable/at risk/marginalized group of people is being put further at risk the typical response is exactly yours: selfish instead of charitable. They're not miserable people simply because you don't get to have another luxury. They're circumspect and compassionate for not simply being complacent and instead exploring all of the effects. You do realize the authors themselves benefit from remote work right? Guess what: if the world is going to improve for poor people then we rich people are going to have to forgo some luxuries; reagonomics/"rising tide raises all ships" doesn't work (how well are the poor people in SF doing?). Casting aspersions on people (authors here) for sounding the alarms on yet another impending structural shift that will further weaken the poor is a special kind of immoral.
- smabie 6y ago
  > Guess what: if the world is going to improve for poor people then we rich people are going to have to forgo some luxuries; reagonomics/"rising tide raises all ships" doesn't work (how well are the poor people in SF doing?). How does rich people forgoing luxuries help poor people? Moreover, the poor people in SF are doing a hell of a lot better than many parts of the world. I lived in Africa for two years and a minimum wage worker in the US would be considered almost unimaginably wealthy. Poor is relative, and the working class in America would be doing great if not for the massive inflation in college, housing, and healthcare prices. And what do all three have in common? You guessed it, the government! It should be no surprise to anyone that the natural result of pumping absurd amounts of money into these sectors (student loans, government subsidized mortgages, medicare/medicaid) is inflated prices.
  - throwlaplace 6y ago
    >How does rich people forgoing luxuries help poor people? easy: take all of the money you would spend on luxuries and donate it to a charity. was it really that hard to come up with that yourself? >I lived in Africa for two years and a minimum wage worker in the US would be considered almost unimaginably wealthy great so did i (i can prove it if you think i'm lying just to contradict you). the poor people in africa lived with their families and worked the fields and were able to eat and shelter with those families. would you like compare health care? like the kind that poor people don't have access to either? >Poor is relative what does this mean? poor people in america have shorter life spans than rich people, fewer teeth, are incarcerated more often etc etc. who are we relativizing their experiences to? > You guessed it, the government the government? you mean the same institution that in other countries is able to succor the poorly and sickly but somehow in this country can't manage to get out from under the thumb of lobbyists? > medicare/medicaid you're clueless. is single payer cheaper or more expensive? who is preventing single payer? is it "the government" or interest groups?
kerkeslager 6y ago
Can we not do these straw man arguments? I am a remote worker. I'm certainly not for making my own life worse. Surely we can see a mismatch, however, when there are people who are considered essential enough to risk their lives, but not considered essential enough to be paid enough to own their own home or car. I think there are a lot of non-remote jobs which can't be done remotely, but I do think we could pay those workers more.
dang 6y ago
Can you please not take HN threads further into flamewar and/or do the ideological battle thing here? (Btw, I appreciate that your comments have improved away from this direction in general.)

They are miserable people who want to make things worse for remote workers because if everybody can't have something then nobody can.

by bzb3 6y ago

They are miserable people who want to make things worse for remote workers because if everybody can't have something then nobody can.

commandlinefan 6y ago

... even if letting the people who can work remotely do so is a net win overall for everybody when you consider the reduced environmental impact.

ashtonkem 6y ago
And if continued forever, reduced pressure on high housing costs, which currently hit lower income earners very hard.
- bradlys 6y ago
  That’s purely a regulation issue. We could easily have more affordable housing by increasing supply. If you move people from one area to another without changing supply, you’re just gonna cause issues in the next area.
  - realbarack 6y ago
    But if the "one area" is one of ~10 expensive cities and the "another" is 100s of smaller cities, suburbs and large towns, it's much easier to build to meet the change.
    - bradlys 6y ago
      Theoretically but that’s just a burueacratic hurdle. Struggling towns would likely build if they knew people would come in but could get stonewalled by local people too. (Don’t let in them city slickers!) The issue is regulation. And I think it’d be better if we just allowed for taller buildings in some of these areas rather than sprawling out everything. Many people don’t want a SFH with a little yard and are happy with an apartment.
throwlaplace 6y ago
Is this the fallacy of goodharts law? Just straight up killing all the poor people is also a net overall win too but that's not what we want either.
- Dominisi 6y ago
  Nah, I think he is pointing out that if more remote work becomes the norm, urban areas will see an exodus to more rural, cheaper areas to live, and the demand for living spaces will decrease lowering the costs of rent in urban areas where most poor people live.
  - throwlaplace 6y ago
    No he's saying that less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs. I'm saying I disagree because if the goal were maximizing some kind of utility function then I have an even better solution. Re your point: obviously you're unfamiliar with the effects of white flight to the suburbs on inner cities. White people (read: wealthy people) have already made that migration in the 50s and 60s and took all of tax revenue with them, leading to places like Detroit and South side Chicago. It was only during the 2000s that they've migrated back to cities. Heading back to the suburbs will repeat history that's literally only 50 years old. Edit: alright which part am I wrong about mr downvoter
    - commandlinefan 6y ago
      > less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs No, he's saying that if some people work from home and some other people don't, fewer people will commute, the environment we all share will benefit, but people who can't work from home can still do their jobs. (Source: am the one who said it)
      - throwlaplace 6y ago
        Great. Now map out for me what happens to counties that get the bulk of their tax revenue from property taxes and then use that tax revenue to preserve and improve the environs of that county? Just think about it for two seconds: how good is park beautification on one side of the train tracks vs the other? Is that because of commuting or something else? >, but people who can't work from home can still do their jobs seeing as how service jobs can't be done from home this prompts the question: for whom exactly are these people going to be providing services when all of the remote workers have fled to the suburbs? so will they actually be able to "do their jobs"?

throwlaplace 6y ago

Every time there's an article on hn highlighting how a vulnerable/at risk/marginalized group of people is being put further at risk the typical response is exactly yours: selfish instead of charitable. They're not miserable people simply because you don't get to have another luxury. They're circumspect and compassionate for not simply being complacent and instead exploring all of the effects. You do realize the authors themselves benefit from remote work right? Guess what: if the world is going to improve for poor people then we rich people are going to have to forgo some luxuries; reagonomics/"rising tide raises all ships" doesn't work (how well are the poor people in SF doing?). Casting aspersions on people (authors here) for sounding the alarms on yet another impending structural shift that will further weaken the poor is a special kind of immoral.

smabie 6y ago
> Guess what: if the world is going to improve for poor people then we rich people are going to have to forgo some luxuries; reagonomics/"rising tide raises all ships" doesn't work (how well are the poor people in SF doing?). How does rich people forgoing luxuries help poor people? Moreover, the poor people in SF are doing a hell of a lot better than many parts of the world. I lived in Africa for two years and a minimum wage worker in the US would be considered almost unimaginably wealthy. Poor is relative, and the working class in America would be doing great if not for the massive inflation in college, housing, and healthcare prices. And what do all three have in common? You guessed it, the government! It should be no surprise to anyone that the natural result of pumping absurd amounts of money into these sectors (student loans, government subsidized mortgages, medicare/medicaid) is inflated prices.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  >How does rich people forgoing luxuries help poor people? easy: take all of the money you would spend on luxuries and donate it to a charity. was it really that hard to come up with that yourself? >I lived in Africa for two years and a minimum wage worker in the US would be considered almost unimaginably wealthy great so did i (i can prove it if you think i'm lying just to contradict you). the poor people in africa lived with their families and worked the fields and were able to eat and shelter with those families. would you like compare health care? like the kind that poor people don't have access to either? >Poor is relative what does this mean? poor people in america have shorter life spans than rich people, fewer teeth, are incarcerated more often etc etc. who are we relativizing their experiences to? > You guessed it, the government the government? you mean the same institution that in other countries is able to succor the poorly and sickly but somehow in this country can't manage to get out from under the thumb of lobbyists? > medicare/medicaid you're clueless. is single payer cheaper or more expensive? who is preventing single payer? is it "the government" or interest groups?

kerkeslager 6y ago

Can we not do these straw man arguments? I am a remote worker. I'm certainly not for making my own life worse. Surely we can see a mismatch, however, when there are people who are considered essential enough to risk their lives, but not considered essential enough to be paid enough to own their own home or car. I think there are a lot of non-remote jobs which can't be done remotely, but I do think we could pay those workers more.

dang 6y ago

Can you please not take HN threads further into flamewar and/or do the ideological battle thing here? (Btw, I appreciate that your comments have improved away from this direction in general.)