4 ms·
You assume the companies are the source of the shenanigans, which I disagree with. It seems counter productive for a tech company to want their worker's cost of
by BobbyJo 6y ago
You assume the companies are the source of the shenanigans, which I disagree with. It seems counter productive for a tech company to want their worker's cost of living to be higher, as that just means they will cost more.
The reality is the companies create a large inelastic demand for living space, and the local government and property owners of exploit that for profit. If you just create adequate supply (build residential), or constrain demand (don't build office space), the problem doesn't happen.
- SR2Z 6y agoI'm not so sure that it's counterproductive, because the senior leadership of those tech companies is also frequently part of the local NIMBY class.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoThey have the same general characteristics as the local NIMBY class, but I think I'd want to see more evidence that they are actually members of that class. It's a substantial accusation to make without evidence, especially since you purport to link that to tech companies being NIMBY by policy -- again, a claim I've not seen evidence for.
- BobbyJo 6y agoOnly one half of the equation (new residential) is affected by NIMBY-ism. No new residential is fine, just don't build more office space then. That requires local governments not to endlessly expand spending though, so obviously impossible.
- TaylorAlexander 6y agoFree internet for the poor also improves political organizing which could be a net negative for the ultra wealthy.
- Something1234 6y agoIt also improves the ability to gaslight those minorities via targeted advertising. Not that newstainment doesn't do the same.
- BobbyJo 6y agoLiterally anything that changes anything 'could be a negative for the ultra wealthy'.