5 ms·

I can't help but keep thinking remote work will just lead to more wealth inequality. My dumb argument: => Amazon/Apple/Big-Tech petitions a city for a super ce

I can't help but keep thinking remote work will just lead to more wealth inequality. My dumb argument: => Amazon/Apple/Big-Tech petitions a city for a super center for bunch of middle-class (and upper-class) awesome jobs. => Construction, development, small shops, homes, form around the area. => Small economy/city is built. Suddenly fitness trainer "Bob" can sell $100/hr lessons, open a gym, and provide for family on unskilled labor. Etc... => Schools in area get better. Crime goes down. => And so on... If remote becomes a thing and all these "super jobs" can be done from anywhere in the world, I just can't shake a dead-end for booming neighborhoods that aren't gigantic mansions is coming.

basisword 5y ago
Surely this reduces inequality? Instead of money congregating in big cities it gets spent all over the country/world. Instead of wealthy people gentrifying certain neighbourhoods as a group and pricing everyone else out, there can be more of a mix of incomes.
- WORMS_EAT_WORMS 5y ago
  That's a really great counter argument. To be honest, I don't really know and am not claiming an exact answer. I imagine it's a little bit of both. When I was a naive kid, I moved to a highly populated city just to find work (no plan in place). I'm saying that same take-a-chance opportunity that I had, may become just that much harder for others now.
  - basisword 5y ago
    I guess it's one of those things that can be argued either way and only time will tell!
- dec0dedab0de 5y ago
  Maybe at first, but by increasing their supply of potential employees a company could pay lower wages. Which would mean more profits for executives and share holders, and a larger gap.
- austinl 5y ago
  Yeah, I think this is more correct. Historically, land value has been driven upward by proximity to high-paying jobs. This is why gentrification occurs. For example, people move into the Mission District in SF because it's close SoMa where a lot of tech offices are. That creates upward pressure on housing prices (with more demand). Landlords and developers also renovate or build new construction (e.g. Vara on 15th and Mission) that are considered "luxury", with rent prices higher than what previous residents of the neighborhood can afford. Developers generally have an incentive to build for the luxury price range, because the price of construction isn't substantially higher (and it makes the lifetime ROI of the building much higher). This means that if more people work remotely (especially high-earners), there's a less concentrated effect on land value in specific neighborhoods. People who previously lived in neighborhoods are less likely to be priced out, which is ultimately a symptom of wealth inequality.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > it gets spent all over the country/world. Instead of wealthy people gentrifying certain neighbourhoods as a group and pricing everyone else out, there can be more of a mix of incomes. Will folks from SF really move to the middle of Oklahoma?
  - ladyattis 5y ago
    If Oklahoma gets good internet I'm sure they would. I know NW Kansas has great fiber internet and the cost of living isn't bad. Not much to do out there unless you love hunting or astronomy or church though.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      > Not much to do out there unless you love hunting or astronomy or church though. How are the schools?
      - ladyattis 5y ago
        Oh god, they're awful. Every other year the state supreme court slaps down the state legislature for trying to go cheap on the schools, especially in western Kansas where it's most needed. It's not as bad as Oklahoma in this regard but it's still awful. It's one of the reasons why it's next to impossible to get anyone that comes out of KU or KSU or even WSU (Wichita State) to stick around if their degree is in demand. For example, aerospace engineers move out to Denver quite early since that's where all the offices seem to be (so much for Wichita being the "air capital of the world" hah).
ar_lan 5y ago
Can't you apply similar arguments against pretty much any innovation? Most innovations decrease the amount of work needed to accomplish something, necessitating "fewer" jobs. If remote work is advantageous for the majority of parties involved, I don't think we should force people into a specific geography just to allow the local Taco Bell to charge $6 for a Beefy 5-layer Burrito. As it is, high-earners in the Bay Area are struggling very hard to try to buy a home, so I'm all for opening up the opportunities to move to some more affordable areas.
- WORMS_EAT_WORMS 5y ago
  >$6 for a Beefy 5-layer Burrito. That's kind of my point. HCOL extends past housing and actually empowers your less fortunate blue-collar neighbors when things are more expensive. If the people at the top take their money and run (rightfully so), it just is not contributing back to local economies -- those people, those schools, those kids, those families. Rent/Housing is definitely a whole separate problem.

basisword 5y ago

Surely this reduces inequality? Instead of money congregating in big cities it gets spent all over the country/world. Instead of wealthy people gentrifying certain neighbourhoods as a group and pricing everyone else out, there can be more of a mix of incomes.

WORMS_EAT_WORMS 5y ago
That's a really great counter argument. To be honest, I don't really know and am not claiming an exact answer. I imagine it's a little bit of both. When I was a naive kid, I moved to a highly populated city just to find work (no plan in place). I'm saying that same take-a-chance opportunity that I had, may become just that much harder for others now.
- basisword 5y ago
  I guess it's one of those things that can be argued either way and only time will tell!
dec0dedab0de 5y ago
Maybe at first, but by increasing their supply of potential employees a company could pay lower wages. Which would mean more profits for executives and share holders, and a larger gap.
austinl 5y ago
Yeah, I think this is more correct. Historically, land value has been driven upward by proximity to high-paying jobs. This is why gentrification occurs. For example, people move into the Mission District in SF because it's close SoMa where a lot of tech offices are. That creates upward pressure on housing prices (with more demand). Landlords and developers also renovate or build new construction (e.g. Vara on 15th and Mission) that are considered "luxury", with rent prices higher than what previous residents of the neighborhood can afford. Developers generally have an incentive to build for the luxury price range, because the price of construction isn't substantially higher (and it makes the lifetime ROI of the building much higher). This means that if more people work remotely (especially high-earners), there's a less concentrated effect on land value in specific neighborhoods. People who previously lived in neighborhoods are less likely to be priced out, which is ultimately a symptom of wealth inequality.
908B64B197 5y ago
> it gets spent all over the country/world. Instead of wealthy people gentrifying certain neighbourhoods as a group and pricing everyone else out, there can be more of a mix of incomes. Will folks from SF really move to the middle of Oklahoma?
- ladyattis 5y ago
  If Oklahoma gets good internet I'm sure they would. I know NW Kansas has great fiber internet and the cost of living isn't bad. Not much to do out there unless you love hunting or astronomy or church though.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > Not much to do out there unless you love hunting or astronomy or church though. How are the schools?
    - ladyattis 5y ago
      Oh god, they're awful. Every other year the state supreme court slaps down the state legislature for trying to go cheap on the schools, especially in western Kansas where it's most needed. It's not as bad as Oklahoma in this regard but it's still awful. It's one of the reasons why it's next to impossible to get anyone that comes out of KU or KSU or even WSU (Wichita State) to stick around if their degree is in demand. For example, aerospace engineers move out to Denver quite early since that's where all the offices seem to be (so much for Wichita being the "air capital of the world" hah).

ar_lan 5y ago

Can't you apply similar arguments against pretty much any innovation? Most innovations decrease the amount of work needed to accomplish something, necessitating "fewer" jobs. If remote work is advantageous for the majority of parties involved, I don't think we should force people into a specific geography just to allow the local Taco Bell to charge $6 for a Beefy 5-layer Burrito. As it is, high-earners in the Bay Area are struggling very hard to try to buy a home, so I'm all for opening up the opportunities to move to some more affordable areas.

WORMS_EAT_WORMS 5y ago
>$6 for a Beefy 5-layer Burrito. That's kind of my point. HCOL extends past housing and actually empowers your less fortunate blue-collar neighbors when things are more expensive. If the people at the top take their money and run (rightfully so), it just is not contributing back to local economies -- those people, those schools, those kids, those families. Rent/Housing is definitely a whole separate problem.