3 ms·
4. is likely not true - software positions at worst are decently middle class. 3. is an argument against empathy. they made their choice to prioritize where th
by deanCommie 5y ago
4. is likely not true - software positions at worst are decently middle class.
3. is an argument against empathy. they made their choice to prioritize where they are living over commute. That's exactly OP's point.
1. again, if they choose not to relocate then the commute is their responsibility not the job's fault.
2. is the main point i now have a lot of sympathy for now that I have kids. Kids benefit from continuity and uprooting your whole life for one of the partner's jobs is somewhat selfish.
But even in that situation, I feel like the onus is still on the person - they are choosing their kids over their commute. The commute isn't for the job. The commute is for the kids.
- Jcowell 5y agoHopefully this isn’t from delusions but there ARE SE positions with very bad pay especially when what class you eligible for depends on where you live. Software positions at worst can be lower class.
- xjlin0 5y ago4. is actually true -- in certain SF bay area it probably needs 2 dev salaries to get a house now.
- chitowneats 5y agoI fail to see how this is at all relevant to whether or not we should return to in person work. If the Bay Area truly is unlivable, that strikes me as a local political concern. A place with that much wealth surely could have built more housing, infrastructure, etc, but the local population chose not to. Either vote with your feet or live with the consequences of the life you and your neighbors chose.
- deanCommie 5y ago"getting a house" is not the minimal threshold for success.