5 ms·

> There are already examples of how gains are captured by the few and not the many. The New York Times - "Feel Bad About Everything, Always" Remote work is am

> There are already examples of how gains are captured by the few and not the many. The New York Times - "Feel Bad About Everything, Always" Remote work is amazing, net on net it vastly improves lives, reduces commute time / traffic / car pollution, reverses the decades long trend of economic activity centralizing in a few boom cities, and I believe will reduce inequality longterm as workers will be able to get good, high-paying jobs no matter where they live.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
But but but.. what about the gas stations, shiny offices and all those things we have built with an explicit purpose to take advantage of you physically moving in?
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Creative destruction.
- warkdarrior 5y ago
  That's only for poor people, those who bring you food, clean your house, and deliver your Amazon boxes.
ecshafer 5y ago
>The New York Times - "Feel Bad About Everything, Always" This would be a bad thing for them, if the New York Times sold the news, which I don't think they do any more. The New York Times instead sells brand image to people. They sell a series of a talking points, ideas, and topics that show you are in the in group and on the right side. So that when someone brings up remote work, you can show how empathetic you are, and how worldly you are and say "Remote work is fine but really it shows how the gains are captured by the few and not the many, I read in the Times that... ".
- SonOfKyuss 5y ago
  Do you have a trustworthy news source that doesn’t do this?
trhoad 5y ago
Try telling that to the office cleaner.
- seibelj 5y ago
  Luckily new jobs for house cleaners will be created.
vehemenz 5y ago
You'd have a stronger argument if remote work didn't have the potential to increase rural living and exurban sprawl, both of which contribute massively to energy waste and ecological destruction. At least in the US. Boom cities were never the problem. The problem is commuting, which stems from a lack of housing. Forcing everyone out of the cities creates a worse set of problems. It means more wasteful roads to nowhere and doubling down on our third-world transportation infrastructure. It means more clearing of wild land, one of the best resources the US has if you've done any traveling at all. It means more boom-bust bedroom communities and vacant strip malls. It means more culturally insulated communities and Trump-like politicians.
- ghaff 5y ago
  >The problem is commuting, which stems from a lack of housing. I think you'll find that a great many people don't want to live in the denser areas where offices often tend to be. You can scold about that all you want, but you could make cities arbitrarily dense and a lot of people, indeed more, wouldn't want to live in them if they weren't making a commuting tradeoff because of work.
  - vehemenz 5y ago
    If you're going to quote a line, quote the context. The OP was talking about "boom cities" as a problem, which they aren't by themselves. The problem is the unaffordability of the cities, caused by lack of housing, which leads folks to live outside of the city and commute. My main point was that arguing for remote work/sprawl was not a ecologically-friendly argument. Sure, lots of people want to live in the middle of nowhere. But the negative externalities, looking to the future, are many, and they are something to consider when trying to praise WFH as a potential solution for anything. Yes, everyone that reads this forum supports WFH because they benefit directly from it. From a birds-eye view though, looking at urban development and the cultural decline of isolated populations in the US, it looks like it could be a disaster.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      That seems like a perfectly fine amount of context to quote to me. You could make cities as dense as you want and many people would explicitly choose to live in an area where they can have a private yard. There’s no strategy of densification that will preserve that for everyone. You can make the inside of your box as amazing as you can imagine and some (not small) segment of people will opt to live where the sun can shine into their yard.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

But but but.. what about the gas stations, shiny offices and all those things we have built with an explicit purpose to take advantage of you physically moving in?

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Creative destruction.
warkdarrior 5y ago
That's only for poor people, those who bring you food, clean your house, and deliver your Amazon boxes.

ecshafer 5y ago

>The New York Times - "Feel Bad About Everything, Always" This would be a bad thing for them, if the New York Times sold the news, which I don't think they do any more. The New York Times instead sells brand image to people. They sell a series of a talking points, ideas, and topics that show you are in the in group and on the right side. So that when someone brings up remote work, you can show how empathetic you are, and how worldly you are and say "Remote work is fine but really it shows how the gains are captured by the few and not the many, I read in the Times that... ".

SonOfKyuss 5y ago
Do you have a trustworthy news source that doesn’t do this?

trhoad 5y ago

Try telling that to the office cleaner.

seibelj 5y ago
Luckily new jobs for house cleaners will be created.

vehemenz 5y ago

You'd have a stronger argument if remote work didn't have the potential to increase rural living and exurban sprawl, both of which contribute massively to energy waste and ecological destruction. At least in the US. Boom cities were never the problem. The problem is commuting, which stems from a lack of housing. Forcing everyone out of the cities creates a worse set of problems. It means more wasteful roads to nowhere and doubling down on our third-world transportation infrastructure. It means more clearing of wild land, one of the best resources the US has if you've done any traveling at all. It means more boom-bust bedroom communities and vacant strip malls. It means more culturally insulated communities and Trump-like politicians.

ghaff 5y ago
>The problem is commuting, which stems from a lack of housing. I think you'll find that a great many people don't want to live in the denser areas where offices often tend to be. You can scold about that all you want, but you could make cities arbitrarily dense and a lot of people, indeed more, wouldn't want to live in them if they weren't making a commuting tradeoff because of work.
- vehemenz 5y ago
  If you're going to quote a line, quote the context. The OP was talking about "boom cities" as a problem, which they aren't by themselves. The problem is the unaffordability of the cities, caused by lack of housing, which leads folks to live outside of the city and commute. My main point was that arguing for remote work/sprawl was not a ecologically-friendly argument. Sure, lots of people want to live in the middle of nowhere. But the negative externalities, looking to the future, are many, and they are something to consider when trying to praise WFH as a potential solution for anything. Yes, everyone that reads this forum supports WFH because they benefit directly from it. From a birds-eye view though, looking at urban development and the cultural decline of isolated populations in the US, it looks like it could be a disaster.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    That seems like a perfectly fine amount of context to quote to me. You could make cities as dense as you want and many people would explicitly choose to live in an area where they can have a private yard. There’s no strategy of densification that will preserve that for everyone. You can make the inside of your box as amazing as you can imagine and some (not small) segment of people will opt to live where the sun can shine into their yard.