4 ms·

I'm with you up to this weird high-earners fixation. Who exactly is working in those coffee shops?

yourapostasy 5y ago
> Who exactly is working in those coffee shops? Perhaps high-earning, artisanal baristas who specialize in getting the most out of perfectly-roasted-that-morning civet-excrement-extracted coffee beans? While I also advocate ultra-high-density (Tokyo is a piker compared to #1 density Manila) cities, I freely admit that rentier dynamics in those settings in capitalist contexts remains an unsatisfactorily-addressed problem, and service workers get hit especially hard.
stale2002 5y ago
> Who exactly is working in those coffee shops? Well since there is now all this extra living space in other places that is freed up, because all the high earners don't live in other places, then I guess it would only be people who actually want to live in that area or work these jobs. If nobody wants these jobs, because cost of living is high in those areas, then wages would have to increase to attract people who want to work there. People would not be forced to live there, because of all those extra empty homes in other cities, that the yuppies moved out of.
- Talanes 5y ago
  >Well since there is now all this extra living space in other places that is freed up, because all the high earners don't live in other places That's the other weird assumption. My tiny-ass hometown has rents on par with San Francisco right now, because there are apparently enough high-earners who can now work remotely and want to live in a little mountain town.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    The vast majority of the world has cheaper rents than SF. Its simply a numbers game. Yes, I am sure you can find a couple people, who would move from a more expensive location, but that is a silly thing to bring up, as some counter example, when there are a lot more places that are cheaper, which people could move from. So yes, it is a very reasonable assumption, to say that if someone moves to SF, that most of those people, are moving out of cheaper cost of living areas, because that is how stats work. And anyway, maybe those mountain towns would be cheaper, if those yuppies were living in SF instead. So both points support me, even in the case of a yuppie coming from an expensive mountain town, moving to SF.
    - Talanes 5y ago
      I'm not saying that people are moving from more expensive mountain town to the city, I'm saying that having wealth does not automatically make you want to move to an urban environment. Especially since the sort of jobs that are starting to move to be location-independent pay better than the sort of low level in-person work that keeps a town or city running. Developing urban centers to hold more people definitely frees up space in non-urban areas, but it's not a yuppie vs low class thing. There will always be rich people who want country living, and a working class who enjoy (and are necessary to support) city life.
      - stale2002 5y ago
        > Developing urban centers to hold more people definitely frees up space in non-urban areas Great. So you agree completely with my main point here, and your only disagreements seems to be semantic or irrelevant to that main point. As long as you agree with the statement you that just made, then I can confidently say you have zero, or at least very little disagreement with what I was intending on communicating.

> Who exactly is working in those coffee shops? Perhaps high-earning, artisanal baristas who specialize in getting the most out of perfectly-roasted-that-morning civet-excrement-extracted coffee beans? While I also advocate ultra-high-density (Tokyo is a piker compared to #1 density Manila) cities, I freely admit that rentier dynamics in those settings in capitalist contexts remains an unsatisfactorily-addressed problem, and service workers get hit especially hard.

stale2002 5y ago

> Who exactly is working in those coffee shops? Well since there is now all this extra living space in other places that is freed up, because all the high earners don't live in other places, then I guess it would only be people who actually want to live in that area or work these jobs. If nobody wants these jobs, because cost of living is high in those areas, then wages would have to increase to attract people who want to work there. People would not be forced to live there, because of all those extra empty homes in other cities, that the yuppies moved out of.

Talanes 5y ago
>Well since there is now all this extra living space in other places that is freed up, because all the high earners don't live in other places That's the other weird assumption. My tiny-ass hometown has rents on par with San Francisco right now, because there are apparently enough high-earners who can now work remotely and want to live in a little mountain town.
- stale2002 5y ago
  The vast majority of the world has cheaper rents than SF. Its simply a numbers game. Yes, I am sure you can find a couple people, who would move from a more expensive location, but that is a silly thing to bring up, as some counter example, when there are a lot more places that are cheaper, which people could move from. So yes, it is a very reasonable assumption, to say that if someone moves to SF, that most of those people, are moving out of cheaper cost of living areas, because that is how stats work. And anyway, maybe those mountain towns would be cheaper, if those yuppies were living in SF instead. So both points support me, even in the case of a yuppie coming from an expensive mountain town, moving to SF.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    I'm not saying that people are moving from more expensive mountain town to the city, I'm saying that having wealth does not automatically make you want to move to an urban environment. Especially since the sort of jobs that are starting to move to be location-independent pay better than the sort of low level in-person work that keeps a town or city running. Developing urban centers to hold more people definitely frees up space in non-urban areas, but it's not a yuppie vs low class thing. There will always be rich people who want country living, and a working class who enjoy (and are necessary to support) city life.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > Developing urban centers to hold more people definitely frees up space in non-urban areas Great. So you agree completely with my main point here, and your only disagreements seems to be semantic or irrelevant to that main point. As long as you agree with the statement you that just made, then I can confidently say you have zero, or at least very little disagreement with what I was intending on communicating.