5 ms·

Thought for conversation: if you are able to work remote but still live in or near a major employment center, are you at least somewhat morally responsible for

Thought for conversation: if you are able to work remote but still live in or near a major employment center, are you at least somewhat morally responsible for pricing out those who cannot work remote?

giantg2 5y ago
Not sure why you are being down voted. This seems like a legitimate question that I would like to see the opposite side of. For example, if I was permanently remote, I would like to move to a cheaper area. I can't because my wife doesn't want to leave the current county (because "It's the best county in the world"). Although I'm also not in a heavily populated area, more so on the edge of being rural.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Perhaps if I used the word 'ethically' rather than 'morally' there would have been less of an emotional reaction to the question.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I do agree it could be worded better. I kind of doubt a single word would change the tone that significantly (given that many people don't know the difference).
- lastofthemojito 5y ago
  > I can't because my wife doesn't want to leave the current county (because "It's the best county in the world") For some reason that comment really piqued my curiosity. Obviously lots of us might choose different areas for various reasons (schools, weather, scenery, politics, recreational opportunities, cultural sites, etc). But to make a declaration of world's best must mean a lot of confidence in the greatness of one's county! It also reminds me how little I identify with the county I live in, perhaps because I've lived in a few, and perhaps because I currently live almost directly on a county border and can see the neighboring county from my back windows. Still, I'm curious what about your home county makes your wife so enthusiastic about it compared to well, everywhere else?
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "Still, I'm curious what about your home county makes your wife so enthusiastic about it compared to well, everywhere else?" I asked her that during the discussion. She wasn't able to give any explanation. My guess is that it's because she's never lived anywhere else. I've lived multiple places. They each have their good and bad characteristics.
tristor 5y ago
No. I'd argue that choosing to live in any area for any reason does not in any way make you morally responsible for the externalities of that choice. What you do while living there you are morally responsible for, but merely the choice to move does not bear any responsibility. So, yes, NIMBYs bear some moral responsibility for the housing situation, but simply relocating does not create responsibility or moral hazard.
twblalock 5y ago
No, because you as an individual are not morally obligated to provide housing to society. If such an obligation exists, it's the government's obligation, not an individual one. The best thing an individual can do to provide housing to other people (aside from build it) is to support the loosening of regulations which make it difficult to build new housing. Those regulations tend to be worst in the major employment centers.
Erik816 5y ago
Nope. If you can afford to live on the waterfront and enjoy the view, but never use your boat, are you morally obligated to sell your house to someone who will be out there fishing or skiing every day? Land is bought and sold on an open market. Everyone can decide for themselves what is most important to them and what they can afford. One factor behind living in a major city is certainly easy access to in-person employment. But there are a ton of other factors (restaurants, culture, sporting events, community, etc.). If you are willing to pay a lot of money to be close to those things even if you don't use all of them, that's your choice and it's perfectly ethical.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I dislike this particular example because waterfront views aren't necessarily tied to boat accessibility. I have relatives in Long Island that live five houses from a marina and have absolutely no water view what-so-ever, however they have exceedingly good access to their boat which they sail regularly. I like the gist of your argument but the specifics are pretty questionable to me and I'm struggling to think of a similar fair argument that doesn't also have the "under-utilizer" reaping some direct benefit from the same quality that the "proper-utilizer" would fully exercise. The easiest example for me to think of is public transit, a lot of people make no use of public transit for their work commute but still use it when going out for the evening or get a benefit from it through their children's usage. City nodes tend to specialize pretty efficiently, the fact that people who want to live near a movie theater often compete with people wanting to live near transit is due to the fact that those attributes aren't nearly as independent as you'd think. Theaters and entertainment venues in general tend to clump around good public transit accessibility. The waterfront view and the ability to easily fish are two different services, but they're supplied by the same object so it isn't particularly easy to separate the two[1]. 1. I mean, unless you're talking about Boston in the 90's where the Charles was a pristine beautiful river that only an absolute madman would ever dare to fish on or some other similar pollution driven limitation of services... but that also shifts the original point since fisherman have no desire to live close to the Charles (and might actually be harmed by having to boat up and down the Charles every day when compared to living in Chelsea or Southie.
francisofascii 5y ago
If you are judging morality based on, taking more than what you need or deserve, or squandering a gift, then maybe. But that would be a high bar. How much space you take up and how you interact in your neighborhood would factor in much more than your presence. For example, if you lived in the slums of the city, but was a net positive for the community and caused some gentrification, that certainly should not count against you. How about people who can walk to mass transit but don't use it? That would be similar.
eweise 5y ago
You mean am I morally obligated to take my kids from their school and friends, as well as all the relationships I've made with the community, so that someone else can have an easier commute? nope.
chmod600 5y ago
Morality is too blunt of a tool for this kind of question. Right now we are way over-moralizing many issues and it's not helpful to a discussion. Morality is useful to avoid rationalizing things that we know are wrong. For example, killing is wrong -- we don't want individuals making complex rationalizations about how the end justifies the means. But something as complex as the place a person chooses to live? No, that's a morally-neutral choice. It may not be optimal for the benefit of society, but that's not what morality is about.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  >For example, killing is wrong -- we don't want individuals making complex rationalizations about how the end justifies the means. Humanity justifies it in self-defense and war. A long time ago, civilizations justified human sacrifices. It doesn't take a complex rationalization. Only a convincing one. While the platitude of "killing is wrong" is repeated by everyone, if you dig deep enough, people will still provide carveouts for themselves and their country or religion. Whether killing is good or bad is assessed by people objectively in terms of motives and consequences, and, on a subjective level, manner and "proportion". There wouldn't be a distinction between homicide and murder if humanity as a whole practiced what it preached. >But something as complex as the place a person chooses to live? No, that's a morally-neutral choice. It may not be optimal for the benefit of society, but that's not what morality is about. I agree entirely. However this seems like a massive departure from what I've had to argue against in this forum. Plenty have claimed the opposite, that morality is all about society and any correlated externality IS obliged to be solved by government or the people through a half-baked redistribution scheme.
scsilver 5y ago
Those employment centers are where resources are. The alternative is setting up resort towns with shipped in and strained labor serving the leisure and remote work class. See the mountain towns. Living remotely outside of towns starts to get isolating and inefficient unless you are getting all your resources from around your house and living off the land. Forget modern amenities.
fleddr 5y ago
Practically speaking, the areas you speak of will always have high demand, no matter the type of demand. It's never going to be affordable. Accept it. Second, somebody living in a small super expensive apartment whilst fully working remotely is likely to have a miserable time (COVID situation). If they would have the type of job security guaranteeing they can continue working remotely for a long time, surely many of them might leave. Those that stay likely have non-work reasons to stay, like proximity to family or other attractions of the city. As for home ownership, it's a market, and there's no such thing as morality in markets. If you think that sounds cruel and selfish, try this simple thought exercise: the people currently priced out of owning a home, imagine they somehow do acquire a home. Now add 10 years and their homes appreciating 50% in value. Now they sell, do you honestly believe that these people that were all about social fairness and morality now apply a 50% discount to the buyer, out of the goodness of their heart? I don't think so. Likewise, if something happens to your home (expensive repairs, mortgage issues) do "moral" people come to help and compensate you? No. Your problem, you're the owner. Anyway, I do empathize with the point, and I think we need a systemic change. The spreading of work/cultural locations into more places/hubs. The idea that you can cram ever more people in a tiny area and somehow keep this stable and working is just a ridiculous illusion. Extra supply doesn't really work in these areas, so indeed...reduce demand, by moving it.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  > 'no such thing as morality in markets' Is it okay to sell people? Do you own your children? If you own land, do you also own anyone who lives on that land? At various point in history answers to all of the above were yes. Should we have a market for organs? There is a market for intellectual property, but what is intellectual property - maybe there should be a patent for everything that exists, say a pencil, and they should never ever expire. So noone except that owner should be allowed to make pencils. Should we have laws against Dumping, self dealing, wash teading, antitrust, insider trading, tragedy of the commons, negative externalities, collusion, cartels, misselling? All those behaviours arise naturally from markets.
  - fleddr 5y ago
JetAlone 5y ago
Yes, I do think so. There are plenty of ways we could make selfish decisions about here we live. I also think where a person lives is also highly personal and private and should not be subject to the decisions or judgments of others. Many people cited a pressure to provide/maintain a social environment for their family, so it's not a 1-dimensional decision by any means...

giantg2 5y ago

Not sure why you are being down voted. This seems like a legitimate question that I would like to see the opposite side of. For example, if I was permanently remote, I would like to move to a cheaper area. I can't because my wife doesn't want to leave the current county (because "It's the best county in the world"). Although I'm also not in a heavily populated area, more so on the edge of being rural.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Perhaps if I used the word 'ethically' rather than 'morally' there would have been less of an emotional reaction to the question.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I do agree it could be worded better. I kind of doubt a single word would change the tone that significantly (given that many people don't know the difference).
lastofthemojito 5y ago
> I can't because my wife doesn't want to leave the current county (because "It's the best county in the world") For some reason that comment really piqued my curiosity. Obviously lots of us might choose different areas for various reasons (schools, weather, scenery, politics, recreational opportunities, cultural sites, etc). But to make a declaration of world's best must mean a lot of confidence in the greatness of one's county! It also reminds me how little I identify with the county I live in, perhaps because I've lived in a few, and perhaps because I currently live almost directly on a county border and can see the neighboring county from my back windows. Still, I'm curious what about your home county makes your wife so enthusiastic about it compared to well, everywhere else?
- giantg2 5y ago
  "Still, I'm curious what about your home county makes your wife so enthusiastic about it compared to well, everywhere else?" I asked her that during the discussion. She wasn't able to give any explanation. My guess is that it's because she's never lived anywhere else. I've lived multiple places. They each have their good and bad characteristics.

tristor 5y ago

No. I'd argue that choosing to live in any area for any reason does not in any way make you morally responsible for the externalities of that choice. What you do while living there you are morally responsible for, but merely the choice to move does not bear any responsibility. So, yes, NIMBYs bear some moral responsibility for the housing situation, but simply relocating does not create responsibility or moral hazard.

twblalock 5y ago

No, because you as an individual are not morally obligated to provide housing to society. If such an obligation exists, it's the government's obligation, not an individual one. The best thing an individual can do to provide housing to other people (aside from build it) is to support the loosening of regulations which make it difficult to build new housing. Those regulations tend to be worst in the major employment centers.

Erik816 5y ago

Nope. If you can afford to live on the waterfront and enjoy the view, but never use your boat, are you morally obligated to sell your house to someone who will be out there fishing or skiing every day? Land is bought and sold on an open market. Everyone can decide for themselves what is most important to them and what they can afford. One factor behind living in a major city is certainly easy access to in-person employment. But there are a ton of other factors (restaurants, culture, sporting events, community, etc.). If you are willing to pay a lot of money to be close to those things even if you don't use all of them, that's your choice and it's perfectly ethical.

munk-a 5y ago
I dislike this particular example because waterfront views aren't necessarily tied to boat accessibility. I have relatives in Long Island that live five houses from a marina and have absolutely no water view what-so-ever, however they have exceedingly good access to their boat which they sail regularly. I like the gist of your argument but the specifics are pretty questionable to me and I'm struggling to think of a similar fair argument that doesn't also have the "under-utilizer" reaping some direct benefit from the same quality that the "proper-utilizer" would fully exercise. The easiest example for me to think of is public transit, a lot of people make no use of public transit for their work commute but still use it when going out for the evening or get a benefit from it through their children's usage. City nodes tend to specialize pretty efficiently, the fact that people who want to live near a movie theater often compete with people wanting to live near transit is due to the fact that those attributes aren't nearly as independent as you'd think. Theaters and entertainment venues in general tend to clump around good public transit accessibility. The waterfront view and the ability to easily fish are two different services, but they're supplied by the same object so it isn't particularly easy to separate the two[1]. 1. I mean, unless you're talking about Boston in the 90's where the Charles was a pristine beautiful river that only an absolute madman would ever dare to fish on or some other similar pollution driven limitation of services... but that also shifts the original point since fisherman have no desire to live close to the Charles (and might actually be harmed by having to boat up and down the Charles every day when compared to living in Chelsea or Southie.

francisofascii 5y ago

If you are judging morality based on, taking more than what you need or deserve, or squandering a gift, then maybe. But that would be a high bar. How much space you take up and how you interact in your neighborhood would factor in much more than your presence. For example, if you lived in the slums of the city, but was a net positive for the community and caused some gentrification, that certainly should not count against you. How about people who can walk to mass transit but don't use it? That would be similar.

eweise 5y ago

You mean am I morally obligated to take my kids from their school and friends, as well as all the relationships I've made with the community, so that someone else can have an easier commute? nope.

chmod600 5y ago

Morality is too blunt of a tool for this kind of question. Right now we are way over-moralizing many issues and it's not helpful to a discussion. Morality is useful to avoid rationalizing things that we know are wrong. For example, killing is wrong -- we don't want individuals making complex rationalizations about how the end justifies the means. But something as complex as the place a person chooses to live? No, that's a morally-neutral choice. It may not be optimal for the benefit of society, but that's not what morality is about.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
>For example, killing is wrong -- we don't want individuals making complex rationalizations about how the end justifies the means. Humanity justifies it in self-defense and war. A long time ago, civilizations justified human sacrifices. It doesn't take a complex rationalization. Only a convincing one. While the platitude of "killing is wrong" is repeated by everyone, if you dig deep enough, people will still provide carveouts for themselves and their country or religion. Whether killing is good or bad is assessed by people objectively in terms of motives and consequences, and, on a subjective level, manner and "proportion". There wouldn't be a distinction between homicide and murder if humanity as a whole practiced what it preached. >But something as complex as the place a person chooses to live? No, that's a morally-neutral choice. It may not be optimal for the benefit of society, but that's not what morality is about. I agree entirely. However this seems like a massive departure from what I've had to argue against in this forum. Plenty have claimed the opposite, that morality is all about society and any correlated externality IS obliged to be solved by government or the people through a half-baked redistribution scheme.

scsilver 5y ago

Those employment centers are where resources are. The alternative is setting up resort towns with shipped in and strained labor serving the leisure and remote work class. See the mountain towns. Living remotely outside of towns starts to get isolating and inefficient unless you are getting all your resources from around your house and living off the land. Forget modern amenities.

fleddr 5y ago

Practically speaking, the areas you speak of will always have high demand, no matter the type of demand. It's never going to be affordable. Accept it. Second, somebody living in a small super expensive apartment whilst fully working remotely is likely to have a miserable time (COVID situation). If they would have the type of job security guaranteeing they can continue working remotely for a long time, surely many of them might leave. Those that stay likely have non-work reasons to stay, like proximity to family or other attractions of the city. As for home ownership, it's a market, and there's no such thing as morality in markets. If you think that sounds cruel and selfish, try this simple thought exercise: the people currently priced out of owning a home, imagine they somehow do acquire a home. Now add 10 years and their homes appreciating 50% in value. Now they sell, do you honestly believe that these people that were all about social fairness and morality now apply a 50% discount to the buyer, out of the goodness of their heart? I don't think so. Likewise, if something happens to your home (expensive repairs, mortgage issues) do "moral" people come to help and compensate you? No. Your problem, you're the owner. Anyway, I do empathize with the point, and I think we need a systemic change. The spreading of work/cultural locations into more places/hubs. The idea that you can cram ever more people in a tiny area and somehow keep this stable and working is just a ridiculous illusion. Extra supply doesn't really work in these areas, so indeed...reduce demand, by moving it.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
> 'no such thing as morality in markets' Is it okay to sell people? Do you own your children? If you own land, do you also own anyone who lives on that land? At various point in history answers to all of the above were yes. Should we have a market for organs? There is a market for intellectual property, but what is intellectual property - maybe there should be a patent for everything that exists, say a pencil, and they should never ever expire. So noone except that owner should be allowed to make pencils. Should we have laws against Dumping, self dealing, wash teading, antitrust, insider trading, tragedy of the commons, negative externalities, collusion, cartels, misselling? All those behaviours arise naturally from markets.
- fleddr 5y ago

JetAlone 5y ago

Yes, I do think so. There are plenty of ways we could make selfish decisions about here we live. I also think where a person lives is also highly personal and private and should not be subject to the decisions or judgments of others. Many people cited a pressure to provide/maintain a social environment for their family, so it's not a 1-dimensional decision by any means...