5 ms·

Legally mandating remote work and adding public transit options and raising the cost of daily useless commute would go a veeeeeery long way. Because the petrol

by pas 5y ago

Legally mandating remote work and adding public transit options and raising the cost of daily useless commute would go a veeeeeery long way. Because the petrol not burned by driving can be used to replace the coal plants.

catchclose8919 5y ago
> Legally mandating remote work That's... extremely totalitarian :) ...but legally forcing employers to allow remote work X days a week for jobs where it makes sense + solid investment in public transit would make wonders.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  No, it's not totalitarian at all. The same as not accepting slavery, murder or cannibalism. This is totalitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
- LadyCailin 5y ago
  I’m not defending totalitarianism, but capitalist democracy really does a piss poor job at controlling negative externalities, to the point that I’m not really convinced it’s a good system of governance anymore.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    Tax the externalities. Capitalism is fully compatible with using the price system to express preferences on externalities.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Capitalism operates fine when you tax the externalities, it’s democracy that has an issue setting up the taxes rationally rather than based on which groups have political power.
    - LadyCailin 5y ago
      Ok, so instead of “force companies to allow remote work” it’s “tax companies that don’t allow remote work a bajillion dollars a microsecond”. What’s the practical difference there?
      - pas 5y ago
        um, the tax should be on the externalities. like the pollution due to commute, road wear, the generated traffic contributing to the peak. (eg. if you start work at ~11 instead of at 9 you contribute less to the peak)
      - barry-cotter 5y ago
        There’s no intellectually defensible way to price the externalities off remote work at a bajillion dollars a microsecond. On some level you have to trust someone somewhere to do a good job. Taxes are tools to help that, not a substitute for it.
        LadyCailin 5y ago
        There’s also no intellectually defensible way to price quite a number of potential negative externalities. Dumping toxic waste in drinking water reservoirs, for instance, shouldn’t be allowed at any price. So I don’t think taxes are the actual answer for a lot of things, you just have to straight up ban them.
        barry-cotter 5y ago
        No, you can price that. The cost will be so high that people won’t do it and pay the price. That’s the point. You can set a price on emissions or pollution and if it’s a small amount the piece may be worth paying. At higher levels you figure out how to do something else that is not that. You don’t just continue what you were doing at greater scale.
  - gidorah 5y ago
    Who doesn't love a benevolent dictator?
- pas 5y ago
  Yes. Carbon taxes (and probably some land value tax) are the preferred solution.
IMTDb 5y ago
I think you are overestimating the amount of jobs that can be done remotely. Things that can never be done remotely: agriculture, construction, manufacture, hospitality, a big part of health/elder care, a big part of education, anything that requires expensive equipment (research, ...), artists/shows/events, the list goes on. A lot of these sectors were either closed or running slow during COVID, which was not sustainable (you can't maintain the purchasing power of an entire population for decades if suddenly half of it stops working - it only works for a short while if you expect to be able to repay the debt you incurred to keep non-working people afloat). So even if every single person that can work remotely does so, still expect big cities with transportation issues. And that's without counting all the jobs that can be done remotely but are better done in office.
- necovek 5y ago
  Not to go into each of your counter-examples, but while some of them can't be done remotely today, surely we can get there. Eg. how far away are we from having remote-controlled tractors and combine-harvesters? Sure, get them home into a garage when they need servicing. Hospitality? There are places which, especially in the first pandemic year, have gone all hands-off (eg. get a token to access a property on your check-in without talking to anyone). But rather than can we, I think the point should be should we? There's a psychological cost to working with people you've never met personally, never hanged around with... And some people will struggle to get any social activity happening in their lives without work. I've worked remotely for 15+ years, but I don't think it's for everybody, or for anybody all the time.
  - throwaway889900 5y ago
    You understand that agriculture didn't shut down because farmers couldn't sit on their tractors and pull equipment, but because nobody was buying the product they were producing, right?
    - necovek 5y ago
      I am talking of a technical possibility of remote work for farmers. I am not sure what you are talking about?

by pas 5y ago

catchclose8919 5y ago

> Legally mandating remote work That's... extremely totalitarian :) ...but legally forcing employers to allow remote work X days a week for jobs where it makes sense + solid investment in public transit would make wonders.

goodpoint 5y ago
No, it's not totalitarian at all. The same as not accepting slavery, murder or cannibalism. This is totalitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
LadyCailin 5y ago
I’m not defending totalitarianism, but capitalist democracy really does a piss poor job at controlling negative externalities, to the point that I’m not really convinced it’s a good system of governance anymore.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Tax the externalities. Capitalism is fully compatible with using the price system to express preferences on externalities.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Capitalism operates fine when you tax the externalities, it’s democracy that has an issue setting up the taxes rationally rather than based on which groups have political power.
  - LadyCailin 5y ago
    Ok, so instead of “force companies to allow remote work” it’s “tax companies that don’t allow remote work a bajillion dollars a microsecond”. What’s the practical difference there?
    - pas 5y ago
      um, the tax should be on the externalities. like the pollution due to commute, road wear, the generated traffic contributing to the peak. (eg. if you start work at ~11 instead of at 9 you contribute less to the peak)
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      There’s no intellectually defensible way to price the externalities off remote work at a bajillion dollars a microsecond. On some level you have to trust someone somewhere to do a good job. Taxes are tools to help that, not a substitute for it.
      - LadyCailin 5y ago
        There’s also no intellectually defensible way to price quite a number of potential negative externalities. Dumping toxic waste in drinking water reservoirs, for instance, shouldn’t be allowed at any price. So I don’t think taxes are the actual answer for a lot of things, you just have to straight up ban them.
        barry-cotter 5y ago
        No, you can price that. The cost will be so high that people won’t do it and pay the price. That’s the point. You can set a price on emissions or pollution and if it’s a small amount the piece may be worth paying. At higher levels you figure out how to do something else that is not that. You don’t just continue what you were doing at greater scale.
- gidorah 5y ago
  Who doesn't love a benevolent dictator?
pas 5y ago
Yes. Carbon taxes (and probably some land value tax) are the preferred solution.

IMTDb 5y ago

I think you are overestimating the amount of jobs that can be done remotely. Things that can never be done remotely: agriculture, construction, manufacture, hospitality, a big part of health/elder care, a big part of education, anything that requires expensive equipment (research, ...), artists/shows/events, the list goes on. A lot of these sectors were either closed or running slow during COVID, which was not sustainable (you can't maintain the purchasing power of an entire population for decades if suddenly half of it stops working - it only works for a short while if you expect to be able to repay the debt you incurred to keep non-working people afloat). So even if every single person that can work remotely does so, still expect big cities with transportation issues. And that's without counting all the jobs that can be done remotely but are better done in office.

necovek 5y ago
Not to go into each of your counter-examples, but while some of them can't be done remotely today, surely we can get there. Eg. how far away are we from having remote-controlled tractors and combine-harvesters? Sure, get them home into a garage when they need servicing. Hospitality? There are places which, especially in the first pandemic year, have gone all hands-off (eg. get a token to access a property on your check-in without talking to anyone). But rather than can we, I think the point should be should we? There's a psychological cost to working with people you've never met personally, never hanged around with... And some people will struggle to get any social activity happening in their lives without work. I've worked remotely for 15+ years, but I don't think it's for everybody, or for anybody all the time.
- throwaway889900 5y ago
  You understand that agriculture didn't shut down because farmers couldn't sit on their tractors and pull equipment, but because nobody was buying the product they were producing, right?
  - necovek 5y ago
    I am talking of a technical possibility of remote work for farmers. I am not sure what you are talking about?