3 ms·

> I know someone who commutes from Kitchener to Toronto on GO, so they don't even have to put up with driving, and they're debating moving back home to Winnipeg

> I know someone who commutes from Kitchener to Toronto on GO, so they don't even have to put up with driving, and they're debating moving back home to Winnipeg for a 40% salary cut just to not have to put up with it any more. Isn't this a good thing in some ways or maybe many/all ways? Now wealth is less concentrated in one or a few locations. Every dollar not spent commuting is a dollar spent at a local coffee shop, or money that goes into the tax base of the other city.

paconbork 5y ago
In theory, yes it would be nice to have the wealth more spread out, but jobs aren't concentrated in Toronto just for lack of creativity. The agglomeration of talent causes firms to be more productive, earn more money, and pay employees more. If a company moves to Winnipeg, the lose some access to the most productive employees and their employees have fewer companies to move to where they'll be more productive themselves. So while you'd be spending a larger percentage of your money locally, you'd also be spending less money in absolute terms.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Yea but paying employees more means they can afford to buy more expensive houses. It all fits together. While I think there's a lot that Canada (and other democracies) can do to help reduce housing prices, it's almost like a truism that if you have a great city with a lot of high paying jobs, getting closer to the city and getting access to that city will be expensive. I mean, if we were to take what you were saying to heart, why doesn't all of Canada move to one city? Clearly there are some bounds. > So while you'd be spending a larger percentage of your money locally, you'd also be spending less money in absolute terms. True, but in absolute terms it's cheaper to live where you're spending the money as well, which pays for a house, etc.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  If corporate culture embraced remote work, this wouldn’t be an issue

paconbork 5y ago

In theory, yes it would be nice to have the wealth more spread out, but jobs aren't concentrated in Toronto just for lack of creativity. The agglomeration of talent causes firms to be more productive, earn more money, and pay employees more. If a company moves to Winnipeg, the lose some access to the most productive employees and their employees have fewer companies to move to where they'll be more productive themselves. So while you'd be spending a larger percentage of your money locally, you'd also be spending less money in absolute terms.

ericmay 5y ago
Yea but paying employees more means they can afford to buy more expensive houses. It all fits together. While I think there's a lot that Canada (and other democracies) can do to help reduce housing prices, it's almost like a truism that if you have a great city with a lot of high paying jobs, getting closer to the city and getting access to that city will be expensive. I mean, if we were to take what you were saying to heart, why doesn't all of Canada move to one city? Clearly there are some bounds. > So while you'd be spending a larger percentage of your money locally, you'd also be spending less money in absolute terms. True, but in absolute terms it's cheaper to live where you're spending the money as well, which pays for a house, etc.
chaostheory 5y ago
If corporate culture embraced remote work, this wouldn’t be an issue