3 ms·
That’s in a mindset where workers are interchangeable and change employers often, and employers make no effort to cluster together. You could also have a model
by Joeri 4y ago
That’s in a mindset where workers are interchangeable and change employers often, and employers make no effort to cluster together. You could also have a model where workers specialize within either a single company for life (japanese model) or a cluster of geographically near companies doing the same line of work (silicon valley model) and they choose to live near this location. New employers in the same line of work would then choose this site specifically because of the nearby workers.
I think the challenge is not with the specialized workers, but with the lower paid staff. The cleaners, the cooks, the maintenance crew, the guards. They won’t be able to afford to live near such places because they get displaced by specialized workers, and then they’re stuck in a commuting model.
- ciphol 4y agoWorking in one place for life is very economically inefficient for any intellectual work. Eventually there will be a company that would get more value out of you, and therefore is willing to pay you more, but you won't be able to take the job. Clusters of companies already exist. One is Manhattan where finance jobs are concentrated, another (like you say) is Silicon Valley where tech jobs are concentrated. In both, the workers choose to live across a vast area.
- ryukafalz 4y ago> In both, the workers choose to live across a vast area. I wouldn’t say this is that much of a free choice in Silicon Valley, where housing density is highly limited by regulatory means.