3 ms·
It's not one or the other, governments ( US state governments ) compete for both. Companies want to be where the workers are at and workers want to be where the
by chasd00 4y ago
It's not one or the other, governments ( US state governments ) compete for both. Companies want to be where the workers are at and workers want to be where the jobs are at. A state needs qualified residents to attract businesses and they also need good jobs to attract residents. The articles says WFH is changing that but I don't see WFH ever being on a wide enough scale to have much influence.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoWorkers want to be comfortably near jobs. Not so close you breath the fumes. Not so far you commute by plane. Ideally with good schools if you want kids, and other activities besides walking on concrete.
- kodah 4y agoI would rather that the incentive system be geared towards balancing quality of life with affordability. Clustering businesses together is how we go to paying for "Cost of Labor" which systemically advantages already very rich people becoming richer while marginalizing geographies that don't exist to cater to businesses with dense, high income people. My hypothesis is the more average the experience is across a nation the more peaceful and enjoyable life becomes.
- vanjajaja1 4y agoFor some people, yes, for others, no. There's plenty of countries in the world that prioritise creating an average and peaceful experience. As far as I can tell the US was never one of those countries.
- teawrecks 4y agoI think the sentiment is more that we should optimize for the wellbeing of people; i.e. the wellbeing of companies should only optimized to the degree that it contributes to the wellbeing of people.