4 ms·

> competing with all the remote workers around, many of whom don't need as high a salary now their housing costs have drastically reduced. That's not a bad thi

by ethbr0 3y ago

> competing with all the remote workers around, many of whom don't need as high a salary now their housing costs have drastically reduced. That's not a bad thing. We've been playing Paris and sucking economic activity to a few cities for far too long, IMHO, which has subsidized some very unhealthy city behavior (e.g. SF). In the future, the city winners of pre-WFH regime are going to face serious budgetary pressure as central business districts atrophy. They're going to need to make up that tax base (read: keep the lights on) somewhere, and it's inevitably going to shift from business to homeowner/citizen. Remaining service businesses will replace some of that, but you'll be patching a big hole from corporate HQs. It'll be a question of whether or not people are willing to put up with substantially higher taxes in exchange for urban living. Interesting times for cities with cash cow CBDs. And to the benefit of cities with good quality of life that were missing employment options (e.g. the 35°-40° weather-belt in the US).

robertlagrant 3y ago
Totally agree. It will be interesting.
ericmay 3y ago
> It'll be a question of whether or not people are willing to put up with substantially higher taxes in exchange for urban living. This is pretty interesting. I think they will because they do today so long as the right amenities are provided and there is density. Personally we relocated and to a downtown neighborhood and 1.5x'd our taxes but now we have a fantastic park and other great amenities. The schools suck but maybe we could just do a statewide voucher where you aren't tied to where you live for where you send your kids to school or something. I expect more private schools to emerge as well. [1] There is a lot of economic waste in CBD in many American cities. In Columbus we have acres of surface parking lots in the downtown area. Converting those to housing, small businesses, and leaner offices will probably not 1-1 replace giant skyscraper corporate HQs (though I'm a little naive to the tax arrangements there) but they'll help. One way to think about the CBD in, let's say Columbus is that the surface parking lots are an extractive economic feature that are only sustainable to the city's tax base so long as they're filled with workers going downtown. Once those lots aren't functioning properly you have all this space... and you need tax revenue... so something will have to give and I don't think it's the city. I think a better question to ask is are people going to be able to afford higher taxes from living in the suburbs without any amenities. Sidewalks and trams and municipal water scale much better with density than having all that stuff spread out everywhere. Right now we can "afford" them because of cheap oil and such but that won't last. [1] Please note that I strongly support every child getting the best education possible. I don't know what the solution is exactly, but I do know that city schools at least where I live have been bad and continue to be bad and at some point we're just wasting money and we need a better solution.
RestlessMind 3y ago
Now just replace cities with the USA and same logic applies. I think the loser is going to be the entire American worker pool (especially the ordinary ones, 10x developers will be fine).

by ethbr0 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

Totally agree. It will be interesting.

ericmay 3y ago

> It'll be a question of whether or not people are willing to put up with substantially higher taxes in exchange for urban living. This is pretty interesting. I think they will because they do today so long as the right amenities are provided and there is density. Personally we relocated and to a downtown neighborhood and 1.5x'd our taxes but now we have a fantastic park and other great amenities. The schools suck but maybe we could just do a statewide voucher where you aren't tied to where you live for where you send your kids to school or something. I expect more private schools to emerge as well. [1] There is a lot of economic waste in CBD in many American cities. In Columbus we have acres of surface parking lots in the downtown area. Converting those to housing, small businesses, and leaner offices will probably not 1-1 replace giant skyscraper corporate HQs (though I'm a little naive to the tax arrangements there) but they'll help. One way to think about the CBD in, let's say Columbus is that the surface parking lots are an extractive economic feature that are only sustainable to the city's tax base so long as they're filled with workers going downtown. Once those lots aren't functioning properly you have all this space... and you need tax revenue... so something will have to give and I don't think it's the city. I think a better question to ask is are people going to be able to afford higher taxes from living in the suburbs without any amenities. Sidewalks and trams and municipal water scale much better with density than having all that stuff spread out everywhere. Right now we can "afford" them because of cheap oil and such but that won't last. [1] Please note that I strongly support every child getting the best education possible. I don't know what the solution is exactly, but I do know that city schools at least where I live have been bad and continue to be bad and at some point we're just wasting money and we need a better solution.

RestlessMind 3y ago

Now just replace cities with the USA and same logic applies. I think the loser is going to be the entire American worker pool (especially the ordinary ones, 10x developers will be fine).