4 ms·

And pro- "not jamming everyone into unaffordable cities" which makes real estate costs for the employee untenable....while increases in remote-work enable growt

by PKop 3y ago

And pro- "not jamming everyone into unaffordable cities" which makes real estate costs for the employee untenable....while increases in remote-work enable growth or at least maintenance of current population in smaller towns and regions. If one wishes to see their own small town non-major-metro area thrive and not continue to lose population, work from home is a clear win for that goal.

spacemadness 3y ago
Speaking of real estate costs, what really gets me about all these corporate lies about community being the goal is that these directives are more likely about corporate real estate investment.
- vanviegen 3y ago
  How so? Those are sunk costs.
  - PKop 3y ago
    The circle is squared by realizing what isn't sunk yet, but will be, is the tax revenues from corporate real estate and commerce lost if the city centers lack people. Work from home decimates some of these areas if people simply aren't there any more and all the 2nd order effects of other businesses going away as well. So I think it's wrong to assume all of the pressure comes only from the corporations themselves and not also the local governments putting pressure on the corporations to to change work from home policy because otherwise their budgets are busted. Now, this is one of those "you problems" for the local governments; workers themselves should care about their own interests and lives and none of that changes just because some city you don't want to live in is harmed by the trends. But this dynamic should be understood when discussing the issue.
    - dogman144 3y ago
      I completely agree but I think there’s more to it. Cities are concerned bc New York of the 1970’s is staring them all down bc tax revenues take a dive and the equivalent of structural unemployment is hitting city revenue models. That said, anyone who’s lived in the main cities can likely attest to the following. These places are corporatized shells of what they once were, and what they once were is why NYC is considered cool in the first place - live music, local bars, “scenes,” that unique city approach to local community. Sometime in the 2000s, while they lost the gnarly crime, they also started to lose all that for 7/11, Chase banks, and mom and pops owned by PE. Essentially rich person playgrounds. Nyc of 2013 was a lot of fun but also more an amusement park for wealthy millennials or NYU kids cosplaying as one. Same with SF and techies. So these cities simultaneously bemoan the loss of that character and exponential cost of living increases, but also want back all the conditions that caused both. If Manhattan gets it’s actual artists and culture people back from outer Brooklyn or Ohio, and it takes a dive in tax revenues and a grungy NYC for a bit, that seems a good thing. NYC of the 7/11-Chase Bank height really sucked.
      - PKop 3y ago
        Respectfully, I don't really agree at all. The crime wave that these cities are willingly welcoming and not stopping, is going to create new Detroits, or St Louis, or Baltimores...but actually probably just worse. I don't think you need to have crime, open drug use, harassment by mentally ill and homeless...all sorts of things that are pushing corporations, and workers, to simply move out of the cities, abandon projects or large retail presence (Whole Foods, Hilton San Francisco Union Square, Parc 55 etc). I think gentrification is good, actually. Having a nice safe clean productive city with wealth and investment flowing in vs out is good actually. Having crime, degradation, and flight is bad. If law and order was established across many cities, then even in lower income neighborhoods and housing units there could be safety and stablity; it wouldn't have to come at a premium. I mean I'm sure there is a type that likes everything you describe, but personally it just seems like nonsense to me. I'd prefer to not have harassment on public transportation or in the streets walking home at night. And if I made good money working in the city, then good for me. If the selling point going forward is, "Come to the big city..it will cost more than your smaller town, but at least we have crime and grunginess to go with it!", I think these cities and businesses and productive people that stick around there (they won't) are going to have a bad time. Part of dynamic during the era you describe is there was 0 remote work for all industries, while being centered in certain metros. Now people won't put up with that bullshit like they had to back then.
- PKop 3y ago
  I think it's more about local government budgets, decline of tax revenue, and everything that comes with workers (and then area small businesses) leaving en masse. The corps are implementing proxy policy because of pressure from governments panicking at what happens when WFH continues.
  - dogman144 3y ago
    This is almost certainly the actual topic, I agree. And don’t disagree it’s a serious point. I have no respect for the RTO side of the argument though bc it’s proxied by a corp using scummy arguments. It is obviously about 1950’s org culture and extroverts who buy into it (who cares if this survives), short term possibly cataclysmic decline of cities (this certainly should concern everyone), and generally rejiggering a large part of how the US works due to the WFH diaspora (this is just a slice of what the internet is doing overall, can’t fight it). Instead of leadership, we get corps doing proxy messaging. And the last several years showed they don’t deserve to be listened to IMO. I will listen to the first public service leader or newspaper who frames it in an honest way. I was told the environment matters expect for when it’s the entire country commuting to the office.
Breza 3y ago
I agree. Even people who live in big cities have greater flexibility in finding a job without having to uproot the family. I live in Washington DC. A few years ago, I interviewed for a job in a different country. I think it's better for employers and workers.

by PKop 3y ago

spacemadness 3y ago

Speaking of real estate costs, what really gets me about all these corporate lies about community being the goal is that these directives are more likely about corporate real estate investment.

vanviegen 3y ago
How so? Those are sunk costs.
- PKop 3y ago
  The circle is squared by realizing what isn't sunk yet, but will be, is the tax revenues from corporate real estate and commerce lost if the city centers lack people. Work from home decimates some of these areas if people simply aren't there any more and all the 2nd order effects of other businesses going away as well. So I think it's wrong to assume all of the pressure comes only from the corporations themselves and not also the local governments putting pressure on the corporations to to change work from home policy because otherwise their budgets are busted. Now, this is one of those "you problems" for the local governments; workers themselves should care about their own interests and lives and none of that changes just because some city you don't want to live in is harmed by the trends. But this dynamic should be understood when discussing the issue.
  - dogman144 3y ago
    I completely agree but I think there’s more to it. Cities are concerned bc New York of the 1970’s is staring them all down bc tax revenues take a dive and the equivalent of structural unemployment is hitting city revenue models. That said, anyone who’s lived in the main cities can likely attest to the following. These places are corporatized shells of what they once were, and what they once were is why NYC is considered cool in the first place - live music, local bars, “scenes,” that unique city approach to local community. Sometime in the 2000s, while they lost the gnarly crime, they also started to lose all that for 7/11, Chase banks, and mom and pops owned by PE. Essentially rich person playgrounds. Nyc of 2013 was a lot of fun but also more an amusement park for wealthy millennials or NYU kids cosplaying as one. Same with SF and techies. So these cities simultaneously bemoan the loss of that character and exponential cost of living increases, but also want back all the conditions that caused both. If Manhattan gets it’s actual artists and culture people back from outer Brooklyn or Ohio, and it takes a dive in tax revenues and a grungy NYC for a bit, that seems a good thing. NYC of the 7/11-Chase Bank height really sucked.
    - PKop 3y ago
      Respectfully, I don't really agree at all. The crime wave that these cities are willingly welcoming and not stopping, is going to create new Detroits, or St Louis, or Baltimores...but actually probably just worse. I don't think you need to have crime, open drug use, harassment by mentally ill and homeless...all sorts of things that are pushing corporations, and workers, to simply move out of the cities, abandon projects or large retail presence (Whole Foods, Hilton San Francisco Union Square, Parc 55 etc). I think gentrification is good, actually. Having a nice safe clean productive city with wealth and investment flowing in vs out is good actually. Having crime, degradation, and flight is bad. If law and order was established across many cities, then even in lower income neighborhoods and housing units there could be safety and stablity; it wouldn't have to come at a premium. I mean I'm sure there is a type that likes everything you describe, but personally it just seems like nonsense to me. I'd prefer to not have harassment on public transportation or in the streets walking home at night. And if I made good money working in the city, then good for me. If the selling point going forward is, "Come to the big city..it will cost more than your smaller town, but at least we have crime and grunginess to go with it!", I think these cities and businesses and productive people that stick around there (they won't) are going to have a bad time. Part of dynamic during the era you describe is there was 0 remote work for all industries, while being centered in certain metros. Now people won't put up with that bullshit like they had to back then.
PKop 3y ago
I think it's more about local government budgets, decline of tax revenue, and everything that comes with workers (and then area small businesses) leaving en masse. The corps are implementing proxy policy because of pressure from governments panicking at what happens when WFH continues.
- dogman144 3y ago
  This is almost certainly the actual topic, I agree. And don’t disagree it’s a serious point. I have no respect for the RTO side of the argument though bc it’s proxied by a corp using scummy arguments. It is obviously about 1950’s org culture and extroverts who buy into it (who cares if this survives), short term possibly cataclysmic decline of cities (this certainly should concern everyone), and generally rejiggering a large part of how the US works due to the WFH diaspora (this is just a slice of what the internet is doing overall, can’t fight it). Instead of leadership, we get corps doing proxy messaging. And the last several years showed they don’t deserve to be listened to IMO. I will listen to the first public service leader or newspaper who frames it in an honest way. I was told the environment matters expect for when it’s the entire country commuting to the office.

Breza 3y ago

I agree. Even people who live in big cities have greater flexibility in finding a job without having to uproot the family. I live in Washington DC. A few years ago, I interviewed for a job in a different country. I think it's better for employers and workers.