5 ms·

Ah yes if only they had a survey to ignore instead of loud employee complaints in Slack telling them this would be the outcome. But nah, that’s just the trouble

by wilde 3y ago

Ah yes if only they had a survey to ignore instead of loud employee complaints in Slack telling them this would be the outcome. But nah, that’s just the troublemakers. The silent majority of employees love 2h commutes to reset for the work day.

hpaavola 3y ago
I wonder... It's absolutely clear that many hate their long commute. Do they, at some point, start to wonder what went so wrong that many (most?) have such an awfully long commute?
- dougmwne 3y ago
  There’s no need to wonder. This isn’t a mystery. City planning in the US is totally screwed. No density, single family homes over dense multistory apartments, highways over rail lines, cars over public transit, parking over parks. Everyone was sold the dream of their own little tenth acre in the exurbs. The end result was a life spent in the car.
  - kkfx 3y ago
    As an European I think USA planning have two issues: - too dense, yes you read it correctly - too zoned Too dense in dense cities means too costly to evolve, that's most an EU problem, but is a USA problem as well in certain areas. Too zoned means to much space between work and living places. The modern ideal density IMVHO is homes, not apartments, mixed with small (one to three stories max) buildings, shops and so on to allow short-commute (also in bike/feet range) for findings small services (grocery, perhaps a nearby dentist, a gym and so on) and just for some also for work, plus the slice of remote workers (who are perceptually a significant slice of population in developed countries at least) etc. That's the "dense enough, but not too much" density for a modern economy of scale. We need to mix works and homes, at least for most productive activities, leaving districts just for things we can't do otherwise like certain manufacturing industries, automotive and so on.
    - danuker 3y ago
      On what basis do you call individual homes "ideal density"? I like to have a lot of amenities within 5-10 minutes of walking. That is not quite achievable without apartments.
      - kkfx 3y ago
        I call individual homes intermixed with small buildings the ideal density. Like in some (not so much) EU areas, where for instance you have few schools in ~10km (~6 miles) radius, a couple of restaurant, maybe a small grocery shop, perhaps a pharmacy and so on. People still need to travel but being spread there are not much traffic nor parking issues and the ability to integrate remote workers and many in person workers keep the model functional. When some tech change there is space to change. Let's say there is room for a water-water geothermal heat pump instead of a previous methane combustion based heating, there is room for p.v., domestic charging for cars and so on. Something that can't be done in a dense city.
      - zirgs 3y ago
        It's very achievable in small towns. I grew up in a small town and walked everywhere.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - vladvasiliu 3y ago
        Probably noise. As an apartment-dwelling European, maybe GP's point about density is based on the fact that having neighbors sucks big time. Sure, you can build apartment buildings that are well insulated, but most stock in my neck of the woods isn't built that way. You can hear your neighbor taking a piss at night. Of course, this doesn't help people making the median salary in the city actually afford those places. So, given my environment, if I want peace and quiet without having to try out living in multiple apartments until I can find the rare one built with care, it's much easier to just go live in a detached house in the suburbs. Also, despite dense public transport and "walkability", the traffic is still ridiculous so pollution is very high, too.
- helen___keller 3y ago
  I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but yeah sure I had a summer internship in the suburbs of boston and drove out from the city every day in the early 2010s. Practically door to door traffic, stressful unprotected left turns, masshole drivers abound, the works. After that summer I swore off car commuting. I ended up with the same commute after graduating but by public transit. Since transit to the suburbs is awful, it was a 3 seat ride - train to the commuter rail station, commuter rail to the suburbs, then bus to the workplace, about 1-1.5 hr each way. After quitting that job for a job in the city (with about 20-30 min commute by train each day) i swore off the suburbs altogether. Life is too short for that nonsense.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Well in MA between the city itself (a couple of them actually), Metrowest, North Shore, and South shore people and companies are spread over a very large area and a lot of people and their partners are only willing to compromise so much for a better commute. I’ve only had one really bad one - about 90 minutes way into the city but not every day. But when I was going into an office-which I haven’t regularly for a long time a 30 to 45 minute was pretty normal once I bought a house that wasn’t basically next door to the office. There basically weren’t tech jobs in Boston proper in my memory though that’s changed quite a bit.
  - cpfohl 3y ago
    Curious where your job was? Assuming Woburn or anywhere in the westernmost stretch of 95/128? My first job out of college was at BBN Technologies in Cambridge, but I was living in Beverly on the north shore. I quit shortly after my first 3h commute (most days were 1.5). The commute situation in the greater Boston metro is pretty awful…
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Part of it is that’s it’s just a big area. I live in a Metrowest exurb just a few mile drive from commuter. I’m still a 90-120 minute commute each way depending upon where the 2 stations are to where I’m going which isn’t sustainable anywhere daily IMO. But I’m actually less than 30 minute from my main office though I haven’t been in there in years.
- firstplacelast 3y ago
  Middle managers have very little power…they know or at least the good ones do. If you’re in even a medium COL area, housing has sky rocketed. Even the old boomer middle managers worth their salt know this. I quit a job in biotech earlier this year bc I would always be paid less for my skills and cannot afford it anymore. Great boss, great director, they know. They can’t just magically pay me more when tons of people (H1B’s included) will do my job for the same or cheaper…it would make them bad at their job.
- wilde 3y ago
  The prisoner’s dilemma of existing residents resisting density thinking it drives up their home price.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Many people have constraints on where they live—cost yes, but also partners, kids, desire to live in the city even though that lucrative job is way out in the suburbs. Many people who have well-paying jobs could have shorter commutes but they’d probably need to compromise things.
- bart_spoon 3y ago
  It isn't rocket science. Cities in the US are pretty undesirable places to be outside a very select demographic of the population. Decent areas tend to be expensive, public transportation is generally bad, walkability is often poor, schools tend to be very poor, and they tend to have more crime. So what you get is a living situation where you either pay out the ear to live somewhere with the actual benefits of living in a city (walkability, public transportation, lots of public services/amenities), or you pay to live in an area that doesn't actually provide many of those benefits, is actively hostile to families (especially with young children), is more dangerous, all so you might have a shorter commute. So the people who end up actually making the most of the city tend to be: - Rich, young, childless - Less affluent but still young and childless and able/willing to live with roommates Once you fall out of those two groups, the benefits of living in an American city do a huge nosedive, and so it's no surprise that people move to the suburbs or more rural areas. I lived in Japan for several years, and I may be overly harsh in judgements due to the fact that Japanese cities are possibly in contention for the best, most functional, livable cities in the world. But in my opinion American urban development has been an unmitigated disaster that will take decades to heal, if it ever does.

by wilde 3y ago

hpaavola 3y ago

I wonder... It's absolutely clear that many hate their long commute. Do they, at some point, start to wonder what went so wrong that many (most?) have such an awfully long commute?

dougmwne 3y ago
There’s no need to wonder. This isn’t a mystery. City planning in the US is totally screwed. No density, single family homes over dense multistory apartments, highways over rail lines, cars over public transit, parking over parks. Everyone was sold the dream of their own little tenth acre in the exurbs. The end result was a life spent in the car.
- kkfx 3y ago
  As an European I think USA planning have two issues: - too dense, yes you read it correctly - too zoned Too dense in dense cities means too costly to evolve, that's most an EU problem, but is a USA problem as well in certain areas. Too zoned means to much space between work and living places. The modern ideal density IMVHO is homes, not apartments, mixed with small (one to three stories max) buildings, shops and so on to allow short-commute (also in bike/feet range) for findings small services (grocery, perhaps a nearby dentist, a gym and so on) and just for some also for work, plus the slice of remote workers (who are perceptually a significant slice of population in developed countries at least) etc. That's the "dense enough, but not too much" density for a modern economy of scale. We need to mix works and homes, at least for most productive activities, leaving districts just for things we can't do otherwise like certain manufacturing industries, automotive and so on.
  - danuker 3y ago
    On what basis do you call individual homes "ideal density"? I like to have a lot of amenities within 5-10 minutes of walking. That is not quite achievable without apartments.
    - kkfx 3y ago
      I call individual homes intermixed with small buildings the ideal density. Like in some (not so much) EU areas, where for instance you have few schools in ~10km (~6 miles) radius, a couple of restaurant, maybe a small grocery shop, perhaps a pharmacy and so on. People still need to travel but being spread there are not much traffic nor parking issues and the ability to integrate remote workers and many in person workers keep the model functional. When some tech change there is space to change. Let's say there is room for a water-water geothermal heat pump instead of a previous methane combustion based heating, there is room for p.v., domestic charging for cars and so on. Something that can't be done in a dense city.
    - zirgs 3y ago
      It's very achievable in small towns. I grew up in a small town and walked everywhere.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - vladvasiliu 3y ago
      Probably noise. As an apartment-dwelling European, maybe GP's point about density is based on the fact that having neighbors sucks big time. Sure, you can build apartment buildings that are well insulated, but most stock in my neck of the woods isn't built that way. You can hear your neighbor taking a piss at night. Of course, this doesn't help people making the median salary in the city actually afford those places. So, given my environment, if I want peace and quiet without having to try out living in multiple apartments until I can find the rare one built with care, it's much easier to just go live in a detached house in the suburbs. Also, despite dense public transport and "walkability", the traffic is still ridiculous so pollution is very high, too.
helen___keller 3y ago
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but yeah sure I had a summer internship in the suburbs of boston and drove out from the city every day in the early 2010s. Practically door to door traffic, stressful unprotected left turns, masshole drivers abound, the works. After that summer I swore off car commuting. I ended up with the same commute after graduating but by public transit. Since transit to the suburbs is awful, it was a 3 seat ride - train to the commuter rail station, commuter rail to the suburbs, then bus to the workplace, about 1-1.5 hr each way. After quitting that job for a job in the city (with about 20-30 min commute by train each day) i swore off the suburbs altogether. Life is too short for that nonsense.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Well in MA between the city itself (a couple of them actually), Metrowest, North Shore, and South shore people and companies are spread over a very large area and a lot of people and their partners are only willing to compromise so much for a better commute. I’ve only had one really bad one - about 90 minutes way into the city but not every day. But when I was going into an office-which I haven’t regularly for a long time a 30 to 45 minute was pretty normal once I bought a house that wasn’t basically next door to the office. There basically weren’t tech jobs in Boston proper in my memory though that’s changed quite a bit.
- cpfohl 3y ago
  Curious where your job was? Assuming Woburn or anywhere in the westernmost stretch of 95/128? My first job out of college was at BBN Technologies in Cambridge, but I was living in Beverly on the north shore. I quit shortly after my first 3h commute (most days were 1.5). The commute situation in the greater Boston metro is pretty awful…
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Part of it is that’s it’s just a big area. I live in a Metrowest exurb just a few mile drive from commuter. I’m still a 90-120 minute commute each way depending upon where the 2 stations are to where I’m going which isn’t sustainable anywhere daily IMO. But I’m actually less than 30 minute from my main office though I haven’t been in there in years.
firstplacelast 3y ago
Middle managers have very little power…they know or at least the good ones do. If you’re in even a medium COL area, housing has sky rocketed. Even the old boomer middle managers worth their salt know this. I quit a job in biotech earlier this year bc I would always be paid less for my skills and cannot afford it anymore. Great boss, great director, they know. They can’t just magically pay me more when tons of people (H1B’s included) will do my job for the same or cheaper…it would make them bad at their job.
wilde 3y ago
The prisoner’s dilemma of existing residents resisting density thinking it drives up their home price.
ghaff 3y ago
Many people have constraints on where they live—cost yes, but also partners, kids, desire to live in the city even though that lucrative job is way out in the suburbs. Many people who have well-paying jobs could have shorter commutes but they’d probably need to compromise things.
bart_spoon 3y ago
It isn't rocket science. Cities in the US are pretty undesirable places to be outside a very select demographic of the population. Decent areas tend to be expensive, public transportation is generally bad, walkability is often poor, schools tend to be very poor, and they tend to have more crime. So what you get is a living situation where you either pay out the ear to live somewhere with the actual benefits of living in a city (walkability, public transportation, lots of public services/amenities), or you pay to live in an area that doesn't actually provide many of those benefits, is actively hostile to families (especially with young children), is more dangerous, all so you might have a shorter commute. So the people who end up actually making the most of the city tend to be: - Rich, young, childless - Less affluent but still young and childless and able/willing to live with roommates Once you fall out of those two groups, the benefits of living in an American city do a huge nosedive, and so it's no surprise that people move to the suburbs or more rural areas. I lived in Japan for several years, and I may be overly harsh in judgements due to the fact that Japanese cities are possibly in contention for the best, most functional, livable cities in the world. But in my opinion American urban development has been an unmitigated disaster that will take decades to heal, if it ever does.