5 ms·

And in your Zoom utopia, how does remote work help health care workers, police officers, construction workers, elderly care workers, massage therapists, mechani

And in your Zoom utopia, how does remote work help health care workers, police officers, construction workers, elderly care workers, massage therapists, mechanics and so on and so on? How does this help younger people wanting to date, start a family, or just have a reasonable social life? I have a more simple proposition: instead of allowing remote work, how about we allow new homes to be built so the wealthy stop bidding up the price of all the old homes and remodeling them?

p1esk 3y ago
how does remote work help health care workers, police officers, construction workers, elderly care workers, massage therapists, mechanics and so on I literally excluded all these people in my statement. Was it that hard to parse?
- BenFranklin100 3y ago
  No it wasn’t hard to parse. What it was was hard to fathom that someone really thinks remote work is a general solution to high housing costs. Therefore I explicitly pointed out common occupations to remind us all about the larger picture. Well paying IT or white collar jobs that can be done anywhere are in the minority, and further the people that do hold those high paying jobs are frequently the very same people bidding up the price of existing homes in high opportunity cities, and pushing poorer people out in the process.
  - p1esk 3y ago
    You do realize that well paid people who spread out because they can work remotely create jobs for poor people outside of big cities? And in big cities demand for housing falls because there are fewer people? How is it not a win-win scenario?
    - xp84 3y ago
      I don’t think the person you’re arguing with is against remote work or wouldn’t agree it’s a win-win. I think (and I agree) they are saying that it just doesn’t come close (on its own) to fixing housing on its own for the majority of workers, for whom remote work cannot ever make sense. Also I might add that it seems like* most people who work remotely do not even choose to fully “maximize” the benefit by moving to truly super low cost of living locales, I’m assuming it’s for social, family, and perhaps status reasons. So, yes, economic activity outside fancy areas is being stimulated, but not to a huge degree. *source: thinking of everyone I know at my fully remote company. Only a few live in places like West Virginia. Many live in the Bay Area, L.A., NYC, and like Connecticut.
      - p1esk 3y ago
        Yes, some people won’t move. But that should be an option. An office job should not be the main reason people live in big cities.
      - BenFranklin100 3y ago
        Exactly. Remote work is (or at least will be) a net win. But it doesn’t address the fundamental problem behind high housing costs: too few homes in areas people are willing to live.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      A huge issue for these small towns are in fact these high income remote workers or vacationers. They quickly drive up costs of things like housing but also entertainment and food in the towns they migrate to, where the workers often end up rent burdened living on top of each other, not able to save much money.
  - csomar 3y ago
    Your premise is wrong and the pandemic has proven otherwise (except maybe for NYC). People will choose to move out of the city if given the choice.
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      Once it transitioned to an epidemic people came back. Not necessarily the same people who left, but housing prices are back up to pre pandemic levels if not higher is my impression.
      - rvnx 3y ago
        This is mostly because money lost a lot of its value (eaten by inflation, and overly generous policies during corona to fix the restrictions they themselves created)
csomar 3y ago
These people already exists somewhere else (ie: any town, mid-west). Remote work will move health care and police workers to these places again (or keep them there) because the remote workers will create demands for these professions. Many of the jobs done in hubs can be done anywhere else; they are the "remotest" jobs out there. Tech, Finance, Media, Research, etc... Many of these jobs can be done remotely and that will benefit everybody. Of course, except for the big hubs landowners who are essentially exerting a tax on the high-income individuals.
- NotSuspicious 3y ago
  Why can't these remotest jobs just be done anywhere in the world? Why restrict it to people who are citizens/residents of the US?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    They can and already are suggesting this is not a real threat. And annoyingly, the jobs that could be outsourced, were already. And that is with corporations playing with the existing visa system AND illegal immigration. In short, remote addresses a lot of issues for an average worker. It does mess with existing system for corps.
goodpoint 3y ago
> how does remote work help health care workers Are you really asking this question? Cost of living, especially housing, is based on supply and demand. As remote workers move out from expensive areas the cost of living goes down. And real estate investment funds and landlords don't like this...
Tade0 3y ago
Remote doesn't necessarily mean "living in the middle of nowhere". Case in point: I've moved to a city 40% the size of the one I grew up in so as to be able to afford housing at all and it's been great. A friend who stayed there recently purchased a 25% smaller apartment for 40% more in comparison to mine. It's not even funny at this point. You have generally more time for all the things you mentioned when you don't commute 2h a day. As for new homes: even now investment demand will gobble up any new housing that's built, as the former grows much faster than the latter. Induced demand for housing if you will.
- kiba 3y ago
  Remote work isn't really a solution. Cities exists because they do something economically and socially valuable for humans. It becomes possible to support some infrastructures and services, such as theater, grocery stores, etc. All remote work does is distribute some functions to less populated areas without solving the core problems that plague modern cities everywhere with gridlock and vetocracy. Otherwise, remote works would still be roughly be distributed to the same cities instead of going elsewhere. If we want to unlock the most value, then yes we do want to solve commute 2 hours a day, especially for people who still need to commute. Yes, we do want cheaper housing in the most desirable cities. Yes, we want those remote workers living there anyway.
  - Tade0 3y ago
    My sentiment is that we've been getting diminishing returns from cities for quite a few years now and it's time to put some pressure on those who benefit the most from the current situation. It so happens that the same people insist that we all, especially specialists with considerable disposable income, return to offices. To reiterate a point I already stated: you won't get cheaper housing when it's seen as an opportunity for passive income. Only making these properties valued less can help here and remote work is the tool for that.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    << Cities exists because they do something economically and socially valuable for humans. And they will continue to exist. Because of remote, they will maybe shrink in size, which is not a bad thing. << If we want to unlock the most value, then yes we do want to solve commute 2 hours a day, especially for people who still need to commute. And that part is definitely solved by remote.
tonis2 3y ago
If a group of people is working remotely,for example at a smaller village, then health care workers, massage therapists ..etc can also move, cause there's more money at that small village ?
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  In vail and other places its already like this. It turns out, wages for workers don’t go up to match the multimilliondollar home valuations. Now Vail has to effectively build dorms for their workers in a sort of company town situation since they can’t find housing in summit county they can afford to rent on the wages they make. And those dorm projects are met by pushback from homeowners.
A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
I am not sure I understand why we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Like with everything else, life is complicate and housing is not that different. Remote could absolutely lower some of the pressure in the cities. Unless, naturally, there is another objection to addressing something as quickly adoptable as remote for a good chunk of workforce -- no reasonable person would dispute that not all jobs can be effectively done that way.

p1esk 3y ago

how does remote work help health care workers, police officers, construction workers, elderly care workers, massage therapists, mechanics and so on I literally excluded all these people in my statement. Was it that hard to parse?

BenFranklin100 3y ago
No it wasn’t hard to parse. What it was was hard to fathom that someone really thinks remote work is a general solution to high housing costs. Therefore I explicitly pointed out common occupations to remind us all about the larger picture. Well paying IT or white collar jobs that can be done anywhere are in the minority, and further the people that do hold those high paying jobs are frequently the very same people bidding up the price of existing homes in high opportunity cities, and pushing poorer people out in the process.
- p1esk 3y ago
  You do realize that well paid people who spread out because they can work remotely create jobs for poor people outside of big cities? And in big cities demand for housing falls because there are fewer people? How is it not a win-win scenario?
  - xp84 3y ago
    I don’t think the person you’re arguing with is against remote work or wouldn’t agree it’s a win-win. I think (and I agree) they are saying that it just doesn’t come close (on its own) to fixing housing on its own for the majority of workers, for whom remote work cannot ever make sense. Also I might add that it seems like* most people who work remotely do not even choose to fully “maximize” the benefit by moving to truly super low cost of living locales, I’m assuming it’s for social, family, and perhaps status reasons. So, yes, economic activity outside fancy areas is being stimulated, but not to a huge degree. *source: thinking of everyone I know at my fully remote company. Only a few live in places like West Virginia. Many live in the Bay Area, L.A., NYC, and like Connecticut.
    - p1esk 3y ago
      Yes, some people won’t move. But that should be an option. An office job should not be the main reason people live in big cities.
    - BenFranklin100 3y ago
      Exactly. Remote work is (or at least will be) a net win. But it doesn’t address the fundamental problem behind high housing costs: too few homes in areas people are willing to live.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    A huge issue for these small towns are in fact these high income remote workers or vacationers. They quickly drive up costs of things like housing but also entertainment and food in the towns they migrate to, where the workers often end up rent burdened living on top of each other, not able to save much money.
- csomar 3y ago
  Your premise is wrong and the pandemic has proven otherwise (except maybe for NYC). People will choose to move out of the city if given the choice.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Once it transitioned to an epidemic people came back. Not necessarily the same people who left, but housing prices are back up to pre pandemic levels if not higher is my impression.
    - rvnx 3y ago
      This is mostly because money lost a lot of its value (eaten by inflation, and overly generous policies during corona to fix the restrictions they themselves created)

csomar 3y ago

These people already exists somewhere else (ie: any town, mid-west). Remote work will move health care and police workers to these places again (or keep them there) because the remote workers will create demands for these professions. Many of the jobs done in hubs can be done anywhere else; they are the "remotest" jobs out there. Tech, Finance, Media, Research, etc... Many of these jobs can be done remotely and that will benefit everybody. Of course, except for the big hubs landowners who are essentially exerting a tax on the high-income individuals.

NotSuspicious 3y ago
Why can't these remotest jobs just be done anywhere in the world? Why restrict it to people who are citizens/residents of the US?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  They can and already are suggesting this is not a real threat. And annoyingly, the jobs that could be outsourced, were already. And that is with corporations playing with the existing visa system AND illegal immigration. In short, remote addresses a lot of issues for an average worker. It does mess with existing system for corps.

goodpoint 3y ago

> how does remote work help health care workers Are you really asking this question? Cost of living, especially housing, is based on supply and demand. As remote workers move out from expensive areas the cost of living goes down. And real estate investment funds and landlords don't like this...

Tade0 3y ago

Remote doesn't necessarily mean "living in the middle of nowhere". Case in point: I've moved to a city 40% the size of the one I grew up in so as to be able to afford housing at all and it's been great. A friend who stayed there recently purchased a 25% smaller apartment for 40% more in comparison to mine. It's not even funny at this point. You have generally more time for all the things you mentioned when you don't commute 2h a day. As for new homes: even now investment demand will gobble up any new housing that's built, as the former grows much faster than the latter. Induced demand for housing if you will.

kiba 3y ago
Remote work isn't really a solution. Cities exists because they do something economically and socially valuable for humans. It becomes possible to support some infrastructures and services, such as theater, grocery stores, etc. All remote work does is distribute some functions to less populated areas without solving the core problems that plague modern cities everywhere with gridlock and vetocracy. Otherwise, remote works would still be roughly be distributed to the same cities instead of going elsewhere. If we want to unlock the most value, then yes we do want to solve commute 2 hours a day, especially for people who still need to commute. Yes, we do want cheaper housing in the most desirable cities. Yes, we want those remote workers living there anyway.
- Tade0 3y ago
  My sentiment is that we've been getting diminishing returns from cities for quite a few years now and it's time to put some pressure on those who benefit the most from the current situation. It so happens that the same people insist that we all, especially specialists with considerable disposable income, return to offices. To reiterate a point I already stated: you won't get cheaper housing when it's seen as an opportunity for passive income. Only making these properties valued less can help here and remote work is the tool for that.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  << Cities exists because they do something economically and socially valuable for humans. And they will continue to exist. Because of remote, they will maybe shrink in size, which is not a bad thing. << If we want to unlock the most value, then yes we do want to solve commute 2 hours a day, especially for people who still need to commute. And that part is definitely solved by remote.

tonis2 3y ago

If a group of people is working remotely,for example at a smaller village, then health care workers, massage therapists ..etc can also move, cause there's more money at that small village ?

kjkjadksj 3y ago
In vail and other places its already like this. It turns out, wages for workers don’t go up to match the multimilliondollar home valuations. Now Vail has to effectively build dorms for their workers in a sort of company town situation since they can’t find housing in summit county they can afford to rent on the wages they make. And those dorm projects are met by pushback from homeowners.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago

I am not sure I understand why we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Like with everything else, life is complicate and housing is not that different. Remote could absolutely lower some of the pressure in the cities. Unless, naturally, there is another objection to addressing something as quickly adoptable as remote for a good chunk of workforce -- no reasonable person would dispute that not all jobs can be effectively done that way.