5 ms·

Can you please state your points differently? I genuinely didn't understand what you are trying to say. > so well formally there is no reasons to see a drop in

Can you please state your points differently? I genuinely didn't understand what you are trying to say. > so well formally there is no reasons to see a drop in salary WFH. My observation says otherwise. Lot of remote companies have expanded headcount internationally or in cheaper cities compared to their pre-covid workforce. > if you are from middle/high income cohort you earn more moving in the nature This simply doesn't work for big segments of population - people with kids in schools who do not want to disturb stability of their kids lives, people with big social networks of friends and families in an area, a couple where one partners works a job which is necessarily in office etc.

kkfx 3y ago
Well: - I know many companies try to penalize remote workers in salary and career terms even if they bring the same value from remote or in the office, but I also know this is not for socially sound reasons: giants simply need people in cities to keep up their service-centric economy, a model HARMFUL for the humanity, small and medium want to follow the big just for ignorant reactionarism; - I know how absurd is the hybrid model "hey, if you comply to our desire, harmful for you and the society at a whole, but we want if to exploit you, we gives you some small potatoes advantages you might think they are nice while they are not" but most seems simply to not care because they are already inhabited to city life and fear the change; - I know WFH will happen anyway but in a VERY HARMFUL manner, with digital nomads on one side, slaves living in goshiwong without even knowing what it means living in their own homes, and I know the outcome for us all. About the hard part of changing life, I know, I've done it myself. But I also know that for schools the mean/long term future is the remote model with some very curated and improved video lessons with a local teacher just to respond questions, offer support to dig deeper etc, in a campus-style model to offer the social part of schools to children, so remain in a city, choose to avoid the change, means only delay something that MUST happen anyway harming their child in the long term to not touching them in the short one. The world do change, we do not have the crystal ball of course, but something is clear enough, and trying to keep up "the old known way" is trying to remain on the large sinking boat fearing the lifeboat.
- RestlessMind 3y ago
  > The world do change, we do not have the crystal ball of course, but something is clear enough, and trying to keep up "the old known way" is trying to remain on the large sinking boat fearing the lifeboat. So you want people to discard their existing way of life, adopt a new way but also are not sure how the new way looks like and acknowledge that there are big gaps to be filled in the new picture? No wonder people would resist that transformation.
  - kkfx 3y ago
    Well, actually most people able to WFH do like that. They fear companies mandate them back in the office so they fear moving out of the city, fearing to loose accommodation there and fearing the investment on a home. Ruling class who want people's slave in cities encourage that FUD. But... Di you remember some anecdote from the history like the UK law that mandate a horse in front of every trains to moderate it's speed? When this FUD wane people that have not moved will found prices outside far higher and real estate value of the city dropped, so they'll be economically trapped, that time for real not for fear. Of course the first who can invest are the upper/middle class, but those who do not have done that already, have already lost the train. The picture have no gaps, the WEF target is "in 2030 you'll own nothing", if you have enough money to be outside the modern city, take a look at experiments like Arkadag, Innopolis, Asman, Aqkol, Qonayev, Danghara, Telosa, ... or the modern "Fordlandia", with the same ideas and targets, do see how China works today https://youtu.be/NXyzpMDtpSE https://youtu.be/NXyzpMDtpSE and do hear the idea of those who rule us: https://youtu.be/NWHDgXhMkgs https://youtu.be/NWHDgXhMkgs and take your conclusion, do read https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... observing that the focus is on public acceptance NOT technical feasibility AND try to reason how such mobility can't really be urban, see https://appliedevtolconcepts.com/ https://appliedevtolconcepts.com/ comparing the image with the classic pictures of gentlemen's in car in the countryside with workers (slaves) in the fields. It's nothing new, an era of deep recession where most impoverish and few flourish. Of course, the impoverished separated by those who flourish, witch is another classic: sometimes cities was the center of richness, innovation, where those who count want to be, sometimes was the opposite where cities was polluted, poor, degraded, the slums where the poor go. We are in another turning point like that in human history. Remote workers who will be able to implement the Green New Deal themselves, and you know ALL the green new deal targets are clearly for single-family homes where the own have the possibility to recharge vehicle at home, have p.v., heat-pump heating and so on, something not possible for dense cities buildings will be "economically covered" from the big spike of prices enough to not suffer much, those in cities will be hit hard. That's is. I feel that having left the city myself and built a new home, comparing the inflationary pressure on me respect of friends in cities. The more the electricity cost the more I pay as well, but the quick my p.v. pay back, the more gasoline/diesel climb the more I pay goods produced/transported with this energy, but the quick my EV pay back in fuel economy, same for methane prices compared to electricity. Talks about "dynamic prices" are more and more common, sooner or later we will have them for anything (here, France, we already have them for electricity with price that change following seasonal demands and time of the day (EDF Tempo), and favoring p.v. those who can buy and stock will save moneys and so on. Not counting the stock markets who will not last but so far it's perform very well, favoring those who can invest. If you connect dots you'll see that in all cases you have risks, like you are trapped in a dense city, job markets plunge and cost of living skyrocket vs the same risk of RTO pushes against remote working. But if you are remote you can have backups, assets, if you own nothing in cities you have no backups. On contrary in "repopulated" areas by remote workers clearly the demand of services climb so sooner or later services will grow, and here I see the growth while I see the decline in cities.

kkfx 3y ago

Well: - I know many companies try to penalize remote workers in salary and career terms even if they bring the same value from remote or in the office, but I also know this is not for socially sound reasons: giants simply need people in cities to keep up their service-centric economy, a model HARMFUL for the humanity, small and medium want to follow the big just for ignorant reactionarism; - I know how absurd is the hybrid model "hey, if you comply to our desire, harmful for you and the society at a whole, but we want if to exploit you, we gives you some small potatoes advantages you might think they are nice while they are not" but most seems simply to not care because they are already inhabited to city life and fear the change; - I know WFH will happen anyway but in a VERY HARMFUL manner, with digital nomads on one side, slaves living in goshiwong without even knowing what it means living in their own homes, and I know the outcome for us all. About the hard part of changing life, I know, I've done it myself. But I also know that for schools the mean/long term future is the remote model with some very curated and improved video lessons with a local teacher just to respond questions, offer support to dig deeper etc, in a campus-style model to offer the social part of schools to children, so remain in a city, choose to avoid the change, means only delay something that MUST happen anyway harming their child in the long term to not touching them in the short one. The world do change, we do not have the crystal ball of course, but something is clear enough, and trying to keep up "the old known way" is trying to remain on the large sinking boat fearing the lifeboat.

RestlessMind 3y ago
> The world do change, we do not have the crystal ball of course, but something is clear enough, and trying to keep up "the old known way" is trying to remain on the large sinking boat fearing the lifeboat. So you want people to discard their existing way of life, adopt a new way but also are not sure how the new way looks like and acknowledge that there are big gaps to be filled in the new picture? No wonder people would resist that transformation.
- kkfx 3y ago
  Well, actually most people able to WFH do like that. They fear companies mandate them back in the office so they fear moving out of the city, fearing to loose accommodation there and fearing the investment on a home. Ruling class who want people's slave in cities encourage that FUD. But... Di you remember some anecdote from the history like the UK law that mandate a horse in front of every trains to moderate it's speed? When this FUD wane people that have not moved will found prices outside far higher and real estate value of the city dropped, so they'll be economically trapped, that time for real not for fear. Of course the first who can invest are the upper/middle class, but those who do not have done that already, have already lost the train. The picture have no gaps, the WEF target is "in 2030 you'll own nothing", if you have enough money to be outside the modern city, take a look at experiments like Arkadag, Innopolis, Asman, Aqkol, Qonayev, Danghara, Telosa, ... or the modern "Fordlandia", with the same ideas and targets, do see how China works today https://youtu.be/NXyzpMDtpSE https://youtu.be/NXyzpMDtpSE and do hear the idea of those who rule us: https://youtu.be/NWHDgXhMkgs https://youtu.be/NWHDgXhMkgs and take your conclusion, do read https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... observing that the focus is on public acceptance NOT technical feasibility AND try to reason how such mobility can't really be urban, see https://appliedevtolconcepts.com/ https://appliedevtolconcepts.com/ comparing the image with the classic pictures of gentlemen's in car in the countryside with workers (slaves) in the fields. It's nothing new, an era of deep recession where most impoverish and few flourish. Of course, the impoverished separated by those who flourish, witch is another classic: sometimes cities was the center of richness, innovation, where those who count want to be, sometimes was the opposite where cities was polluted, poor, degraded, the slums where the poor go. We are in another turning point like that in human history. Remote workers who will be able to implement the Green New Deal themselves, and you know ALL the green new deal targets are clearly for single-family homes where the own have the possibility to recharge vehicle at home, have p.v., heat-pump heating and so on, something not possible for dense cities buildings will be "economically covered" from the big spike of prices enough to not suffer much, those in cities will be hit hard. That's is. I feel that having left the city myself and built a new home, comparing the inflationary pressure on me respect of friends in cities. The more the electricity cost the more I pay as well, but the quick my p.v. pay back, the more gasoline/diesel climb the more I pay goods produced/transported with this energy, but the quick my EV pay back in fuel economy, same for methane prices compared to electricity. Talks about "dynamic prices" are more and more common, sooner or later we will have them for anything (here, France, we already have them for electricity with price that change following seasonal demands and time of the day (EDF Tempo), and favoring p.v. those who can buy and stock will save moneys and so on. Not counting the stock markets who will not last but so far it's perform very well, favoring those who can invest. If you connect dots you'll see that in all cases you have risks, like you are trapped in a dense city, job markets plunge and cost of living skyrocket vs the same risk of RTO pushes against remote working. But if you are remote you can have backups, assets, if you own nothing in cities you have no backups. On contrary in "repopulated" areas by remote workers clearly the demand of services climb so sooner or later services will grow, and here I see the growth while I see the decline in cities.