3 ms·

I don't think baddox is necessarily suggesting corporate housing, just housing that doesn't involve an hour-plus commute each way. Living closer to your workpla

I don't think baddox is necessarily suggesting corporate housing, just housing that doesn't involve an hour-plus commute each way. Living closer to your workplace gives you a few extra hours each week - it's your choice whether to spend them at work or home.

Crito 13y ago
He is advocating more restrictions (not enforced by law or company policy, admittedly, but driven by community violence) on housing options for Google employees. Whether the remaining options are owned by Google, or a limited set of independent corporations and landlords is of little consequence. The result is that the employee is forced to live closer to work instead of where they please, serving as a constant reminder that their life truly does revolve around their employer. What he is suggesting is dehumanizing. In answer to the original query: "Why not live closer to work?" Because that is not where they fucking want to live. They should be permitted to live anywhere that they have the ability and means to live. De-facto zoning of residential areas as off limits to employees of particular companies is insanity.
- etjossem 13y ago
  > Why not live closer to work? If you ask those aboard the Google bus, you'll get various answers, like "I don't mind the commute" or "I love SF, there's so much to do here." > Why not live in San Francisco? Tech workers in Mountain View will give you "I'd rather spend time with my family than on the road" or "I don't really want to live in a large city" or any number of totally individual, valid, human reasons. I don't see any dehumanization here.
  - Crito 13y ago
    The point is that these people live where they chose to live. There are many reasons that they factor into their decision, but it remains their decision. Not the decision of some trust-fund professional protesters.
- baddox 13y ago
  > He is advocating more restrictions Not at all. What makes you think that? The only thing I'm advocating is that if your non-work life is important to you (like it is with most people), eliminating commute time is one obvious way to expand that part of your life.
  - Crito 13y ago
    They have that option currently. The employees who do not live close to their work made the decision that commute time was not their primary concern.
    - baddox 13y ago
      I agree. Clearly these people would rather have fewer hours each day at home in the city than extra hours at home nearer their work.

Crito 13y ago

He is advocating more restrictions (not enforced by law or company policy, admittedly, but driven by community violence) on housing options for Google employees. Whether the remaining options are owned by Google, or a limited set of independent corporations and landlords is of little consequence. The result is that the employee is forced to live closer to work instead of where they please, serving as a constant reminder that their life truly does revolve around their employer. What he is suggesting is dehumanizing. In answer to the original query: "Why not live closer to work?" Because that is not where they fucking want to live. They should be permitted to live anywhere that they have the ability and means to live. De-facto zoning of residential areas as off limits to employees of particular companies is insanity.

etjossem 13y ago
> Why not live closer to work? If you ask those aboard the Google bus, you'll get various answers, like "I don't mind the commute" or "I love SF, there's so much to do here." > Why not live in San Francisco? Tech workers in Mountain View will give you "I'd rather spend time with my family than on the road" or "I don't really want to live in a large city" or any number of totally individual, valid, human reasons. I don't see any dehumanization here.
- Crito 13y ago
  The point is that these people live where they chose to live. There are many reasons that they factor into their decision, but it remains their decision. Not the decision of some trust-fund professional protesters.
baddox 13y ago
> He is advocating more restrictions Not at all. What makes you think that? The only thing I'm advocating is that if your non-work life is important to you (like it is with most people), eliminating commute time is one obvious way to expand that part of your life.
- Crito 13y ago
  They have that option currently. The employees who do not live close to their work made the decision that commute time was not their primary concern.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I agree. Clearly these people would rather have fewer hours each day at home in the city than extra hours at home nearer their work.