Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

Post by whamlastxmas » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 9:42 PM UTC

methodover wrote: post #211

Better transit and a unified representative government is a great idea. It's also never going to happen. Or if it will, it's decades away. I've become convinced that if we want real change, it needs to be done by technology. Lyft for example could solve the transit problem if they figure out how to lower the cost of a ride, perhaps with automated drivers. Then you wouldn't need to build too much more infrastructure -…

Post by usaar333 » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #186

usaar333 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attractive enough to pull the top talent? No The underlying problem here is the same problem you have with remote work - it's vastly harder to get complex tasks done when people are remote. For all sorts of reasons (including project expediency), you ideally want the front-line programmers in the same office as the technical leaders.

I meant, as an option to people already in the valley. There must be tons of talent that join these companies when they don't have kids, and would like to work some place where they have more space, more nature etc, when they get older and have kids. I mean I moved out of a city to a distance of about an hour. I have the benefit of being able to work from home so I don't have to go to the office, but I'd very much ap…

Post by tomkarlo » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 9:56 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #200

tomkarlo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great, but it seems kind of orthogonal and non-scalable to the problem of the Bay Area housing crisis. Are you proposing that everyone in SF move to places like the Central Valley (driving up price) and start driving around cars (increasing traffic and pollution)? What about folks who don't have the luxury of jobs where they can work remotely?

Of course someone from SF would have to call it "orthogonal"...

Post by rovolo » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 10:10 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #210

chrisseaton wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the only difference is you won't meet the people at work, but you probably wouldn't date them anyway would you. You'd still meet people at every other place people meet, which is where people look for dates anyway.

> Surely the only difference is you won't meet the people at work, but you probably wouldn't date them anyway would you. Traditionally, work has been a very common place to meet future spouses. I believe the rate has dropped in recent decades, but I would be surprised if it was so low as to be inconsequential, especially when considering something as important as many people view this.

Post by babesh » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 10:21 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #198

ben_jones wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not talked about: you're married. Having worked from home while being single it has its ups and downs. Sure you can get to the gym more but unless you're a natural extrovert you're going to meet way less people - and you'll be less likely to "find someone" (if thats what you're after) compared to the huge number of single people in the city. I feel like this is a hidden motivation for many people. Maybe just me.

Surely the only difference is you won't meet the people at work, but you probably wouldn't date them anyway would you. You'd still meet people at every other place people meet, which is where people look for dates anyway.