Let People Move to Jobs • Hacker News Board

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#101

Post by Apocryphon » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 10:14 AM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #37

tehjoker wrote: post #27

Just... eliminate the private housing market. Unlike companies that produce things, there's zero value add by landlords and banks. Rents and mortgages far exceed the value of construction and allow the richest people to snap them up. Make it more fair, and cheaper by eliminating landlords and private sales of land. The land was all stolen anyway.

Value is absolutely added by both, and suggesting otherwise is pretty naive. Landlords take on the responsibility for long-term ownership and maintenance of a property and give people access to it on a shorter term basis that is much easier to get out of. Banks give access to money that you don't currently have with understanding that you will pay them back a premium over time for that service. If you "eliminated lan…

Perhaps the U.S. could try implementing a land-value tax.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#102

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 10:18 AM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #37

tehjoker wrote: post #27

Just... eliminate the private housing market. Unlike companies that produce things, there's zero value add by landlords and banks. Rents and mortgages far exceed the value of construction and allow the richest people to snap them up. Make it more fair, and cheaper by eliminating landlords and private sales of land. The land was all stolen anyway.

Value is absolutely added by both, and suggesting otherwise is pretty naive. Landlords take on the responsibility for long-term ownership and maintenance of a property and give people access to it on a shorter term basis that is much easier to get out of. Banks give access to money that you don't currently have with understanding that you will pay them back a premium over time for that service. If you "eliminated lan…

There are plenty of countries where the state owns and manages a substantial proportion of housing. As high as 34% in the Netherlands[1] for example.

[1] http://www.iut.nu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Social-Housing-...

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#103

Post by icebraining » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 10:26 AM UTC

ljf wrote: post #65

neilwilson wrote: post #63

This argument has been made for decades. Isn't it about time we realised that people live somewhere amongst social capital they have built up throughout their lives. And therefore business capital should move where the people are - to avoid damaging that social capital. Not the other way around. Ultimately people work to live. Those who live to work are a tiny minority. With modern technology there is little excuse.…

This - and to add to that, the high value of this social capital when you have lower financal capital. Someone to help with the kids, relax with, help you fix your car, have a cheap evening or weekend of hanging out with. When you move it can take years to build all that up again. You might be able to do without it all, but you either have to pay to replace it or go without.

But that implies we should centralize in cities, so people don't have to move if they lose their jobs. Getting a few companies to a small town just means that when one fails, workers are more likely to have to move at a later stage in life, when they already have kids and a mortgage and such. Better for them to move to a hub when they're young. Plus their children will already be born in a hub, so they won't have to move at all.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#104

Post by Spoom » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 10:28 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #88

munificent wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, Google has a Pittsburgh office which is doing quite well as far as I can tell.

There are issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21997412

FWIW as a Pittsburgh Googler, I haven't experienced the air issues personally. That said, I don't live near the office. It seems like the issues are a lot more obvious to those who live near Bakery Square.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#105

Post by buboard » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 10:29 AM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #78

cagenut wrote: post #6

The housing costs of some second/third/worse tier city are almost completely meaningless. Unless the job gave me a 10 year contract with a golden parachute or something. It doesn't matter if you can make the numbers work once, what matters is that you will almost certainly job hop 3 - 5 times, so you need to be in an area dense with employers to make that viable without having to move your life/family every time. Eve…

Exactly. Who wants to live in a company town? I don't.

isn't SF a company town?

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#106

Post by _xnmw » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 10:31 AM UTC

thatcat wrote: post #73

eropple wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to work for a company that embraces remote work, but it's undeniably more efficient and, for most people, fulfilling on a personal level to have a high-bandwidth face-to-face conversation--and "the wifi hiccuped, what did you say?", as happens here and without exception everywhere else I've been, isn't that.

That's just an argument for government subsidized fiber internet, repeating your self a few times a day is a minor inconvenience compared to commuting.

Some of the best work happens not during scheduled meetings, but in spontaneous conversations with coworkers at random times during the day. Fiber internet doesn't solve that.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#107

Post by kgwgk » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 10:32 AM UTC

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #102

war1025 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Value is absolutely added by both, and suggesting otherwise is pretty naive. Landlords take on the responsibility for long-term ownership and maintenance of a property and give people access to it on a shorter term basis that is much easier to get out of. Banks give access to money that you don't currently have with understanding that you will pay them back a premium over time for that service. If you "eliminated lan…

There are plenty of countries where the state owns and manages a substantial proportion of housing. As high as 34% in the Netherlands[1] for example. [1] http://www.iut.nu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Social-Housing-...

Social housing associations in Netherlands are not owned or managed by the state.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#108

Post by aguyfromnb » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 10:35 AM UTC

sgift wrote: post #94

war1025 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Value is absolutely added by both, and suggesting otherwise is pretty naive. Landlords take on the responsibility for long-term ownership and maintenance of a property and give people access to it on a shorter term basis that is much easier to get out of. Banks give access to money that you don't currently have with understanding that you will pay them back a premium over time for that service. If you "eliminated lan…

> Banks give access to money that you don't currently have with understanding that you will pay them back a premium over time for that service. By using money that they don't have either. I think that part is important to remember. The difference between a bank and a private person is not that the bank has money to lend. It's that they are allowed to lend money they don't have. If you do that it's called fraud.

You most certainly can lend money you don't have. Of course, you're going to have to come up with it somehow (so will the bank), likely by borrowing it. Which is fundamentally no different than what a bank does, albeit their balance sheets are larger and counterparties different. It's "borrowing" all the way down,and how the financial system works.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#109

Post by 6c696e7578 » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 10:36 AM UTC

I've never understood why with IT jobs in the UK that they're all centred around London. Especially when they then offshore bits of the company to India or Eastern/Southern Europe requiring contracted staff to use a VPN.

It seems companies want staff onsite in London, purely for the enjoyment of making people commute there. This does no good for the environment other than help to conversion of fossil fuel into co².

If people are to be managed in things like "sprints" or other ticket monitoring/work managing systems then there's no reason why people can't work from home so long as they're happy to communicate on normal daily/weekly management calls.

Bring on telecommuting, it works for and helps everyone.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#110

Post by Spoom » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 10:39 AM UTC

munificent wrote: post #55

remote_phone wrote: post #4

The author made a blind guess that 80% of Google would quit If they moved HQ without any actual evidence. If Google opened up a new large office in a place like Kansas City with no salary cut and a strong internet presence and some other tech companies (ICE exchange for example), I bet enough Google employees would want to move there to make it worthwhile. Cheaper cost of living, better schools, better for families e…

In fact, Google has a Pittsburgh office which is doing quite well as far as I can tell.

The fact that that office exists was a major reason I was able to consider them as an employer. I'd already looked at SF / NYC as options and basically priced myself out because I'd be moving with my family, and I wanted a house / decent commute / to not have roommates.

(Admittedly, when I was looking at SF / Silicon Valley before, I was looking at startups; having a Big N as an employer might have just made it work, but we'd still have been losing out on closer family ties.)