Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let People Move to Jobs

jefftk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 314 posts

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#131

Post by sokoloff »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #70
duxup wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would be great for Googlers ... kinda horrible for locals in KC who would still be making the same amount, and housing costs skyrocket.... funding sudden needed school expansions ... and so on... The economic and political messes of sudden expansion can be an absolute mess.

The only reason this happens is because of (perhaps misguided) attempts to resist the changes caused by population growth from local voters. If it was up to the market to decide, what would happen if there was a sudden spike in the demand for housing? Developers would build more housing. Prices might move a bit, but you’re not going to be looking at a crisis. However, entrenched homeowners don’t want that, because it…

I don’t think people necessarily have the idea that they can keep things the same forever, but I do think it’s quite reasonable for local voters having a say, via the social and democratic processes established in their town, on potential changes to their town. It would seem unreasonable to me for that to not be the case.

That’s true on matters of zoning, schools, libraries, fire stations, or whatever other decisions the town faces. There’s a process for amending zoning rules; there’s usually a process for getting a variance from zoning rules that are unduly burdensome in regards to an individual parcel. What about this democratic process is dysfunctional, other than some people not liking the outcome?

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#132

Post by esotericn »

6c696e7578 wrote: post #109

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. I…

Or it could just be that most people aren't in your sort of 'maximise house size' game.

I've done remote work, and you know what?

I'd rather live in a small flat in London than have a big old house in the North because everything is in London. It's _the_ city in the UK.

If that ever changes (I sincerely doubt it will primarily because essentially all of the wealth is there) it'll probably take multiple generations.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#134

Post by conanbatt »

ddxxdd wrote: post #123
sgt101 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jobs and companies are rather ephemeral, migration is disruptive of community and family, and demands not just housing but also infrastructure (roads, transit, sewers, power, schools, health). We should understand the value of community and family and moderate the need for migration and make careful use of existing infrastructure. The North of England and cites like Pittsburgh and Detroit are cases in point.

Once upon a time, a rising tide of economic progress would lift all boats in all communities all around the country. Nowadays, we're in a bizarre reality where a 200% productivity gain among the average worker nationwide means a 1500% productivity gain in the top 10% of counties, coupled with a 55% productivity loss in the bottom 90% of counties. (Numbers generated randomly for illustrative purposes). One would expec…

> Once upon a time, a rising tide of economic progress would lift all boats in all communities all around the country.

I think this hasn't been true for centuries. Moving rural to the cities has been documented since the 1700's very clearly by economists.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#135

Post by mister_hn »

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.…

Unfortunately a lot of jobs do require presence in the office, especially in particular sectors where the perception of increased security working in the office is misleading.

I hope more and more companies move to remote working, but it's still a hard concept

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#136

Post by jefftk »

rightbyte wrote: post #118
lazyjones wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> kinda horrible for locals in KC who would still be making the same amount, and housing costs skyrocket Surely the locals already have their houses in KC and would benefit more than they'd suffer, as renters, sellers, shop owners.

What if you have kids or grandkids who have to move away far.

The argument of this post is that we should build more housing so people don't get forced out.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#137

Post by kgwgk »

sgift wrote: post #125
aguyfromnb wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Of course, you're going to have to come up with it somehow (so will the bank), For the most part modern banks can lend money that didn't exist until they lend it to you and that stops existing the moment you pay it back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

Fractional reserve is what makes possible for banks to lend (part of) the money that clients deposit. In a full reserve system every single dollar in client deposits would be kept in the vaults and the banks could lend only their own capital.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#138

Post by majos »

m0zg wrote: post #99
rocqua wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So all employers should reorganize to meet your preferences to be left alone? It might work great for you, it would probably help your productivity. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't have downsides for many others!

This is a good example of the "so" tell for cognitive dissonance, whereby the sufferer tries to put words in my mouth and starts their diatribe with a "so". It's a free country, "all employers" can do as they please. I just won't work for them if they are not in close proximity, and very few of them are. I'm not going to "move" for a job that I can do from anywhere in the world.

The bit about “so” seems wrong. You said

> it should really not be a requirement, and work should be structured in such a way as to not penalize people who are remote: around written communication, with infrequent teleconferencing

which is reasonably summarized as

> all employers should reorganize to meet your preferences to be left alone

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#140

Post by jefftk »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #46
unlinked_dll wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Publilius Syrus put it, "everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay." Why should google be willing to pay less for continued labor after relocating if profits are unaffected? And if they're not, why would anyone keep working there?

He neglected to include the selling side. "Everything is worth what it's seller will sell it for." And that in turn is often going to be dictated by what other offers are on the market for the same good. This is a big problem for sellers of software labor in Kansas City. The problem for the hypothetical KC Googler is that there are substantially no other high paying tech jobs in KC. There's Cerner, but they pay senio…

This is right: they and the rest of the FAANGs pay based on the local market.

On the other hand this means areas with lower costs of living but strong tech job markets can be a very good deal: Pittsburg is one people often bring up.

Boston isn't as cheap as Pittsburg, but it's far cheaper than the Bay Area with pay that's nearly as high. I'm very happy here.

Post reply on HN