101–110 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not an expert but I've read it's not easy to add all the necessary plumbing to provide showers and toilets if you redistribute office space into apartments. A lot of times office buildings will have one large bathroom per floor.
There was a time when many of us on this board lived in buildings without personal bathrooms and only shared facilities. Dorm style housing could work.
"Remote work risks wiping $800 billion" No guesses which angle this is coming from. "Attendance still is 30% lower than what it was before the pandemic and only 37% of people are back at the office every day." And yet the world has not stopped. In fact everything seems to be going faster than ever.
Unless our physical presence is necessary (hairstylist, nurse, chef...), we should aggressively push back on "come to office 300 days a year" requirement. Only dumb middle managers and arrogant upper management (who probably have money invested in commercial real estate) think physical presence is required for all jobs. Either we work remote, or we improve housing and transportation. The former is easier to do while the latter is a near impossible problem to solve in the current political climate.
Those who claim they build friendships etc at work, maybe genuinely ask yourselves - how many colleagues from your previous jobs do you really keep in touch?
Alternative title by me: Remote work frees up $800b to be spent more effectively.
When the paper value of an asset disappears you don't get the money back to spend elsewhere. Nobody does. Just like lending creates money, destruction of assets destroys money. Which happens to be what we want right now, as long as it can be done in an orderly fashion.
Lending creates money? Banks can just, poof, will it into existence?
Correpondingly, asset destruction destroys money? Like someone literally is setting fire to it? This is nonsense.
"Remote work risks wiping $800 billion" No guesses which angle this is coming from. "Attendance still is 30% lower than what it was before the pandemic and only 37% of people are back at the office every day." And yet the world has not stopped. In fact everything seems to be going faster than ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems employers have two concerns: cost and presenteeism. There's real value in people talking to their coworkers in person and knowing them. There's an obvious cost as well, but let's not pretend there's no value there.
Is the value quantifiable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not an expert but I've read it's not easy to add all the necessary plumbing to provide showers and toilets if you redistribute office space into apartments. A lot of times office buildings will have one large bathroom per floor.
Is it easier than earning nothing because nobody is going to use the building otherwise?
The right question is "Is it easier than tearing down the building and building a new one that's designed for residential use in the first place?".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the paper value of an asset disappears you don't get the money back to spend elsewhere. Nobody does. Just like lending creates money, destruction of assets destroys money. Which happens to be what we want right now, as long as it can be done in an orderly fashion.
> Just like lending creates money, destruction of assets destroys money. Lending creates money? Banks can just, poof, will it into existence? Correpondingly, asset destruction destroys money? Like someone literally is setting fire to it? This is nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems employers have two concerns: cost and presenteeism. There's real value in people talking to their coworkers in person and knowing them. There's an obvious cost as well, but let's not pretend there's no value there.
Is the value quantifiable?
This isn't the study but it talks on the issue:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07370024.2014.92...
Alternative title by me: Remote work frees up $800b to be spent more effectively.
When the paper value of an asset disappears you don't get the money back to spend elsewhere. Nobody does. Just like lending creates money, destruction of assets destroys money. Which happens to be what we want right now, as long as it can be done in an orderly fashion.
If that all is true, then by destroying the need to pay $800b, we freed up $800b, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the paper value of an asset disappears you don't get the money back to spend elsewhere. Nobody does. Just like lending creates money, destruction of assets destroys money. Which happens to be what we want right now, as long as it can be done in an orderly fashion.
> Just like lending creates money, destruction of assets destroys money. Lending creates money? Banks can just, poof, will it into existence? Correpondingly, asset destruction destroys money? Like someone literally is setting fire to it? This is nonsense.
Here’s something to read on money creation:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m...