231–240 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so... where are the places that are experiencing the other trend? Where are the artists going to ? Where are the places that used to be rich, but are becoming "poor but sexy"?
Leipzig
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hong Kong and Tokyo somehow manage to stay creative and interesting despite being more expensive per square foot than the new Toronto. The difference, in my uneducated opinion: commercial and retail space in those cities goes up . It is not strictly at street level, as in Toronto. Look up and you will see signs for bunny cafes, stationery, restaurants, all kinds of small/odd fashion stores... All the condo districts…
Didn't Tokyo actively encourage building?
Most cities have problems with staying creative in the face of high rents because most artist jobs pay very poorly (unless you're one of the few who makes it big). It's pretty terrible that musicians, writers, painters and sculptors tend to be in salary brackets where they can never retire and never own a home unless they become huge.
The art and culture of a city will suffer greatly if the next generation of artists is entirely forced into corporate jobs with part time on art. This is even more true if those jobs require creativity reducing the creative energy available for art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replace Berlin with Toronto and you'd be just as correct. It's a concern that spans decades. https://www.cbc.ca/archives/the-last-days-of-toronto-s-low-r... — This article dates to the 80's and its tone is the very same. (Canada's lost sweetheart PM hopeful is interviewed in one of the videos when he was a Toronto city councilor. Such a loss. He really had his finger on the pulse)
I came in TO in the middle oughts and there were patches of the city still having that artsy, edgy and unkempt vibe, and even the commercial Yonge strip from Bloor down to Queen was atmospheric. All got lost to the glass condo towers, and the faux hipster hoods are souless and uninteresting. I feel Toronto became a victim of its own success, great economic progress does not equal vibrant and livable city!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't invalidate what I said I think;
It doesn't invalidate your point that it would be beneficial did what he claims it did. It might invalidate your assertion that he was: > Looking outside of him and caring for other people more than himself, sacrificing himself for others.
The BBC basically providing free marketing for a company, yet again!
Journalism shouldn’t give coverage intended to benefit a company. But it’s just as important they don’t forgo telling a story they consider interesting just because it might incidentally benefit the subject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you see that everyone with money on the line is doing something different from what you propose," But that's precisely what I don't see. There are lots of examples of small high performing teams with way above 'market rate' salaries. I know several in my smallish home town (Helsinki area, 1.5M population). Some of these are in consulting, others in gaming. Sure, they are all in programming, but still their compen…
Once again, you've inverted the causal relationship. The people who get paid more tend to be able to command higher fees because their economic output is higher. You can't take a random person, pay them 10% more, and expect to get 10+% more productivity out of them, ceteris paribus. It's not about "hard constraints"; it's about economic optimization, which involves getting the highest possible return on your capital.…
Um, would they? That, indeed is the interesting question as capital has accumulated, worker wealth growth has stopped and notoriously - productivity really does not grow as it should when we have all these nifty new IT tools to expedite various boring things.
I could be as bold and say that there is a hint of extractive economical thinking in keeping some people in low pay grades. Generally, what you see in extractive economies historically is that the overall wealth is lower than would be if the system was more inclusive, but on the same time there is a bunch of people who are doing the extracting and are satisfied that their coffers are full and are not really concerned about systems level effects.
I understand the logical thinking here - a person suddenly does not become a genious if you pay him more. But if more pay gives him more mental resources during the day as he does not need to be stressed and worried about basic substinence level things - you are actually increasing his performance by paying him more.
Oh, that story. I remember it. A lot of the high-performers left shortly after that. It was all triggered by some lawsuit in the first place anyway. The "give everyone the same salary" was like a compromise to weaken the lawsuit while at the same time to make a positive impact on media.
Alfred Nobel started the prize because his obituary was accidentally published, putting him in a bad light and he wanted to be remembered differently - we benefit from this prize today, in spite of his destructive business activities. I think it's fair to mention the fact that it was due to Price being accused of overpaying himself that the situation got turned around to be something valuable for his company and staf…
I really hope that was intentional.
Oh, that story. I remember it. A lot of the high-performers left shortly after that. It was all triggered by some lawsuit in the first place anyway. The "give everyone the same salary" was like a compromise to weaken the lawsuit while at the same time to make a positive impact on media.
source: https://www.geekwire.com/2016/dan-price-70k-ceo-prevails-sui...
> Lucas Price served the suit on his brother prior to the $70,000 announcement, and the core allegations related to the preceding years. The suit alleged that Dan Price used his majority control of the company to pay himself excessive compensation, manipulate valuations of the company to his financial benefit, and charge hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal expenses to the company.
FWIW, Dan Price (owner of Gravity) is the real deal.
While I no longer work there, I am proud of what he is doing. He is a capitalist, making a decision as a private business owner to help improve the lives of his employees earning < $70k (in the expensive Seattle area mind you) by reducing his own compensation.
I wish i was a part of this story