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

Is remote work bad for the economy?

fractional.work

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 363 posts

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#301

Post by dublinben »

rosetremiere wrote: post #272
klodolph wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big metros are more efficient (dollar-wise) and have a lower environmental impact than small towns. Small towns, in the US, are already subsidized by big towns, at least economically.

> and have a lower environmental impact than small towns Can you expand on that (or link to more) ?

You can see a map of household carbon footprint by ZIP code on this map: https://coolclimate.org/maps

A cursory glance shows that the densest urban centers have the lowest carbon footprint. The suburbs are much higher, with affluent suburbs often being more than twice as high. Only some very rural areas approach levels as low as the cities.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#302

Post by wink »

antihipocrat wrote: post #129
chii wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This obviously is a financial loss for the economy it's not, because the money that was otherwise spent (wasted) can now be deployed else where. Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? The replacement is gonna cause huge growth!

Exactly, the local suburban businesses are loving the extra foot traffic, at the expense of less foot traffic in downtown areas. I'm sure home delivery services are benefiting too. The suggestion that the general economy is suffering because of people WFH doesn't make much sense, spending is just reallocated. .. Now if people were saving any money previously spent on commuting and eating out, then that would reduce G…

Not exactly sure how representative I should feel, but before, working in the city center, a lot of shops/restaurants got my foot traffic, and since I've been WFH it's mostly my local grocery store that gets all the money.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#303

Post by mannerheim »

blub wrote: post #285
michaelteter wrote: post #74

This applies everywhere: just because a job or business has existed does not mean it has a right to exist forever. This is not being harsh on people; it's just a reality. The blacksmiths in the horse and buggy days saw demand for their services fall when time and technologies changed. The coal miners began losing their jobs when we realized that coal as fuel was more harmful than it was beneficial. History is full of…

The pro remote work viewpoints on HN seem like experienced developers, probably with families, often with terrible commutes externalizing the costs of what’s apparently good for them personally to their colleagues and peers: * removing an outlet for socializing for people that are new to the area / country and don’t have friends. * lack of face to face team bonding for new employees. * lack of personal social contact…

Saying that in-person work is more productive is all very well, but this discussion is about remote work being bad for the economy because people aren't buying lunch, companies aren't leasing offices, etc., which is just another instance of the broken window fallacy.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#305

Post by snikeris »

chii wrote: post #89
michaelteter wrote: post #74

This applies everywhere: just because a job or business has existed does not mean it has a right to exist forever. This is not being harsh on people; it's just a reality. The blacksmiths in the horse and buggy days saw demand for their services fall when time and technologies changed. The coal miners began losing their jobs when we realized that coal as fuel was more harmful than it was beneficial. History is full of…

> This obviously is a financial loss for the economy it's not, because the money that was otherwise spent (wasted) can now be deployed else where. Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? The replacement is gonna cause huge growth!

This is the same fallacy that people make when they think that war is good for the economy. They somehow imagine that people are better off when we spend money bombing eachother.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#306

Post by Steltek »

sokoloff wrote: post #250
dymk wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suburbs are economically insolvent, dense cities aren’t. That’s the case for basically every suburb and dense downtown in the US.

The suburbs around Boston are definitely not economically insolvent, and the ones in metro-west are fairly flush financially (continually building and upgrading schools and other town amenities).

The suburbs around Boston are effectively dense cities because they predate railroads, nevermind cars. You don't need skyscrapers to claim "density".

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#307

Post by lelanthran »

geysersam wrote: post #296
lelanthran wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's clear that the pointless burning of fossil fuels didn't satisfy any human need. Yeah, but ... how much of it was pointless? Who decides if a use-case is pointless? You? Me? The government?

If it didn't satisfy anyones desire, it was pointless. Burning fossil fuels can of course also be meaningful. We're talking about driving to work when you can work from home.

> If it didn't satisfy anyones desire, it was pointless.

I dunno.

There's a lot of PHBs who have petty tyrant syndrome. They desire their employees in the office.

Then there's a lot of people in the CBD who desire to continue selling their wares to the people working in the CBD.

There's letting companies who desire income from the letting arrangements, landlords who desire income enough to pay the city tax ...

On the whole, I agree with WFH; I just don't think it's a good exercise to justify anything based on what people desire.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#308

Post by benlivengood »

chii wrote: post #89
michaelteter wrote: post #74

This applies everywhere: just because a job or business has existed does not mean it has a right to exist forever. This is not being harsh on people; it's just a reality. The blacksmiths in the horse and buggy days saw demand for their services fall when time and technologies changed. The coal miners began losing their jobs when we realized that coal as fuel was more harmful than it was beneficial. History is full of…

> This obviously is a financial loss for the economy it's not, because the money that was otherwise spent (wasted) can now be deployed else where. Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? The replacement is gonna cause huge growth!

Not every expense or purchase has the same multiplicative effect on GDP. The more value that is added at each stage of production, the more GDP is created by consumer spending (cooking vs. eating out). GDP also captures none of the value created and consumed within the household (cooking, herb gardens, childcare by parents, etc.).

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#309

Post by dumpsterlid »

bequanna wrote: post #243
antihipocrat wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, the local suburban businesses are loving the extra foot traffic, at the expense of less foot traffic in downtown areas. I'm sure home delivery services are benefiting too. The suggestion that the general economy is suffering because of people WFH doesn't make much sense, spending is just reallocated. .. Now if people were saving any money previously spent on commuting and eating out, then that would reduce G…

Right, and in my experience urban retail is often high cost, low quality. Some of the dirtiest stores/restaurants you see are in urban centers. They could get away with this because they had a captive group which was previously forced to be in that location with relatively few options.

[dead]

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#310

Post by [deleted] »

geysersam wrote: post #117
friendzis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wellllll.... debatable. This argument of expense rerouting is a bit flawed. Suppose working from home saves one some money that they spend elsewhere. Working from the office they spend that money on fuel, indirectly spend on road maintenance, directly spend on vehicle maintenance where the shop in turn spends on parts and tools and so on. The money one spends circulates in the economy much longer and reaches more act…

The purpose of the economy is to fulfill human desires. The only question we have to ask to understand which situation resulted in higher economic output is: which situation resulted in satisfying more human desires. It's clear that the pointless burning of fossil fuels didn't satisfy any human need. Then the question becomes: is the distribution of currency caused by the buying and burning of the fuels preferable to…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN