41–50 of 363 posts
The author's answer to the title question seems to be: No. Which I agree with. If the answer was "Yes" however, I would question if that's even a bad thing to begin with. If our economy is reliant on people driving to an office and spending their money at a restaurant, then our economy is pretty terrible to begin with.
I don't care what it does to the economy. The only people against remote work are middle managers fearing for their future and building owners afraid of losing out on rent money. I have been working remotely for 5 years and I will retire and live in a cardboard box before I commute and work in an office again.
If you can retire as a rash reaction to being asked to be physically present for work, cardboard box threat notwithstanding, then you are way overpaid (assuming you are under 60).
'We are suffering from the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to ours for the production of light that he absolutely inundates our national market with it at a price fabulously reduced. The moment he shows himself, our trade leaves us — all consumers apply to him; and a branch of native industry, having countless ramifications, is all at once rendered com…
It’s sure to only benefit a select few. We should let the free market decide what we collectively value in cities. With remote work in particular, it feels like there is more value placed on the standards of humanity than being close to a “hub” to make larger sums of money. For me, I love great weather and not spending a tenth of my day in traffic.
Bad for which economy? Countless programmers over the years have packed up their bags and moved away from their small towns to live in big expensive tech hubs. This has certainly been beneficial for the economy of large metros--they didn't pay to educate these workers and in many cases these workers (including myself) were raised and educated in completely different countries. So these metros have a huge pool of high…
Bad for which economy? Countless programmers over the years have packed up their bags and moved away from their small towns to live in big expensive tech hubs. This has certainly been beneficial for the economy of large metros--they didn't pay to educate these workers and in many cases these workers (including myself) were raised and educated in completely different countries. So these metros have a huge pool of high…
I don't care what it does to the economy. The only people against remote work are middle managers fearing for their future and building owners afraid of losing out on rent money. I have been working remotely for 5 years and I will retire and live in a cardboard box before I commute and work in an office again.
The author's answer to the title question seems to be: No. Which I agree with. If the answer was "Yes" however, I would question if that's even a bad thing to begin with. If our economy is reliant on people driving to an office and spending their money at a restaurant, then our economy is pretty terrible to begin with.
Maybe labor that needs induced demand shouldn’t shape society at all. Maybe it’s arbitrary makework—maybe the laborers, and the society making arbitrary work, would both benefit more by supporting those humans who’d otherwise do makework.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uhh... nobody stops going to the barber just because they work from home.
Not only that, who goes to a barber during work hours? That's something that one would assume would happen closer to home regardless, such as on a weekend.