Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I was talking nationally. Nationally, tech displaces at a rate many multiples of that at which it creates. It also creates tons of shit "gig" jobs like Uber, Doordash, etc., which are not comparable to real jobs that come with benefits and living wages.
You've ignored mountains of data on those points every time we've had this discussion.
|
I'm not ignoring anything -- maybe you are thinking of Adder. Technology inexorably marches on, taking away a lot of decent jobs feeding and grooming and shoeing horses and creating a smaller number of great jobs building cars, concentrated in some place that most people don't get to live, like Detroit. Then it does it again. I happen to live in a place where a lot of great jobs are being created, except that it's not happenstance -- I moved here twenty-five years ago, and I didn't move to Detroit, no offense.
The current economy is creating lots of jobs in cities, and is leaving a lot of places behind. That sort of thing has been going on since, like, forever. The rest of the world is full of places like Bruges and Venice and Malacca that once were boomtowns and now try to get what they can from tourism.
What are you going to do about it? That's what I'd like to know. Many of us believe that government should act to protect the less fortunate, and to provide social insurance to ameliorate harms that are hard for any individual or family to manage, like what happens in a one-industry town when the one industry leaves. We run into opposition from the cynical and selfish, the people whose attitude is, I've got mine, who cares about you?, the people who don't really care if government tries to help. My question for you is, which side are you on?
Quote:
The conversation about whether companies can be incubated or built remotely is a different one than the conversation about existing companies moving to partial work-at-home structures to save money.
I happen to agree with you. You can't start up a company without gluing together a team that works collaboratively, and that requires an office and people working together.
|
OK!
If you sell your $1.5 million condo in San Francisco and buy a $1.5 million estate in, say, Pittsburgh, you are definitely trading up.
Quote:
|
ETA: Start-ups will need offices. But as you know from the locations of many incubators, these aren't located in the high rent commercial locations where swanky office "palaces" are found. Sure, once they're well funded, they might get swanky space.
|
At least here, that's not right at all. The start-ups need to tap the labor market. In the Bay Area, that means they prefer to be in San Francisco, because that's where their workforce lives or can commute to. Rents are cheaper in places like Union City or Antioch, but that's because the people that start-ups want to hire don't live there and aren't looking to commute there.
Quote:
|
The comm r/e I'm talking about is the super-pricey poorly designed space you find in city centers. The gleaming towers uncreative corporate sorts think they need to occupy to be legitimate.
|
The larger the company, the more challenging to manage, and the more the need to put everyone in the same physical space to do it.
