patrick.net

People died in Paradise area because they couldn't evacuate fast enough over roads clogged with traffic. Now somebody proposes to add even more people into the same infrastructure via "backyard shacks" in article starting with "In fire-ravaged California..."

It's too soon for jokes, methinks.

Actually they died because PG&E sparked two fires.

Also, bad forest management.

Give land out, let people fucking build housing. Get government out

Simple, yet so hard...

tovarichpeter says

Actually they died because PG&E sparked two fires.

They would die the same if the fires were started by lightning. It's not like roads would be more passable then...

1. Lose Prop 13. Replace with something non-market-value-based that's fair.
2. Disallow all tax deductions for anything but a primary residence.
3. Double-tax (or disallow) foreign investment in US real estate.

The amount of mega-apartments that have gone up in Sunnyvale (and I assume elsewhere) is insane. The problem is that people are willing to live in overcrowded conditions because this is where the high-tech jobs are. I wish large high-tech firms would pick up and move to a less crowded (and thus less costly) part of the country — and take me with them!

Sunnyvale94087 says

I wish large high-tech firms would pick up and move to a less crowded (and thus less costly) part of the country — and take me with them!

Austin TX is doing well. House prices have about doubled since 2011 or so, but still pretty affordable.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Tech-pipeline-to-Texas-Tax-money-employees-flow-6791524.php
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-cards/best-places-for-tech-jobs/

I wish large high-tech firms would pick up and move to a less crowded (and thus less costly) part of the country — and take me with them!

Serious question, what stops tech workers from telecommuting? Live in a rural mountain area and remote in. What on earth do you need to be physically present for?

I think job concentration is actually what drives growth - the compounding of people and ideas in a single general geographic area. People rubbing shoulders, neighbors in the same general business, lot of people available so potential to pull new ideas for startups, cross technology discussion, etc... SF area is great for tech BECAUSE of the high density, capital, etc.... The question is how to do this and keep life enjoyable.

Somehow build more houses is a hard concept to grasp? Are liberals retarded or just posturing?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/grow.12232
https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/06/wheres-the-real-next-silicon-valley/530352/

I guess the question is what is meant by a small city and town. Is that 20-50k or 1-1.5 mil?

And, people are leaving for "smaller" cities like Austin, Raleigh, LA (santa monica) already. I still question if they really will have the opportunities in tech available in the SF area. Of course, if we don't fix transit (I know folks who drive from modesto to bay area, 3hr daily commute), then we are in trouble anyway... and naturally there will be movement to other cities. But, right now, folks are fine paying high housing prices and./or living in condensed housing. IF the price bothered them - they would leave. Of course, it doesn't help with a ton of H1B willing to live in high density housing to save money so they can go back in 10 years and live like kings.

Patrick says

Also, bad forest management.

...fancy landscaping.

Totally agree with taxing companies extra if they don't remote-ify jobs that can be remotely done.

Great for millions of American families, reduces road congestion and infrastructure costs, reduces the importation of fossil fuels, means huge amounts of disposable income from all the commuting expenses saved. Will also save thousands of lives and billions of dollars lost in car accidents.

I wouldn't want to be in commercial real estate at the time, though.

With keylogging, chat, and everything else, there's no reason not to.

I think taxing companies extra for not allowing/encouraging remote work is overstepping bounds. Let the free market decide how to best achieve efficiency. Govt can help businesses by minimizing regulations imposed upon them, only keeping the very most important, necessary, and valuable regulations.

While I tend to like the idea of making people/companies pay proportionately for what they use/cost, I think it would be a huge mess trying to decide which jobs in which companies should be remoted. Every company is different, and so are the teams inside each company.

Hircus says

I think taxing companies extra for not allowing/encouraging remote work is overstepping bounds. Let the free market decide how to best achieve efficiency. Govt can help businesses by minimizing regulations imposed upon them, only keeping the very most important, necessary, and valuable regulations.

It's a tax to lower government expenditure and rationalize the economy. If companies insist on being inefficient and weighing down the infrastructure net, they should pay more in tax.

There would be a calculation of how many jobs are remote-friendly, and if a company greatly exceeds the number, they pay the extra tax. That way they can decide if they need certain individuals physically present over others.

It's shouldn't be a godawful high tax but should definitely incentivize work-at-home. It's also great for reducing crime and increasing civic society. Much easier to keep an eye on the 'hood from your street-facing window than from 45 minutes away downtown. Health, Family, Trade Deficit, etc. all benefit "yugely". So overwhelming there is no reason to hesitate.

We can actually start with the reverse, and incentivize a tax break for creating remote jobs.