Hacker News Reader

Comment by incomingpain | Hacker News Reader

A ton of businesses are dealing with a bad hand right now. They know they cant successfully force everyone back to the office. If news goes out about X entity is going back to the office. Recruiters go to linkedin and reach out to all of those people and offer them work from home and a raise.

Flipside, if you dont go back to the office. What are going doing holding so much $ and costs for nothing? Everyone who realizes this also cant rush out to sell. There's already loads of empty buildings and who is buying? Nobody, you'll get wrecked.

Then add on top, even if you decide to force everyone back into the office and accept the losses. How long until climate change or expensive gasoline forces people to just stay home??

View on HN

> How long until climate change or expensive gasoline forces people to just stay home??

Yes, this is just the beginning of the end. I would even say this is the beginning of the end for cities as we know them. I think 80-90% of all white collar jobs will leave cities and suburbia. This will really change the dynamics.

That's unlikely. For a start, many people like living in the city. It's fun and their friends and family are all there. Then there's everyone with children at school so they're not going to mess with the kids' education and friendship group. Another big problem is rural broadband. I know the countryside is nice, I may well retire there, but it's not where I am now and it's only a very small number of people who like the isolation.

>That's unlikely. For a start, many people like living in the city. It's fun and their friends and family are all there. Then there's everyone with children at school so they're not going to mess with the kids' education and friendship group

Down on my imaginary future ranch, I have a 10kw solar array charging my cybertruck and it drives me to the concerts, friends/family, and all that for free.

Children playing at the park? Is that even a thing anymore? Xbox/PS# seems to be replacing that entirely. We could discuss if this is a good thing or not but that same cybertruck can self-drive the kids to wherever they are meeting up.

>Another big problem is rural broadband. I know the countryside is nice, I may well retire there, but it's not where I am now and it's only a very small number of people who like the isolation.

That's what just broke. Why suddenly this became a thing. Starlink or 5g with long range 5ghz wireless backhaul. Rural suddenly has good relatively reliable fast internet access.

> Children playing at the park? Is that even a thing anymore?

Have you been to a park in a child-raising area lately? They are absolutely packed all the time with kids. Sure, you don't see them downtown, but you head out to the suburbs and you absolutely do.

>Have you been to a park in a child-raising area lately? They are absolutely packed all the time with kids. Sure, you don't see them downtown, but you head out to the suburbs and you absolutely do.

Oh for sure. If the kid is not quite old enough for the xbox/ps# age. They are totally out at the park. You never see kids out above whatever that age is.

I did see some older kids out tobaganning this winter. maybe in the age 8 range, which is unusually old compared to the playground soccer field age kids.

My comment stands for sure.

>Yes, this is just the beginning of the end. I would even say this is the beginning of the end for cities as we know them. I think 80-90% of all white collar jobs will leave cities and suburbia. This will really change the dynamics.

This is actually a super interesting subject I haven't considered. What is the tenability of cities without fossil fuels? I think we do know, it's really the cities that collapse.

Farmers might emit lots of CO2 and carbon taxes directly attack them, but ultimately they cant go anywhere. The cities need to eat. So those carbon taxes don't harm them at all.

How does public transit work? Generally speaking they are all diesel. Do we have a plan to spend a trillion $ converting this all to electric?

What's even the point of giant office buildings anymore? Downtown cores are dying if not dead as it is. When people stay home, the sharwarma spot downtown wont be able to afford to stay.

It's obvious what will eventually happen. These office buildings convert to high density residential. However, what happens after that?

If I am 100% remote, why even be in the expensive high tax city? I could go buy 10 acres and pay $100/year in nonsense taxes. Do my own utilities. never again worry about nuclear war because nobody will be nuking rural areas.

I really dont think we have quite thought out the consequences of our actions.

> What is the tenability of cities without fossil fuels? I think we do know, it's really the cities that collapse.

I walk everywhere. It's suburbs that collapse without fossil fuels.

> How does public transit work? Generally speaking they are all diesel. Do we have a plan to spend a trillion $ converting this all to electric?

Our subways have always been electric. Our street cars are electric, and have been for a century, before that they were horse driven. All new buses are electric.

> What's even the point of giant office buildings anymore? Downtown cores are dying if not dead as it is.

This is probably true.

> I really dont think we have quite thought out the consequences of our actions.

The consequences of NOT following these actions will horrific.

>I walk everywhere. It's suburbs that collapse without fossil fuels.

I think shooting from the hip the suburbs hurt without fossil fuels for a short time. However, who are the people buying teslas it's rich folks in the suburbs. Who in 10 years will be driving the gasoline toyota econobox. It's the poor in the cities.

>Our subways have always been electric.

That doesnt cover everything. Not all cities have a subway. Not all subways are electric, the danger of frying people made a number of subways diesel. My understanding is that much of NYC subway is still diesel for various reasons.

> Our street cars are electric, and have been for a century, before that they were horse driven. All new buses are electric.

I'm not sure I follow. This is certainly not true in the general sense. Perhaps true where you are? Where are you?

>The consequences of NOT following these actions will horrific.

That's the big debate there. Climate change isn't even important to the discussion.

If we fast forward ~75 years. We know without question that we are going to run out of fossil fuels. If we do nothing to switch now, it's a certain collapse of society.

Clearly we must do something. The sooner we begin, the less painful it is in the long run.

However, we cannot ignore the consequences. We must address these issues.

> much of NYC subway is still diesel for various reasons

NYC subway still uses cloth bathed in oil to insulate some electrical circuits.

> That doesnt cover everything. Not all cities have a subway. Not all subways are electric, the danger of frying people made a number of subways diesel. My understanding is that much of NYC subway is still diesel for various reasons.

I'm disputing YOUR generalization, that [all] cities are doomed, not creating a new generalization that they are all fine.

Cities existed before oil. A city without cars can actually be a massive improvement

>Cities existed before oil. A city without cars can actually be a massive improvement

True but cities required domestication of the horse. There were literally horse shit all over the roads and the occasional dead horse that was abandoned.

The answer isn't subways or monorails neither.

The answer may be robotaxis. I am very optimistic that this could solve a large degree of the issues.

If you were to replace all inbound/outbound subway connection of Manhattan with bridges and car traffic you would need 49 bridges the size of Manhattan bridge as a replacement.

Cars are very useful to go wherever you want, but are literally the worst for volume.

Similarly to how trucks are necessary to move stuff around but they cannot replace train freight/air planes/container ships.

>If you were to replace all inbound/outbound subway connection of Manhattan with bridges and car traffic you would need 49 bridges the size of Manhattan bridge as a replacement.

dont take me as attacking nyc and/or their subway. I'm certain at some grand time in the future all cities have a subway with rapid transport.

I was replying to

> The answer may be robotaxis. I am very optimistic that this could solve a large degree of the issues.

What I was trying to say is that cars (autonomous or not) are to mass transportation what copper wire is to the internet: better to keep the bulk of it out of it.

Also car infrastructure is extremely expensive, both in and of itself and as a collateral, parking lot requirements have a huge maintenance and spatial cost.

I’m not sure I follow. Americans tend to have high emissions regardless of location. This makes sense if you consider that society almost everywhere except ultra dense cities is built around personal automobiles; and dense cities obviously have lots of other needs for energy as you’ve noted

I also wouldn’t say cities are particularly less capable of electrification than anywhere else. Bus systems can be electric. Subway systems are already electric. There are some diesel train systems that would be expensive to electrify (eg Boston regional commuter rail), but even this isn’t impossible (frankly it should have been done years ago, and a study in the 2010s had recommended it because it gives other benefits like improving reliability and reducing maintenance)

As you’ve noted, there’s a big question mark on how cities will adapt central business districts around a non-office world. It’s also worth noting cities have handled such a transition before: during the industrial revolution, cities were full of factories, and over time these shuttered and were replaced or turned into housing.

Not everyone wants 10 acres or cares about the threat of nuclear war. Cities will be for those people.

Unfortunately most missle silos in the US are located in the rural midwest.

> I would even say this is the beginning of the end for cities as we know them.

Alternate POV: this could save cities as we know them. All top American cities have been struggling for about 20 years now to handle urban growth, as cost of living goes through the roof and small businesses disappear when their renewed lease comes at twice the rent. As always, the survivors are those who can afford the change: homeowners and the wealthy on the residential side (keep in mind cities like Boston are majority renter), and large corporate renters on the business side (think Starbucks instead of Local Coffee Co)

Pre-war growth patterns (ie, densification and transit) have been generally outlawed, and big companies seem to have endless pockets to raise salaries to attract more highly paid workers to compete on rent; so there’s been no counterbalance on this trend. Until remote work.

Right now cities are still expensive, but the next few years as we transition out of the pandemic will determine whether remote work is here to stay; if so, you will likely see another suburban migration of ‘former reluctant office workers’ (we already had one wave at the start of the pandemic), and city real estate might finally cool off for the first time in decades

To add a reference:

Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

Essentially urban sprawl/suburbia/single family homes cost more for the city (road upkeep, water/gas pipes, etc.) than what they contribute in taxes, so many cities are in a positive feedback loop of building more houses to get quick money to do maintenance on the previous rounds of growth.

Simple solution, raise taxes.

Same with highway/Interstate maintenance. Raise the Federal gas tax (which hasn't tracked inflation for ages).

I should have put more emphasis on "as we know them." I think think cities will exist for sure, and they might be better. So I agree with you there, and I actually hope the same.

But modern cities have had two phases: first industrial growth, and more recently white collar/information worker city cores. Industry will still exist, but has already moved further out from city centers and cores. Currently, the life blood of large cities is closely tied up with the mega corps having their ego towers there and thus attracting innumerable highly paid workers which then spend their money in those city cores. With that going away and/or substantially changing, cities will change drastically too.

I expect that opposite will happen. Cities that are built for people (and not cars) will thrive. Nobody wants to drive everywhere. Cities that support multi-modal transportation and have mixed residential / commercial centers will thrive.

Chicago does this well. From my front door I have the follow options:

  * The El (train, local stops)
  * Metra (train, commuter that gets out to the burbs)
  * Bus
  * Taxi
  * Divvy (e-bike rentals)
  * Personal bike
  * Walking

... and finally, yes, I can drive. But driving sucks. It's slow, expensive, and you still have to find parking.

Kind of offtopic, but how about safety consideration? Chicago is represented as quite dangerous in the media.

As a resident, is the danger true?

No, Chicago is not dangerous on a per-capita basis. The news is incentivized to get attention, and "OMG you'll get robbed and shot" is a very effective and crude way to get those clicks.

Chicago is no different than any other large city in that being aware of your surroundings and not doing dumb things is expected.

Chicago is no St. Louis or New Orleans, but 1000 out of 100k is 1%.

One of the reasons I never consider living in the midwest again (Toledo) is because my bike was stolen so many times as a kid. Crime doesn't make for nice living.

4+ year Chicago resident here. Chicago neighborhoods vary night and day to each other. Crime is very well contained to the dangerous ones, and the neighborhoods where are tech worker can afford and would want to stay in are very safe.

>will leave cities

wouldn't that be the opposite? Where I live right now, the nearest grocery store is in the next town over and there is zero public infrastructure to get there. There is no uber or taxi or bus. You just don't live here without a car, period.

Jobs will leave the cities insofar as they are not bound to the city anymore. People might decide to stay in one city or another, but the job will not define where and how, this will change the dynamics

> What are going doing holding so much $ and costs for nothing? Everyone who realizes this also cant rush out to sell. There's already loads of empty buildings and who is buying? Nobody, you'll get wrecked.

1) how many companies actually own their buildings? i think generally it’s only the already successful companies which own instead of lease — i.e. the ones who can recover from such a hit.

2) IF the office had negative utility, then the company is harming themselves by using it. whether they’re willing to sell it or not, that fact remains.

>How long until climate change or expensive gasoline forces people to just stay home?

You're looking at it wrong. Plenty of jobs simply can't be done remotely. If it gets to the point that people can't afford to move around much, they'll either permanently move closer to their workplace or find a job closer to their home.

Also, arguably the current discussion around WFH to me is evidence that even most office jobs can't be performed remotely (productively). Even if one person can WFH by themselves, they still need to interact with coworkers who may not be able to do it.

>You're looking at it wrong. Plenty of jobs simply can't be done remotely.

This data is now in. It's roughly 2/3s of jobs cant be done remotely.

> If it gets to the point that people can't afford to move around much, they'll either permanently move closer to their workplace or find a job closer to their home.

That transition happened during the financial crisis in 2009.

>Also, arguably the current discussion around WFH to me is evidence that even most office jobs can't be performed remotely (productively). Even if one person can WFH by themselves, they still need to interact with coworkers who may not be able to do it.

That's a debate I'm sure many management are about to have and flipside going to make lots of recruiters pretty busy.

Frankly for me it's 1 thing that really puts me off going back to the office. When I need to hit the shitter. I walk 2 seconds from my office to my toilet. I have nice soft toilet paper.

At work, I have to go through like 2 security zones and then hope that nobody is using the stalls already. If they are, and that's common. I have to walk to the other side of the building and then hope those shitters arent in use.

Then there's a good chance the one that's empty is going to be atrocious. Then I have to wipe with 1 ply sandpaper. It's just better to be at home.

OP is talking about office jobs, your 2/3 stat is for all jobs.

I think he's wrong though. Most office jobs should be capable of being remote, unless the mgmt is unwilling to make changes to the modern world.

Note that what I'm saying is not that most office jobs can't be done remotely at all. What I'm saying is that most can't be done remotely without harming productivity in some way. For example, if someone can do their job entirely by themselves and only needs to periodic check ins to report progress, yes, that person can remotely just fine. If someone works in a closely-knit team where interaction needs to be frequent and someone in that team can't adapt to remote work productivity is going to suffer by having everyone in physically different locations.

I don't think it's as simple as "management doesn't want WFH because of a temper tantrum".

I think it's incumbent on those professing a job can't be done remotely to demonstrate it. My mgmt hasn't done it beyond bland platitudes about culture and teamwork, despite record setting sales and profits the last 2 years.

It's about control for most mgmt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com