[throwlaplace]

No he's saying that less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs. I'm saying I disagree because if the goal were maximizing some kind of utility function then I have an even better solution.

Re your point: obviously you're unfamiliar with the effects of white flight to the suburbs on inner cities. White people (read: wealthy people) have already made that migration in the 50s and 60s and took all of tax revenue with them, leading to places like Detroit and South side Chicago. It was only during the 2000s that they've migrated back to cities. Heading back to the suburbs will repeat history that's literally only 50 years old.

Edit: alright which part am I wrong about mr downvoter

[commandlinefan]

> less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs

No, he's saying that if some people work from home and some other people don't, fewer people will commute, the environment we all share will benefit, but people who can't work from home can still do their jobs. (Source: am the one who said it)

[throwlaplace]

Great. Now map out for me what happens to counties that get the bulk of their tax revenue from property taxes and then use that tax revenue to preserve and improve the environs of that county? Just think about it for two seconds: how good is park beautification on one side of the train tracks vs the other? Is that because of commuting or something else?

>, but people who can't work from home can still do their jobs

seeing as how service jobs can't be done from home this prompts the question: for whom exactly are these people going to be providing services when all of the remote workers have fled to the suburbs? so will they actually be able to "do their jobs"?

[sokoloff]

Houses get cleaned and other service jobs get done in suburbs too.

[throwlaplace]

but now the poor people have to commute to the suburbs completely negating the environmental benefits lol

[sokoloff]

If they're unable to move, that's 100% right. If they're able to move, even if it's just closer, it could still be a win.

[throwlaplace]

so now we're down to "devs move to suburbs and poor people move a little closer" in order to improve the world? and you still don't think that this disproportionately hurts poor people? do i really have to do more work to show you how this is galaxy brain thinking?

[GordonS]

> he's saying ... that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs

I'm not sure we read the same comment - I didn't read anything about sacrificing anyone's jobs.