[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?

[sokoloff]

If poor people are currently living in expensive, cramped housing because they’re forced like many others to all commute every day to the same few spots on the Earth we call big cities and we replace that with a system where much more land becomes easy to use to for housing because we’re not going to worship for 8 hours every day at the work temple, I think it’s quite possible that the poor and middle class are both substantially helped.

If your concern is that both are helped but the poor are helped slightly less and conclude from that that means we shouldn’t do it, well, that’s one approach I suppose.