[autodev1]

I think you hit the nail on the head with "rich rent seekers" -- Who else owns the downtowns of most big cities? Wealthy people, whose interests are served by keeping the pre-pandemic status quo of "Rent our offices. Pay our parking meters & public parking lots"

No thanks. I'll take my remote job and live an hour outside of a city, to enjoy silence, wildlife, bonfires, and saving my hard-earned income in nature.

Large scale rent seeking behavior is not positive for economies. Just ask the Saudis.

[rsj_hn]

Bingo. I look at these issues as a war between location and transportation.

Those who monopolize location are the landlords. Their value comes from location. Transportation and communication makes location less valuable. It allows people to escape from under the thumb of landlords and get their own little plot of land so that they don't need to pay rent to anyone else. Imagine a world in which you can snap your fingers and instantly be transported anywhere. What would be the value of living close to your job? Or in a specific location? There would be no premium at all. All improvements to transportation, whether it becomes cheaper, or faster, or more comfortable, is a small punch at landlords. The same for any increase or improvement in communication. The internet, VPN, portable computers -- these are all little punches at those who sell location.

Moreover while location is not produced, transportation and communication are produced goods. It does not matter whether you are talking about planes, cars, buses, trains, motorcycles, phones, cell towers, they are all made in factories by workers, whereas location is not. So tilting the scales in favor of communication and transportation takes the value that was captured by landlords, and shifts it towards productive industry. It's really a win-win.

[dsfyu404ed]

> Transportation and communication makes location less valuable. It allows people to escape from under the thumb of landlords and get their own little plot of land so that they don't need to pay rent to anyone else. Imagine a world in which you can snap your fingers and instantly be transported anywhere. What would be the value of living close to your job? Or in a specific location? There would be no premium at all. All improvements to transportation, whether it becomes cheaper, or faster, or more comfortable, is a small punch at landlords.

This. So much this. Reducing the "cost" in time and/or money of physical distance results in huge compounding improvements to people's lives. People can work more lucrative jobs. They can shop at the the value-priced big box store than the overpriced bodega that has to pass on its crushing rent. They can more easily justify seeing friends and family. The list goes on.

[throwaway0a5e]

It's absolutely mind boggling that this is downvoted? Are pods and bugs really that popular? Do people like slow subways and traffic filled freeways? Unless you benefit from reduced competition high cost of distance is bad for you.