I no longer immediately support for WFH policies despite being a left-leaning and working class individual
I no longer immediately support for WFH policies despite being a left-leaning and working class individual
WFH - "Work from home," as in: COVID-era policies of (mostly tech jobs) being administered outside of a central office building.
I was entirely in favor of WFH and the struggle of office workers up until recently. Although my career is functionally incompatible with the idea, I had sympathy for members of my class and supported them fighting against an archaic and unnecessarily authoritative policy of office attendance.
BUT.
WFH-ers and West/East Coast refugees have decimated historically low income communities by flooding to parts of the Southeast and Midwest with salaries that were meant to be competitive in an urban environment, where COL is always going to be higher, and pricing out/displacing local (oftentimes minority) populations. Anecdotally, I've seen rental prices more than triple in my hometown within the past four years, with no real wage increases for local groups in what can only be called gentrification.
This isn't my wording, see:
VICE | Digital Nomads Are the New Gentrifiers
You can't have your cake and eat it, too, as the saying goes, and I just can't defend the people who have destroyed local economies. Even if that animosity goes against class solidarity, which I do agree with, the damage WFH has done is too direct and too severe for me to support it.
Edit: I've spent the past hour thinking about this post and have thought of a more succinct way to express my argument:
If I want the best for historically low-income communities, and the following are both true:
A) Gentrification is bad for historically low-income communities, and
B) WFH policies have facilitated gentrification, then
it logicially follows that WFH is bad for historically low-income communities and that I should be opposed to WFH policies.
This is the process rationale behind my argument.
You blame a lot of people who make decent salaries, but put none on your employer, your local government, your states, or anything else. There's a plethora of things your own government could do to help out. Why blame the people who obviously left the west coast due to cost of living (the same thing you're complaining about), and not blame the system and people who allowed it to happen in the first place?
Adding on the whole literally calling them "refugees" like they're leaving some barron hellscape behind while literally just exposing the same problems in capitalism as a whole. Just because you were isolated from these problems before doesn't mean they didn't exist.
I just don't get it. You claim to be left leaning and working class - but the second these issues we fight for literally start affecting you you don't like them anymore? What do you think we've been fighting for this whole time. The ironic thing is that those who probably moved in are probably more left leaning and in more of support for policies which your politicians refuse to enact. (Higher taxes for higher earners, more safety nets, rent control, etc)
Blame the system that allows it in the first place and those who uphold that system. Blaming them just comes off as pure envy to me.
Simply put, if I have to choose between homelessness and standing up for people who want to make urban-adjusted wages in rural, historically low-income areas, I'm going to look out for myself first.
EDIT: You blame a lot of people who make decent salaries, but put none on your employer, your local government, your states, or anything else.
EDIT: Genuinely curious if you'd say this to a person facing homelessness in a city like Mexico City or members of the black community in New Orleans who are voicing their concerns with gentrification. It would take years or maybe decades of economic/social infrastructure for historically low-income communities to be able to offer competitive wages for locals who are being priced out of living right now. This isn't the immediate solution you're proposing it to be.
You blame a lot of people who make decent salaries
Except these salaries are far more than decent in the communities I'm describing. Six-figure salaries, even low ones, usually place these gentrifiers in the top 10% of earners overnight.
Why blame the people who obviously left the west coast due to cost of living
Where do you see me blaming the people specifically? I worded by title very carefully hoping to avoid people making this assumption. I don't blame people for taking advantage of a system that obviously benefits them, but I do want that system - which is causing harm to other causes more relevant to me - to be abolished. Those concepts aren't contradictory.
You're against policies that allow them to live where they want working for a company they enjoy. The policies work in favor of them, it's clear you're just resentful that they are doing alright and found a way to live comfortably.
I'll switch this around. A hypothetical. You have a nice lake next to your town. Randomly tomorrow it's featured on "Boating Monthly", a blog for rich kids who own boats. The come in, buy the land around the lake, and do the exact same thing. The cost of land goes up, it becomes a tourist stop overnight where rich tourists come and stay, they buy property and start charging exorbitant amounts for rent. Small grocery stores and dollar stores can't stay open and are replaces with Trader Joes, Whole Foods, and Amazon Go stores so food and goods go up in cost. Cost of living as a normal person is suddenly 3 or 4 times as high.
Is this not the same argument your making, that people who came in drove up the cost of living? You just don't have your scapegoat of WFH policies this time. So I say again - is there a policy you want to blame while being envious of those people - or are misplacing the blame that should be put on local politicians, landlords, and others in charge locally who should be putting in place protections?
That is where I want you to really think about your views.
You seem to attribute the housing affordability crisis the last few years to WFH-ers, but isn’t it more fair to say that there are multiple other factors contributing to it?
Not just the post COVID appreciation for housing, but things like historically high percentage of investor owned homes (including corporate and foreign buyers), and historically low building rates compared to projected need, to name a few.
So then the question becomes, which of these should we focus on? For me, that means what gives you the most positives, and least negatives.
Let’s look at three options:
- Banning corporate and foreign non-occupying homeowners from owning American residential real estate
- Rezoning low density areas (particularly single story commercial/retail in smaller cities and towns’ downtowns) into vertical dense mixed use residential and commercial/retail development
- Ending work from home
1 and 2 accomplish our primary goal of reducing home prices across the country, both by increasing supply (1 would too, since those investors would need to sell, increasing supply), and 1 would also reduce demand. 3 does not, because any price reductions in rural areas will be offset by higher rates in urban one
2 also gives us positive secondary benefit of encouraging walkable cities, which leads to health improvements, less traffic, and reduced climate impact. 1 would also increase business investment, encouraging long term growth, if the “money printer” option of buying US residential properties and collecting rent is not available.
3 gives us no positive secondary benefits, and since it does essentially the opposite of 2 in terms of walkability, it also is the only one with a high negative cost.
So pretty clearly that idea is the worst one for solving housing affordability. So why support it when their are other much better options available to accomplish your goal?
Why would you think I don't support the other two already? Number one is a no-brainer. With option two, I think there needs to be consideration for historically/culturally significant building preservation, but I agree on the whole.
But, neither of those are relevant to rural/historically low-income communities, which are the main topic of my post and are only somewhat related to my overall message that WFH has created a pipeline of destabilization to these economies.
What data do you have to say neither of those options are relevant?
“Mid-priced homes are becoming more popular with investors, making up 32% of investor purchases in the fourth quarter, a record high. Low-priced homes are still most popular with investors, making up 37% of purchases.”
Low cost homes, exactly the ones in rural/historically low income area you described, are the most purchased category of residential real estate.
Also, the downtowns of those areas, which are almost all single story commercial/retail, are exactly the places most in need of walkable, dense development I’m describing, especially if there’s a housing shortage and most of the surrounding areas already have built up residential developments.
So both of those options are actually more relevant for your example then the US as a whole.
https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-q4-2021/
I don't look at this (or much of anything really) from a left or right side sort of situation. I look at the simple logic of it.
If one's job is processing documents, then yes they should be equally able to do their work from home if they so choose. But if their job is construction, well obviously they need to be present on the jobsite to make it happen.
People should be less polarized and more logical. It's not about left or right, it's about forward and what should work best for everyone.
LMAO people are downvoting an unpopular opinion in c/unpopularopinion
OP, have you tried having a REAL unpopular opinion like "Media piracy is morally justified" or "Billionaires don't really deserve all that money"?
It's unavoidable. I've certainly downvoted posts on here that I disagreed with, but I wish the people who were doing so at least left a comment on why they disagree with my argument.
In fairness, you did pick one of about 4 topics that seems to really get Lemmitors (or whatever word we're using) riled up.
It's just too bad people forget that's literally the entire point if the sub and downvote anything that's not an ironic or memey "unpopular" opinion, because they are often interesting or overlooked POVs, even if I don't agree with the conclusion.
If the demand for high-priced housing is going down, then the price of high-priced housing will also go down, and when that happens you will see low- and lower-priced housing free up again. I'm also not surprised that this is negatively affecting low-income populations because they are always affected the hardest and least financially able to adapt when there is instability or when the situation suddenly changes. One solution is low-priced housing with income limitations.
This is the process rationale behind my argument.
Love it! Everybody should do this! You even put your argument in thy form of a syllogism. swoon
Anyway, that's fair. I wfh but the city I live in has already been gentrified by rich people to that point that even I can barely afford the market. There's a whole side of the town that has homes that go for at least $1 million just because it's that side of town. We can't do that.
I think gentrification should be opposed in pretty much every form. Wealthy people should do more to preserve historical communities and their demographics by being wealthy elsewhere. Go to North Dakota and buy a $300k mansion there