You assume it is as effective as onsite work, just like that? If that was the case, why haven't remote work companies trounced on site work companies en masse?
If they would open offices elsewhere, they would drive prices up there, too. In fact here in Berlin they cancelled their plans after protests by the locals.
We are in a thread about the claim that "As long as annual compensation doesn't let you own a house outright in 5 years in the same area as your place of work, then there is more work to do."
That is what I was referring to.
I think companies are already trying to alleviate the housing issues. But their influence is not as high as you think. Google buses were attacked by locals, for example - they would have enable Google employees to live farther away, alleviating pressure on prices in the immediate neighborhood.
Well the people living there can vote, can't they? I don't see how it is corporate responsibility. Corporations can't vote.
Yes, the corporations are contributing to rent jumps, but that was part of the point: by paying higher salaries, as is being demanded by the pro union crowd here, they also increase the rents. So they can't simply pay enough so that "people can buy a house within 5 years", because housing prices rise along with salaries.
As if companies determine the price for housing. With Sillicon Valley wages, you could easily afford housing within 5 years somewhere else. It is not companies' fault that housing prices have gone up - it is politics preventing building of available housing. It is also an example that shows that no matter how much you pay the employees, housing prices will simply adapt if more housing is not being built.
Just because people barter or keep scores, it doesn't mean they can't do other things, like be nice or give gifts occasionally.
Honestly, to cut the discussion short: do you have kids? I have two kids. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but they are really not all that naturally generous and giving to each other. Must be the toxic capitalist environment they grew up in? How can I activate their socialist genes and make them want to share all their toys with each other?
Again, economic theories don't need to be taken literal, they are simplified models. Just because somebody helps somebody else in need without immediately expecting a carrot in return, doesn't mean bartering is refuted.
Even in our today's world with money, people help other people in need. I don't think it defies economic reason, either. It is "pay it forward" or a kind of social insurance, as people can expect the same being done for them. Also perhaps it is simply a different kind of interaction, who says EVERYTHING has to be modeled as a trade? Or maybe it is the price for belonging to society, or to a certain circle of people, who would shun you if you would display antisocial behavior. Not every exchange good has to be a carrot.
Maybe the insurance model explains it quite well, now that I think about it.
Rational actors also work out in the long run, because by evolution the more rational strategy prevails. So people may not be aware why they help others (they don't do a calculation in their head every time), but it can still be the rational thing to do.
Such as? Except for Twitter, I don't really know any? I'd love to have a trustworthy source for curated news, but I am not aware of one.