> We make six-figure salaries, have our health care paid for, and, because we are in demand at them moment, are frequently pampered by our employers.
But (as 'eli_gottlieb pointed out) the only people who can do that are those who can afford to relocate to San Francisco or perhaps a few other places, and the initial cost of that is increasing commensurate with demand.
We have, in the tech industry, found a very good way of creating interesting and well-paying jobs that will outlast a lot of the coming automation. We have so many of those jobs, and they keep being created, such that, as you say, workers are in an unusually good negotiating position compared to other industries.
Meanwhile, the housing supply in San Francisco is much closer to fixed; of course if they don't decide to build housing it's very fixed, but even so there's only so much land there. So if the demand for workers continues to be high, the price of housing will continue to increase.
It is a class issue to extend these benefits to people who otherwise couldn't afford the initial investment to relocate to San Francisco in this market and the emergency fund to keep living in San Francisco past unicorn-collapse-of-the-week while looking for new work. If we figure out how to increase supply to keep up with what looks like unquenchable and long-term demand, we'll be solving a major crisis for thousands of small towns that aren't San Francisco.
I don't need remote work for myself; I have the good fortune to be a 10-minute (NYC) subway ride from my tech job. I want remote work for all the people who could be my coworkers.
>If we figure out how to increase supply to keep up with what looks like unquenchable and long-term demand
The answer, as it always has been, is sprawl. We can't sprawl with cars anymore: land is too valuable to park on. So we're bidding with our time: moving to further-out transit stops, walking farther to the stations, tolerating increasing crowding on the trains (losing the ability to work and read). People who nominally make $50+/hour are spending 2, 3 hours a day commuting from their $2500/mo apartments.
I don't mind being a passthrough for the transfer of wealth between tech investors and real estate investors. I am growing increasingly resentful about the hours of my life that I'll never get back, shuttling back and forth from where housing is affordable.
I could technically live close to work, but not with an emergency fund. Maybe with roommates, but that's even worse.
But (as 'eli_gottlieb pointed out) the only people who can do that are those who can afford to relocate to San Francisco or perhaps a few other places, and the initial cost of that is increasing commensurate with demand.
We have, in the tech industry, found a very good way of creating interesting and well-paying jobs that will outlast a lot of the coming automation. We have so many of those jobs, and they keep being created, such that, as you say, workers are in an unusually good negotiating position compared to other industries.
Meanwhile, the housing supply in San Francisco is much closer to fixed; of course if they don't decide to build housing it's very fixed, but even so there's only so much land there. So if the demand for workers continues to be high, the price of housing will continue to increase.
It is a class issue to extend these benefits to people who otherwise couldn't afford the initial investment to relocate to San Francisco in this market and the emergency fund to keep living in San Francisco past unicorn-collapse-of-the-week while looking for new work. If we figure out how to increase supply to keep up with what looks like unquenchable and long-term demand, we'll be solving a major crisis for thousands of small towns that aren't San Francisco.
I don't need remote work for myself; I have the good fortune to be a 10-minute (NYC) subway ride from my tech job. I want remote work for all the people who could be my coworkers.