oxjox , 6 months ago (edited 6 months ago)

It may not be a 1:1 but the costs (financial and time) are largely offset.

I live in a city, I don’t own a car, I walk and ride a bike, and use public transportation and ride sharing. Granted, the convenience and cost savings can greatly depend on the city, how well it values pedestrians and public transportation, and if the housing market isn’t stupid. I mean, I’m not talking about SF or NYC here.

The more people move back to cities, the more human-friendly they become. The more that people stay and spread further into the suburbs, the more they rely on private transportation and commuting for something like a quarter of their lives. Relative to a suburban life that relies on driving everywhere, my life is very low on stress and high on comfort. “Comfort”, certainly, is relative. I can walk or take public transportation no more than twenty minutes to get to work or anywhere else.

City life can take a little more effort than stepping out of your front door into your car and dealing with traffic and spending money on gas and car insurance. But, aside from a decent pair of shoes and “comfort”, it doesn’t cost me anything to walk 10 minutes to my local market to spend $80 on a week’s worth of food.

I do fully agree that remote work increases the employee pool and benefits employers. I’m just arguing on behalf of city life being more affordable and convenient than it’s given credit for.

I’d also argue that the loss of office workers is having a very real impact on small businesses. Some of my favorite and dearly beloved businesses have closed in the past couple years because of the loss of office workers.

I think remote workers should be given a bonus, either by the state or their employer, for living in the city their company is based in. Ironically and with immense frustration, here in Philadelphia, our city actually taxes us for living AND/OR working here. Still, I would never move back to frustration of suburban life.