Hacker News Reader

Comment by juped | Hacker News Reader

The most interesting part (to me) is not touched on in the article - if expensive jobs can be done remotely from Gary, Indiana, they're not going to go to Gary natives who are currently underemployed, but to the same small crowd of well-off people who are just going to move to Gary, driving prices there up. I think this is the inequality that is interesting and matters.

View on HN

But Gary, Indiana has a lot more room. In addition, the new well-off people will need coffee, and cars, and groceries, and be able to pay for them. This will rejuvenate other jobs. With more people with money who can now afford tickets and buy merchandise, maybe more bands will start playing in Gary, Indiana, improving the music scene. With more people with more disposable income, maybe some of them will be interested in local artwork. Now artists can move and live in Gary, Indiana.

In addition, well-off people are interested in making sure their kids get a good education. So maybe they start pushing the city to improve public education. In addition, the increased home values and increased businesses are likely to result in greater increase in tax revenue, allowing more money to go to education.

And the nice part is that Gary, Indiana got these benefits without having to try to bribe a large corporation to open an office with tax giveaways.

You may or may not have more inequality, but I would argue that the people in Gary would be better off.

Absolutely agree that their local economy would get better.

How is it different than trickle down economics? Won’t those coffee shops just be starbucks and grocery stores be Whole Foods and all the profit from them returned to shareholders?

What's the alternative? Everything stays the same? How would that help their economy?

"Trickle down economics" is just an internet slur for supply side economics. It certainly can work out well. A job at Whole Foods would pay a currently unemployed resident of Gary, Indiana a good amount more than he is making at present.

That's a pretty limited perspective. Economic growth doesn't benefit every business and every individual proportionally.

I know people in the Bay Area who are worse off now than they were in first dotcom burst because while software engineers might make 300% now of what they made in 2002, an auto mechanic doesn't. For many, wage growth didn't even keep up with the cost of living.

I think the jobs would go to the most capable and there are capable people everywhere, but not all are willing to relocate to such places ad California or New York. You do see a lot more smart people in these areas because this is where they were all attracted to like magnets by high paying jobs. If a bit less high paying jobs become available no matter where one lives how many people would be willing to relocate?

I think the most absurd thing that is happening is the high rents and low quality living standards that people are putting up with because of the companies that they need to relocate for. And the havoc they produce for the needed locals who can’t afford to live where they have been working all along.

If people in Gary Indiana get these jobs then the local economy would go up for the rest of the people.

I think a lot of smart or upper middle class people would still want to live near other smart or upper middle class people even if jobs were remote.

Humans are social animals and I think it's common for people in privileged positions to want to associate with others like themselves.

People do cluster like that, but organically with more options could always be better. The US has a few large places, Cali and NY for example, and these are already more expensive than they’re worth

Reply on news.ycombinator.com