by Outcast_Searcher » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 18:10:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'P')eople have been commuting from the Central Valley to SF for decades, which is why Stockton was a poster child for the housing bust. "Drive to qualify."
Tele is still increasing, I had thought it was falling after the initial blush
I was just surprised by how much that trend is growing. Stockton was cited in the article I referenced as THE top super commuter cities (in the chart) saying super commuters are an astounding 10% of the workforce. (Well, I found it astounding).
(I think I mistakenly used the term hyper-commuter in my post above for the super commuter term the article uses, but I meant the same thing).
...
It's good to see that telecommuting is still increasing, because there HAS been a lot of corporate push-back.
1). Claims it causes productivity problems in teams.
2). Many companies in I/T such as IBM and HP greatly curtailing or eliminating it.
3). One reason (IMO) has been to get people to quit. HP started a scheme where they'd move someone's job thousands of miles, and then do it AGAIN in several years. And of course, not pay any moving expenses, etc. Not hard to see how that gets old rather quickly, when telecommuting isn't allowed.
4). IMO, witnessing telecommuting and who chose to do it, a lot of the problem was bad management. If you have bad employees who do as little work as they can get by with, deal poorly with change, etc. -- they are NOT good candidates for telecommuting. Punishing everyone instead of the bad workers is all too typical of big corporate management.
I still think the right tax credits could help a lot, and given the costs to the environment, the infrastructure, and the energy used by commuting -- could actually SAVE the government net money. So, like smart government in action. But we can't have THAT, so never mind.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.