We work in completely opposite parts of town and due to the city lacking fast public transport and her job lacking flextime she has to wake up way earlier than I'm use to if I want to be productive at work and so far we haven't found a middle ground where one doesn't have to compromise too much.
Honestly, remote work would ease a lot of modern urban problems like traffic, rents, relationships, childcare, etc. If only our corporate masters would allow it.
World governments need to start incentivizing employers to offer remote ASAP as infrastructure in the cities is not keeping up with population growth.
What's nice is we can pay the 4000 euros per month of rent. If not we'd find a 2000 euros flat mid-way. The main issue is that hker are either too stingy to rent, or really don't earn enough to spend that much on it. Don't underestimate the number of people here who can't pay rent by sheer ideology, and live at their parents while extremely overpaid compared to Europe.
Also, as a side note, city incentives to companies come either from your salary (via taxes on companies) or your taxes, not the sky, so it's not a solution. Real solutions are sacrifice, like changing job, changing girlfriend or changing flat. Would you ask for the country to give incentive to companies to help you work 300 km apart your gf ? Sometimes life's unfair and the government isn't your mom, you'll have to solve the problem yourself.
The cheapest place I'm finding is 1500 eur for a really bad studio.
I feel like housing policy is on the verge of becoming a major public issue, the same way that Healthcare has in the US in the last couple years. It seems to me that it's just gotten too difficult in too many places to find an affordable place to live, and it just doesn't seem sustainable for only high-wage earners to have stable housing.
Problem is that none of those places are swing states and voting demographics aren't exactly the ones moving to new cities and getting hit by awful rent.
Housing is a national issue, by some estimates we're losing double digit percentages off US GDP to appease NIMBYs https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/housing-regulatio...
No one said it was going to be easy. But if it really would make your life better, at least try.
>World governments need to start incentivizing employers to offer remote ASAP as infrastructure in the cities is not keeping up with population growth.
A lot of work can't be done remotely. Not everyone works in software. No, what governments need to do is build good infrastructure. Population growth in cities means more tax revenue, so there really isn't a problem here, except with some governments being too wasteful and inefficient and unable to build infrastructure on a budget. This isn't the case everywhere. China sure has no problems building clean and effective subway systems. The ones in Germany and Japan are pretty great too.
Yes, I live in Europe but not every city here has the public transport infrastructure of London/Berlin or the cycling infrastructure of Amsterdam/Copenhagen so this meme of "everything in Europe is so good" needs to stop. How you perceive the transport system as a tourist is different than when you actually have to live and work somewhere long term.
Sure, the public transport system in my city is probably better than the one in the US but because the city is so widespread and low density(think L.A.), pretty much everyone who doesn't live and work in the city center is commuting by car because otherwise you're looking at hours hopping through slow buses/trams to get somewhere.
>A lot of work can't be done remotely. Not everyone works in software.
Yes, not everyone is a programmer but they aren't the only ones who can work remotely, lots of office jobs can be remote as well if the companies would adjust for that.
>No, what governments need to do is build good infrastructure.
Yes, governments need to build infrastructure, but that stuff is highly costly, funds are limited and it takes a lot of time to build due to politics and NIMBYism whereas switching to remote would be a much faster way to relieve slack on existing infrastructure until more gets build.
Let's assume that 20% of jobs can be done remote, that would free up a lot of traffic, living and office space for the people who have to commute.
>China sure has no problems building clean and effective subway systems. The ones in Germany and Japan are pretty great too.
As opposed to democratic countries, China is an outlier, the party has funds and can build infrastructure wherever it wants without public opposition.
Japan and Germany have build their subways decades ago when the economy was good and infrastructure was cheaper. Lots of cities in Europe, and I assume in the US as well, have grown so much that they are in desperate need of a subway system, but now is a bad time, the economy is crap and infrastructure is expensive.
The GDP of any single European country has never been as high. The lack of government investment is not due to that.
Take a look at where your taxes are going where you live.
You'll see it's mostly social services like pensions, umeployment and different kinds of welfare programs so the gov has less money to spend on infrastructure as it has to spend most of it on the aging and often sick and unemployed population with voting rights.
Also, you're forgetting the stress factor. It doesn't take much mental energy to sit on a train for 30-60 minutes; you just need to make sure you don't miss your stop. Dealing with high-speed traffic for that long takes a mental toll. And on a train, you can read a book, look at your phone, etc.
I am re-evaluating the whole concept that couples eventually living together needs to be some kind of long term relationship default or goal. I love my personal space and having an apartment to call my own to come home to. I also love having my boyfriend visit, sometimes for days at a time. I'm not completely against eventually moving in together, but am kind of unsure when or why we usually consider it to be some sort of inevitable goal of a successful relationship that is progressing. Can't we just live separately, enjoy our own space, and see each other whenever we want? Maybe gradually the time we want to spend together will increase, and then nothing is stopping us from doing that. And maybe we'll go through a phase where we want more personal time, and then we'll still have the option to do that, too! This way we could see each other simply because we want to, not because we happen to live in the same apartment and don't really have another option anyway.
Of course this becomes more complicated if the couple chooses to have children, but as someone who intends to stay childfree I guess I just don't see much of an incentive to move in together 'permanently'.
We still both recognize the need for personal space within our shared home so we are discussing how we can accomplish that as we also decide how we're going to move in together.
I think the discussion of what your goals are is a critical part of any relationship, and personally as someone who doesn't share your goals I still think it's great that you know what they are and that you've discussed them with your partner. Because the communication is actually what defines a good relationship, and not this stepwise cultural treadmill toward cohabitating and having kids.
One point of tension that I can imagine if I keep going with this kind of dynamic long term is as follows:
We will likely want to spend some longer stretches of time together at some point. Not permanently, but I could imagine maybe living together for a week or so at a time. At that point I can imagine my partner not feeling truly comfortable at my place because it isn't "home". Have you run into this kind of thing? Do either of you care? Do both of your places feel comfortable enough to be "homey", or there any of that slightly uncomfortable sense of being a guest in someone else's house?
These three options A, B and C do not apply to the majority of the population, even in the United States. Many people in Silicon Valley cannot live like this. They need the help of a partner to pay rent, care for children or simply someone to pool resources with. If there is no way to live together, it becomes a huge blocker to progressing in life. A lot of young people in America are surviving on the pooled resources lifestyle. If its not with a partner, they pool resources with parents.
The reason for this is that a successful relationship produces children, and you (and they!) want both parents around.
This is a very fringe viewpoint, particularly from a historical perspective. The normal view was and is that a relationship with no children is ipso facto a failed relationship. Consider that infertility was one of just a couple of valid reasons to have a Catholic marriage annulled.
Anecdotally, in my environment you would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks children are required for a relationship to be successful. Many people _want_ children, but are not deluded enough to believe the entire concept of "a relationship" is a failure without them (nor that it is a success with them).
Thanks in advance for any sources you can point me to.
In the US the figure is 7 percent so it's not unusual for couples to live apart. I'm curious if the embedded study written in Chinese accounts for this.
Edit: looks like in HK there is a large component of this which is caused by housing unaffordability —so couples keep living in their respective parents’ homes.
I have no direct knowledge of this, but HKers working in the mainland is common enough that I suspect this could account for quite a lot of split couples.
By having programs in place for training we can move people into careers where they can grow and move up.
German is moving to a 28hr work week for some workers. https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/07/news/economy/germany-28-hou...
We need choice and opportunities, not central planning and fake good ideas, like the fixed hour rate was.
Am I missing something - that seems more affordable than most major metropolitan areas. With two incomes that would be more than enough.
that's around 100-200 sq. ft.
$4000 tends to get you Sub 100 Sq Feet Space.
Gap between income and housing price are no where near as wide as they are today, where Hong Kong has been Number 1 for the past 10+ years, on a scale that nearly double the 2nd or 3rd City.
Public Housing policy were also much better in their times.