Greetings Economists,
On May 13, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Peter Hollings wrote:
Maybe, because the workers live near where they work, they would
have a
greater incentive to reduce local externalities such as pollution
than would
some distant shareholder.
Doyle;
The picture I have in my mind is somewhat different. Working on line
means most office work can be done at home. So the center of business
offices is gone. The space used for working in, is opened up, and the
workers themselves find themselves able to work together with other
workers in commonly defined spaces not ruled by business property
rules. So in effect big downtown offices are subject to re-shaping.
The workers who no longer go to specific place like the office have a
degree of freedom to define a social space, not so much like small
providers (like loom work in the early nineteenth century) as how
computer communications allows us to be more connected.
This opens in my view how we isolate the parts of big cities into
zones that interfere with community meaning. So one wants in global
warming to attack as much as possible wasteful use of land, and
resources affecting climate, then one could argue strongly for a sort
of culture in the big cities that connected people in community in
some sort of new way. This being primarily a workers question because
that is the great mass of people. I doubt walled enclaves are useful
for example if the cities need reforming.
If the worker sees that their space is walkable, related to deep
questions of climate and environment then they are attached to each
other to solve that. The attaching can't be done if the work floor
puts a wall up to the outside world. A cultural shift of a new sort
if I am being clear.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
