California's Bay Area may require telecommuting, even after the pandemic wanes

Drop Dead Fred

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
431
Reaction score
596
Points
158
In my opinion, this gives credibility to the (conspiracy?) theory that the real purpose of the COVID-19 lockdown was to find out how much people would tolerate a lockdown, so a different lockdown could be implemented later on, under the guise of protecting the environment.

The totalitarians will use any excuse to try to have the government control everything. In the 1960s, their excuse was overpopulation. In the 1970s, it was that we were running out of fossil fuels. Then it was global warming. Then it was climate change. Then it was climate crisis. Then it was COVID-19.

In all of these cases, their proposed solution was to have the government take over major control of people's lives.

For those of us who believe in individual freedom and limited government, this new proposal is quite scary.


California's Bay Area may require telecommuting, even after the pandemic wanes

A proposal would have employees at large companies working remotely three days a week, even after the pandemic, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

September 23, 2020

SAN FRANCISCO — Many office workers are doing their jobs from home because of the coronavirus pandemic, and the trend has given some authorities in California an idea: Make it mandatory.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional government agency in the San Francisco Bay Area, voted Wednesday to move forward with a proposal to require people at large, office-based companies to work from home three days a week as a way to slash greenhouse gas emissions from car commutes.

It’s a radical suggestion that likely would have been a non-starter before Covid-19 shuttered many offices in March, but now that corporate employees have gotten a taste of not commuting, transportation planners think the idea has wider appeal.

“There is an opportunity to do things that could not have been done in the past,” said Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, a member of the transportation commission who supports the proposal. She said she felt “very strongly” that a telecommuting mandate ought to be a part of the region’s future.
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
15,767
Reaction score
9,998
Points
1,215
In my opinion, this gives credibility to the (conspiracy?) theory that the real purpose of the COVID-19 lockdown was to find out how much people would tolerate a lockdown, so a different lockdown could be implemented later on, under the guise of protecting the environment.

The totalitarians will use any excuse to try to have the government control everything. In the 1960s, their excuse was overpopulation. In the 1970s, it was that we were running out of fossil fuels. Then it was global warming. Then it was climate change. Then it was climate crisis. Then it was COVID-19.

In all of these cases, their proposed solution was to have the government take over major control of people's lives.

For those of us who believe in individual freedom and limited government, this new proposal is quite scary.


California's Bay Area may require telecommuting, even after the pandemic wanes

A proposal would have employees at large companies working remotely three days a week, even after the pandemic, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

September 23, 2020

SAN FRANCISCO — Many office workers are doing their jobs from home because of the coronavirus pandemic, and the trend has given some authorities in California an idea: Make it mandatory.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional government agency in the San Francisco Bay Area, voted Wednesday to move forward with a proposal to require people at large, office-based companies to work from home three days a week as a way to slash greenhouse gas emissions from car commutes.

It’s a radical suggestion that likely would have been a non-starter before Covid-19 shuttered many offices in March, but now that corporate employees have gotten a taste of not commuting, transportation planners think the idea has wider appeal.

“There is an opportunity to do things that could not have been done in the past,” said Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, a member of the transportation commission who supports the proposal. She said she felt “very strongly” that a telecommuting mandate ought to be a part of the region’s future.
Baby Hitlers dont need a motive beyond just loving power

but some of them may use it to save the polar bears
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
24,719
Reaction score
10,421
Points
950
In my opinion, this gives credibility to the (conspiracy?) theory that the real purpose of the COVID-19 lockdown was to find out how much people would tolerate a lockdown, so a different lockdown could be implemented later on, under the guise of protecting the environment.

The totalitarians will use any excuse to try to have the government control everything. In the 1960s, their excuse was overpopulation. In the 1970s, it was that we were running out of fossil fuels. Then it was global warming. Then it was climate change. Then it was climate crisis. Then it was COVID-19.

In all of these cases, their proposed solution was to have the government take over major control of people's lives.

For those of us who believe in individual freedom and limited government, this new proposal is quite scary.


California's Bay Area may require telecommuting, even after the pandemic wanes

A proposal would have employees at large companies working remotely three days a week, even after the pandemic, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

September 23, 2020

SAN FRANCISCO — Many office workers are doing their jobs from home because of the coronavirus pandemic, and the trend has given some authorities in California an idea: Make it mandatory.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional government agency in the San Francisco Bay Area, voted Wednesday to move forward with a proposal to require people at large, office-based companies to work from home three days a week as a way to slash greenhouse gas emissions from car commutes.

It’s a radical suggestion that likely would have been a non-starter before Covid-19 shuttered many offices in March, but now that corporate employees have gotten a taste of not commuting, transportation planners think the idea has wider appeal.

“There is an opportunity to do things that could not have been done in the past,” said Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, a member of the transportation commission who supports the proposal. She said she felt “very strongly” that a telecommuting mandate ought to be a part of the region’s future.

The big, failed cities will just be screwing themselves. The Corona Panic Lockdowns have taught a lot of people they don't have to live in an Urban Heck Hole or even go there in order to work there. Do their San Fran based work from home in Idaho or Wyoming or Kentucky, and give up your worries about rioting, high taxes or ruining your Gucci loafer in the sidewalk poo.
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
24,719
Reaction score
10,421
Points
950
Now could be the best time to upgrade infrastructure with limited use of the roadways.
Why bother upgrading the roads that aren't going to be used nearly as much?

Seems like a waste of money, upgrading unneeded highways, when other things are needed.

More people will be living in the suburbs and exurbs, wouldn't it make more sense to build up the sewage, water and road infrastructure there?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,543
Reaction score
1,970
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Now could be the best time to upgrade infrastructure with limited use of the roadways.
Why bother upgrading the roads that aren't going to be used nearly as much?

Seems like a waste of money, upgrading unneeded highways, when other things are needed.

More people will be living in the suburbs and exurbs, wouldn't it make more sense to build up the sewage, water and road infrastructure there?
Sure; why not start there and then upgrade the highway system.
 

Missouri_Mike

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
16,815
Reaction score
5,444
Points
350
In my opinion, this gives credibility to the (conspiracy?) theory that the real purpose of the COVID-19 lockdown was to find out how much people would tolerate a lockdown, so a different lockdown could be implemented later on, under the guise of protecting the environment.

The totalitarians will use any excuse to try to have the government control everything. In the 1960s, their excuse was overpopulation. In the 1970s, it was that we were running out of fossil fuels. Then it was global warming. Then it was climate change. Then it was climate crisis. Then it was COVID-19.

In all of these cases, their proposed solution was to have the government take over major control of people's lives.

For those of us who believe in individual freedom and limited government, this new proposal is quite scary.


California's Bay Area may require telecommuting, even after the pandemic wanes

A proposal would have employees at large companies working remotely three days a week, even after the pandemic, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

September 23, 2020

SAN FRANCISCO — Many office workers are doing their jobs from home because of the coronavirus pandemic, and the trend has given some authorities in California an idea: Make it mandatory.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional government agency in the San Francisco Bay Area, voted Wednesday to move forward with a proposal to require people at large, office-based companies to work from home three days a week as a way to slash greenhouse gas emissions from car commutes.

It’s a radical suggestion that likely would have been a non-starter before Covid-19 shuttered many offices in March, but now that corporate employees have gotten a taste of not commuting, transportation planners think the idea has wider appeal.

“There is an opportunity to do things that could not have been done in the past,” said Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, a member of the transportation commission who supports the proposal. She said she felt “very strongly” that a telecommuting mandate ought to be a part of the region’s future.
Well they won’t have cars to drive to work anyway so why not. Isn’t government grand?
 

Missouri_Mike

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
16,815
Reaction score
5,444
Points
350
Now could be the best time to upgrade infrastructure with limited use of the roadways.
Why bother upgrading the roads that aren't going to be used nearly as much?

Seems like a waste of money, upgrading unneeded highways, when other things are needed.

More people will be living in the suburbs and exurbs, wouldn't it make more sense to build up the sewage, water and road infrastructure there?
Sure; why not start there and then upgrade the highway system.
For what? The cars you can’t drive to the jobs or stores you can only get to twice a week?
 

Mr Clean

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
15,836
Reaction score
3,861
Points
290
Yes!

We need to fight for our right to commute for an hour to a job we could just as easily do at home.

This is America, damnit!
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
24,719
Reaction score
10,421
Points
950
I like it. They should use tax incentives to encourage rather than law to require.
The people already have a tax incentive to stay out of San Francisco. If they can do their work on line from their home in Torrington Wyoming and never go to California, they don't have to pay CA taxes.
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
24,719
Reaction score
10,421
Points
950
Yes!

We need to fight for our right to commute for an hour to a job we could just as easily do at home.

This is America, damnit!
I never understood that either, why people want to be in huge super cities fighting the mobs, instead of midsize cities like Youngstown or even smaller , more bucolic cities.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,543
Reaction score
1,970
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Now could be the best time to upgrade infrastructure with limited use of the roadways.
Why bother upgrading the roads that aren't going to be used nearly as much?

Seems like a waste of money, upgrading unneeded highways, when other things are needed.

More people will be living in the suburbs and exurbs, wouldn't it make more sense to build up the sewage, water and road infrastructure there?
Sure; why not start there and then upgrade the highway system.
For what? The cars you can’t drive to the jobs or stores you can only get to twice a week?
Convert it to a high speed railroad?
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
24,719
Reaction score
10,421
Points
950
Now could be the best time to upgrade infrastructure with limited use of the roadways.
Why bother upgrading the roads that aren't going to be used nearly as much?

Seems like a waste of money, upgrading unneeded highways, when other things are needed.

More people will be living in the suburbs and exurbs, wouldn't it make more sense to build up the sewage, water and road infrastructure there?
Sure; why not start there and then upgrade the highway system.
For what? The cars you can’t drive to the jobs or stores you can only get to twice a week?
Convert it to a high speed railroad?

People aren't going to make the trip often enough to generate enough fares and justify such an investment in rail. Further, a lot of people are going to be way off the rail lines, and won't be able to use them- at least not as a solo mode of transport.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,543
Reaction score
1,970
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Now could be the best time to upgrade infrastructure with limited use of the roadways.
Why bother upgrading the roads that aren't going to be used nearly as much?

Seems like a waste of money, upgrading unneeded highways, when other things are needed.

More people will be living in the suburbs and exurbs, wouldn't it make more sense to build up the sewage, water and road infrastructure there?
Sure; why not start there and then upgrade the highway system.
For what? The cars you can’t drive to the jobs or stores you can only get to twice a week?
Convert it to a high speed railroad?

People aren't going to make the trip often enough to generate enough fares and justify such an investment in rail. Further, a lot of people are going to be way off the rail lines, and won't be able to use them- at least not as a solo mode of transport.
Not now. The pandemic won't last forever. And, it would be a stimulus to our economy.
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
24,719
Reaction score
10,421
Points
950
Now could be the best time to upgrade infrastructure with limited use of the roadways.
Why bother upgrading the roads that aren't going to be used nearly as much?

Seems like a waste of money, upgrading unneeded highways, when other things are needed.

More people will be living in the suburbs and exurbs, wouldn't it make more sense to build up the sewage, water and road infrastructure there?
Sure; why not start there and then upgrade the highway system.
For what? The cars you can’t drive to the jobs or stores you can only get to twice a week?
Convert it to a high speed railroad?

People aren't going to make the trip often enough to generate enough fares and justify such an investment in rail. Further, a lot of people are going to be way off the rail lines, and won't be able to use them- at least not as a solo mode of transport.
Not now. The pandemic won't last forever. And, it would be a stimulus to our economy.
After the pandemic, people will have seen the benefits of telecommuting and not want to make daily trips to work. And many won't. There might be increased regional tourism to the big cities, if they can convince people of a reason to do it, but I don't see that as enough traffic for this kind of infrastructure expense.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,543
Reaction score
1,970
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Now could be the best time to upgrade infrastructure with limited use of the roadways.
Why bother upgrading the roads that aren't going to be used nearly as much?

Seems like a waste of money, upgrading unneeded highways, when other things are needed.

More people will be living in the suburbs and exurbs, wouldn't it make more sense to build up the sewage, water and road infrastructure there?
Sure; why not start there and then upgrade the highway system.
For what? The cars you can’t drive to the jobs or stores you can only get to twice a week?
Convert it to a high speed railroad?

People aren't going to make the trip often enough to generate enough fares and justify such an investment in rail. Further, a lot of people are going to be way off the rail lines, and won't be able to use them- at least not as a solo mode of transport.
Not now. The pandemic won't last forever. And, it would be a stimulus to our economy.
After the pandemic, people will have seen the benefits of telecommuting and not want to make daily trips to work. And many won't. There might be increased regional tourism to the big cities, if they can convince people of a reason to do it, but I don't see that as enough traffic for this kind of infrastructure expense.
Local infrastructure seems like a better place to start upgrading in your scenario.
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
24,719
Reaction score
10,421
Points
950
Now could be the best time to upgrade infrastructure with limited use of the roadways.
Why bother upgrading the roads that aren't going to be used nearly as much?

Seems like a waste of money, upgrading unneeded highways, when other things are needed.

More people will be living in the suburbs and exurbs, wouldn't it make more sense to build up the sewage, water and road infrastructure there?
Sure; why not start there and then upgrade the highway system.
For what? The cars you can’t drive to the jobs or stores you can only get to twice a week?
Convert it to a high speed railroad?

People aren't going to make the trip often enough to generate enough fares and justify such an investment in rail. Further, a lot of people are going to be way off the rail lines, and won't be able to use them- at least not as a solo mode of transport.
Not now. The pandemic won't last forever. And, it would be a stimulus to our economy.
After the pandemic, people will have seen the benefits of telecommuting and not want to make daily trips to work. And many won't. There might be increased regional tourism to the big cities, if they can convince people of a reason to do it, but I don't see that as enough traffic for this kind of infrastructure expense.
Local infrastructure seems like a better place to start upgrading in your scenario.

Local infrastructure is sewers and local roads to get people to the nearby Walmart, Target and liquor stores. Not really high speed rail to major metropolitan supercities.
 
OP
Drop Dead Fred

Drop Dead Fred

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
431
Reaction score
596
Points
158
Yes!

We need to fight for our right to commute for an hour to a job we could just as easily do at home.

This is America, damnit!

How will the government bureaucrats decide which jobs can be done just as well from home, and which ones can't?

Would you be OK with the ban extending to other areas of life besides work, such as people going to visit their friends?

Would you be OK with a Republican controlled city passing a law that said abortion doctors could only travel to work two days a week?
 
OP
Drop Dead Fred

Drop Dead Fred

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
431
Reaction score
596
Points
158
Now could be the best time to upgrade infrastructure with limited use of the roadways.
Why bother upgrading the roads that aren't going to be used nearly as much?

Seems like a waste of money, upgrading unneeded highways, when other things are needed.

More people will be living in the suburbs and exurbs, wouldn't it make more sense to build up the sewage, water and road infrastructure there?
Sure; why not start there and then upgrade the highway system.
For what? The cars you can’t drive to the jobs or stores you can only get to twice a week?
Convert it to a high speed railroad?

California never actually build the high speed rail system that they had promised.

All they do is talk about it.

It's well behind schedule, and well above budget.




 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top