For example, consider EA co-living, including for co-workers. If this was banned universally, my guess is that it would mean EAs paying many thousands of dollars extra in rent for housing and/or office space per month. It would probably lead to reduced motivation, increased loneliness, and wasted commute time among EAs
I’m not for a blanket ban (and I doubt the OP is either), but this analysis seems like it only really applies to places like the bay area with ridiculously high rent and housing shortages.
I mean, I live in a place considered to have very high rent, and not being able to live with my co-workers wouldn’t affect me in the slightest, I can bike to work, I houseshare with non-coworkers. Loneliness in a house share situation depends entirely on whether your housemates are good, and there is no guarantee that your co-workers are good housemates just because they are EA.
I wonder if there has been discussion about moving EA orgs towards cities with less housing problems in general?
Loneliness in a house share situation depends entirely on whether your housemates are good, and there is no guarantee that your co-workers are good housemates just because they are EA.
The most plausible version of this argument is not that someone will be a good housemate just because they are EA. It is that banning or discouraging EA co-living makes it more difficult for people to find any co-living arrangement.
I wonder if there has been discussion about moving EA orgs towards cities with less housing problems in general?
I know people reap social benefits from good housing but that’s not the only reason EAs live in London and SF. They are also the cities where the jobs, research and power are.
I think funders should take into account that remote orgs are ? cheaper, but I trust orgs to decide where they should locate.
I agree that for a lot of orgs, the benefits of being in the high-rent areas outweigh the costs. However I want to encourage orgs that don’t fit this description to consider different locations, if only to give people different options.
For me personally, and probably a lot of other people, the idea of living with my boss and using our shared house as an office sounds like my own personal hell. If I got an offer with that arrangement I would refuse immediately. Whereas if the city was in Portugal or somewhere similar, where things are cheap and you can rent your own place for 500 bucks a month, I’d probably jump at the opportunity.
I think not having the option, and having everyone be concentrated in one or two high-rent areas, costs both money and the people you want to recruit.
I’m not for a blanket ban (and I doubt the OP is either), but this analysis seems like it only really applies to places like the bay area with ridiculously high rent and housing shortages.
I mean, I live in a place considered to have very high rent, and not being able to live with my co-workers wouldn’t affect me in the slightest, I can bike to work, I houseshare with non-coworkers. Loneliness in a house share situation depends entirely on whether your housemates are good, and there is no guarantee that your co-workers are good housemates just because they are EA.
I wonder if there has been discussion about moving EA orgs towards cities with less housing problems in general?
The most plausible version of this argument is not that someone will be a good housemate just because they are EA. It is that banning or discouraging EA co-living makes it more difficult for people to find any co-living arrangement.
I know people reap social benefits from good housing but that’s not the only reason EAs live in London and SF. They are also the cities where the jobs, research and power are.
I think funders should take into account that remote orgs are ? cheaper, but I trust orgs to decide where they should locate.
I agree that for a lot of orgs, the benefits of being in the high-rent areas outweigh the costs. However I want to encourage orgs that don’t fit this description to consider different locations, if only to give people different options.
For me personally, and probably a lot of other people, the idea of living with my boss and using our shared house as an office sounds like my own personal hell. If I got an offer with that arrangement I would refuse immediately. Whereas if the city was in Portugal or somewhere similar, where things are cheap and you can rent your own place for 500 bucks a month, I’d probably jump at the opportunity.
I think not having the option, and having everyone be concentrated in one or two high-rent areas, costs both money and the people you want to recruit.