Who are you to decide how people live their own lives? Sure, if Japan started trying to fund apartment blocks of these places in your country, maybe you could get pissed. But if these people choose these lives, there's no need to label it as plight.
These regulations don’t impose “basic standards.” They take away the choices of people of limited means. (Instead of living in a small house, commute forever from the suburbs.)
No, rich yuppies can still afford to live near work. It’s the service workers that can’t find affordable small housing, and then need to spend an hour each way on the train to get to their jobs.
You can’t impose “minimum standards” for housing by fiat any more than you can make a plane fly by regulatory directive. That idea displays a level of ignorance comparable to flat eatherism. All you can do is push on the balloon—and when you do, it’ll bulge out somewhere else. In the context of housing, that means if you make it illegal to build housing for poor people in places wit jobs, you’ll either make them homeless, unemployed, or you’ll saddle them with long commutes from places with affordable housing.
>You can’t impose “minimum standards” for housing by fiat
Of course you can. This is precisely how the modern world operates.
>any more than you can make a plane fly by regulatory directive.
This honestly sounds like a childish understanding of governance. How you can compare two entirely different things? Aerospace is perhaps the most regulated mode of transport than I can think of. Planes are, quite literally, kept flying by regulatory directive. I'm embarrassed for myself that I need to stoop to explain such a fundamental working of the world.
>That idea displays a level of ignorance comparable to flat eatherism. All you can do is push on the balloon—and when you do, it’ll bulge out somewhere else.
I think you've either got a lot of reading to do or you're a young person who's been inculcated with a juvenile ideology. In either case you need to rid yourself of this simplistic world view.
>In the context of housing, that means if you make it illegal to build housing for poor people in places wit jobs, you’ll either make them homeless, unemployed, or you’ll saddle them with long commutes from places with affordable housing.
You need to have more imagination here. Most countries manage this just fine.
Those people would have a two or even three-hour commute otherwise. They chose to sacrifice space to save time and energy. Most workers wasting 10+ hours in a car or public transportation don't get to choose.
Yeah that much is obvious. The job is untenable unless it's commutable. Just move the job out of Tokyo instead of requiring such a ludicrous "sacrifice".
Experiments are nice, but the practical usually blows up for unknown reasons.
There's no point to change the whole site when it would mean most readers getting lost or turned off.
This isn't real news. The whole "what if YouTube is a real job?!?!?!?" Bullshit was hyped up 10 years ago, at the earliest, if I recall correctly, when pewdiepie was starting to go mainstream and vloggers were getting traction. It's always difficult work. That's not the purpose of the article though - it's just trying to shine another light on an old topic to revive it for the public and make some easy clicks.
