Re: Optimal location of world capital

Matthias Warkus <Warkus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Michael Ash schrieb:
>> Matthias Warkus <Warkus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> DJensen schrieb:
>>>> But I really see no need for a fixed physical location, particularly
>>>> not one meant to represent the will of billions. So why not a virtual
>>>> or ad hoc capital?
>>> I'd wager that a "virtual capital" would work about as well as the 
>>> paperless office or massive telecommuting, i.e. not at all. What do
you 
>>> mean by "ad hoc capital"?
>> 
>> What causes you to say that the paperless office and telecommuting
don't 
>> work? As far as I can see, the only reason they're not used more is 
>> inertia.
> 
> People were saying that back in 1992.

It was probably true then too, so I don't know what kind of argument this 
is supposed to be.

>> Give it another couple of generations, wait for all of the people 
>> who think that forms are made of paper and work is a location to die
off, 
>> and I imagine that both will become the rule rather than the exception 
>> for jobs which don't require physical work.
>> 
>> (Disclaimer: I'm a full time telecommuter and may be biased.)
> 
> AFAIK, the relative number of people telecommuting has consistently 
> stayed below forecasts or outright stagnated for as long as the thing 
> has a name.

Do you have any evidence for this? A bit of googling turned up this 
do***ent:

http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=17182

It claims a 20% increase in full-time telecommuters in the US between 2005

and 2006, for an absolute increase of 2.5 million. The number who never 
work from home at all dropped by 24% over that same period. This is about 
as far from "stagnated" as you can get, and if it's below forecasts then 
those forecasts were foolish.

> There is a reason why modern offices and research campuses 
> are conceived in order to enable (and cause) as much deliberate and 
> accidental face-to-face communication as possible - processes are just 
> more effective if people talk to each other a lot. Of course there are 
> jobs where telecommuting is really effective, but without cheap, fully 
> immersive telepresence, it will remain a niche phenomenon. (And even 
> then, I have my doubts.) It seems there's also some evidence that people

> hate phone meetings and teleconferences, preferring to discuss really 
> im****tant matters over lunch even if it means getting up at five and 
> spending four hours on the train.

This is all true, but I'm not convinced that it's anything other than 
inertia. *Contem****ary* people are more efficient when they're physically 
proximate, but that doesn't mean that this is inherent in humanity. Even 
if new generations aren't as efficient when telecommuting, not having to 
actually travel will make up for a lot of inefficiency. Having people talk

to each other a lot is not the exclusive domain of physical offices, and 
it's entirely possible to bounce ideas back and forth through e-mail and 
instant messaging. I know this because I do it all the time.

> The paperless office might actually be coming in through the back door 
> with clean desk policies that urge office workers to keep their 
> do***ents stored electronically so they can throw away their printouts 
> in the evening. But as long as I see those same businesspeople on the 
> train going over hard copies of their PowerPoint presentation scripts 
> with a day-glo marker instead of revising them on the laptop they use to

> watch DVDs, I'll remain skeptical.

Just out of curiosity, are any of those businesspeople under the age of, 
oh, 27 or so?

-- 
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software