Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley Thinks It Invented Roommates. They Call It 'Co-living' (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Have you heard of this cool new trend called co-living? It's a bit like co-working, except instead of sharing an office with a bunch of randoms you share a home with a bunch of randoms. Oh, you might be thinking, is it like ye olde concept of "roommates"? Why, yes. Yes it is. As a viral tweet pointed out earlier this week, "co-living", which has inspired a spate of trend-pieces in recent months, is actually "called *roommates* ... you invented ***roommates***." Now, to be fair, co-living isn't just living with a bunch of roommates. No, it's rich millennials living with a bunch of roommates in a fancy building in a recently gentrified part of town. The co-living space is also full of cool amenities like yoga classes and micro-brew coffee bars, meaning you can minimise unnecessary interactions with the outside world. In startup speak, this is what is called "community." The Collective, for example, a co-working space in London, describes co-living as "a way of living focused on a genuine sense of community, using shared spaces and facilities to create a more convenient and fulfilling lifestyle."
I think we actually used to call these nursing homes! ;).
'The Collective, for example, a co-working space in London, describes co-living as "a way of living focused on a genuine sense of community, using shared spaces and facilities to create a more convenient and fulfilling lifestyle."'
We also may refer to that as a 'commune', 'compound', or 'cult'
...it's "Friends"?
...that's not what "progressives" want.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
Poverty.
Make 100K a year and live like you are 18 with your first apartment, all your life in SV.
Welcome to the progressive wet dream. Home ownership is for the 1% only (and optional).
You've misspelled conservative. Progressives want more housing and better housing affordability.
The rest get to live in shared housing, tied to it by monthly rent that is just high enough to ensure they can't accumulate wealth, and just low enough to ensure that anyone can get a 12x12 ft box for themselves.
Basically you're describing Feudalism, which is definitely not progressive. Its quite the opposite. Feudalism is where the lord maintains the ownership of all the lands and the tenants (serfs and freemen) rent off the lord for a portion of their produce. The tenants, well at least the freemen are permitted to work it as they see fit as long as the lords get their tribute. This is very much a conservative wet dream who are still bitter about having to give up any of their rights to the peasantry.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The difference here is that instead of a ruling family you have "the government". The Soviets used to have an expression: "you own what you guard". When the government owns and controls everything, the bureaucrats own and control everything, including you. In Soviet Union, the government officials had property, income, and quality of life that far exceeded the rest, and was proportional to their position. I fail to see the difference.
And where did I advocate government ownership? Sure its better than Feudalism, but I'd still rather not have it (Communism originated from a time where Feudal lords still controlled much of eastern Europe like they did in dark age England, Feudalism in England was over before the US even existed).
Have you been to Manhattan, San Francisco, Silicon Valley - they so-called havens of the progressives? They are far more segregated, stratified, with their high castles inaccessible to the common citizens, compared to the South, for example.
Have you? These aren't liberal havens. The people who live in SF, Manhattan, Central London et al want to keep their property prices high and the riff raff out. They aren't progressive in any way shape or form no-matter what Fox News tells you. Why do you think multi-millionaires flock to these places to live if they're so bohemian? Clue by four, if that were true they wouldn't.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Welcome to the progressive wet dream. Home ownership is for the 1% only (and optional). The rest get to live in shared housing, tied to it by monthly rent that is just high enough to ensure they can't accumulate wealth, and just low enough to ensure that anyone can get a 12x12 ft box for themselves. You don't need a bathroom - you can share. You certainly don't need a kitchen - you won't be doing any cooking of your own. And you surely don't need a garage because you'll use public transportation, or god forbid rent once in a while. Everything is disposable... and you're dependent on your betters for every aspect of your life. You won't even have a job of your own - you'll get free money from the government.
You do realize that you have just described where our capitalist system has led and is leading us, right? Are Republicans "progressives" now?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
but this sure as hell is it. Folks can't afford their own place, even into their late 20s or even 40s? Not getting on with the kind of life normal humans are expected to have? No problem, just change the name for all your social ills. A tiny apartment with 5 people crammed into it becomes co-living. Millennials now want 'experiences' instead of houses and cars. You're not single and lonely due to your crap economic position, your an independent free thinker. Now get back to work. These mansions, yachts and private jets (and accompanying private airports) aren't gonna pay for themselves.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Hell no. Dead broke people needn't apply.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You mean multi-user iterated ownership? It's a great concept where the cost of becoming the next user decreases with each iteration to offset the increased wear. Totally brilliant idea that nobody thought of until now.
I remember the first time I heard the term "Makers". It was as if garage tinkerers and fabricators hadn't existed before the vaguely sci-fi Makers had arrived
And the same goes for "Tiny Houses". They are trailers people.... Ridiculously heavy and expensive trailers
Rebranding run amok.
Lawyers are a good example of your complaint, but not doctors...not by a long shot. Doctors were smart enough to create professional organizations that actually have teeth. Through these orgs, they pay for the laws that will keep them employed when every other knowledge job is done by automation.
Part of the reason why it's so hard to become a doctor is that the supply of medical school slots is closely protected. The Bar Association did the reverse and allowed tons of new law schools to open up, resulting in those lawyers with unrecoverable debts because there just isn't enough work to go around anymore. Becoming a doctor requires the closest thing possible to a photographic memory even to pass the MCAT, and you have to be even more hard-wired in an academic mode to make it through the classroom part of the training. So yeah, if my kids are capable of it I would certainly encourage them to at least try...I don't know of any non-rich doctors in the US!
Why would you want the inconvenience of having to schedule car time with 3 other owners? My start-up is different. I'm creating a pay-per-use model where you rent one car out of a fleet. They'll be delivered directly to your location and will come with a driver to take your car to its destination. Ready to head back? Rent another on demand! All I need is a name.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Shoes, maybe? Perhaps they'll invent things you can put on your head if it's cold, or something.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
There is a very clear divide between progressives and establishment democrats at the municipal level. I live in Seattle, which isn't one of the cities you list but has similar problems of officially being controlled by the "liberal" party but the municipal policy effectively greatly favoring current land-owners over renters (according to this site, 46% of the population, but likely non-citizens are overrepresented as Seattle has a lot of immigrants), homeless, and future residents.
Because Washington state has top-two primaries (instead of Democrat and Republican party primaries), this divide is very visible in Seattle politics, especially in our mayoral race last week where the primary had the eventual winner establishment candidate Jenny Durkan with 28% of the vote and the two leading progressive candidates each with 17% of the vote (and another with 12% of the vote; if only we had ranked choice primaries...). One of the main issues was that Durkan wanted to zone for less new housing and slower. And she won in part because home owners think that increases their property values. But "increased property values" is bad for anyone who wants to live in the area who does not presently own a home.
If you want to see progressive housing policy, look to Seattle Transit Blog calling for upzoning near any major transit route. Multiple people in the comments put forth arguments for eliminating zoning limitation on residential construction entirely. These policies are not even within the Overton window of political discourse at the level of campaigns for Seattle city positions.
Centralization breaks the internet.