Here is an interesting study that compares changes in isolation and mental health between people who are able to work remotely and those who cannot. The results indicate that despite many people having a preference for remote work, it's not good for our mental health.
The study found that relative to those in "nonremotable" jobs, post-pandemic remote workers spent about one additional hour per weekday alone, increased the number of days spent entirely alone, and decreased the amount of after-work socializing. This was particularly acute for people living alone.
At the same time, psychological distress was shown to increase — as well as the frequency of depression, mental health care utilization, and antidepressant prescriptions. Importantly, people who were recently, but not currently, employed in a "remotable" job did not show the same mental health deterioration, suggesting that it is very much tied to working arrangements in that moment.
The obvious lesson is that more time in person is almost certainly good for our well-being. But it's also a reminder that one of the reasons why cities exist and are so sticky is that humans generally want to be around other humans. Of course, not all cities are created equal. The most successful ones strengthen connections rather than isolation.
Cover photo by Thought Catalog on Unsplash
I came across these survey results in a guest column by Wendy Waters in Connect CRE Canada called, "What Will Attract Young Professionals to a New Rental-Apartment Building?" If I ignore the typo in "strong cel [sic] signal" and just look at the results, many of them are intuitively obvious. The vast majority of renters believe that in-suite laundry is essential, and it's the number-one want in this survey.
Pet-friendly is also not surprising given that pets are going to outnumber kids in most new purpose-built rental apartment buildings. And, of course, people want connectivity. I interpret high-speed wireless and strong cell signal throughout the building to specifically mean the common areas. Presumably, 100% of people want internet and cell signal within their apartments.
At the same time, there are some other interesting results. For example, 55% of respondents (in this segment) said that a private balcony is essential and 97% said it was either essential or a nice-to-have.
There's a common debate in developer boardrooms about whether private outdoor spaces are essential to sell or lease an apartment and there are certainly rental developers who abstain from them altogether. But tenants seem to like them a lot, at least according to this survey. And a "nice-to-have" is still something that helps with leasing.
People also seem to want a king-size bed. Whether they'd be willing to pay for the additional space is a separate matter. There is always an affordability and willingness to pay dimension to surveys. I mean, who wouldn't like more? But a larger primary bedroom appears on this list and, right now, there's a growing sense in the market that buyers and tenants want livable spaces over things like podcasting rooms and ski simulators.
From a Maslow's hierarchy of needs perspective, this seems to make sense. People want their physiological needs — such as a comfy bed — solved first, and then they'll worry about finding self-actualization in their new podcast.
Cover photo by Lotus Design N Print on Unsplash
Chart via Connect Canada CRE
Elon Musk is now a trillionaire, SpaceX has a valuation that can only be explained — wait, it can't be explained — and some people think it's immoral for people to be able to become billionaires and now trillionaires. I don't care for Elon, but I certainly don't have a problem with people creating lots of wealth for themselves. In fact, I think it's the outcome we want, provided we do the things necessary to maintain a healthy middle class.
Nevertheless, there are people who believe you cannot earn a billion dollars without bad behavior. I'd like to think that nobody really believes this and they have simply recognized it makes for good politics or some other self-serving purpose, but maybe I'm wrong.
Paul Graham recently responded to this argument with an essay called "How to Earn a Billion Dollars." With the experience of funding and investing in about 6,500 companies under his belt, he puts it very simply: The most common way to earn a billion dollars is to start a startup that many people like, and then have it grow very quickly for a period of time.
He provides some math:
If your revenues grow at 15% a month, how much more will you be making 5 years from now? To calculate that, we need to find 1.15 to the 60th power (since 5 years is 60 months). So go to Google again and this time type 1.15^60. The answer should be about 4384. Meaning in 5 years your startup will be making 4384 times as much. If you're currently making ten thousand a month, in five years you'll be making about 44 million a month, or 526 million a year. And at that point, if you own as much of the company as founders typically do, you will be a billionaire.
He then goes on to argue that a key founder trait is, in fact, the opposite of exploitation:
There are other ways to get rich than by starting startups. Some of those do require you to exploit people. But startups are the most common way to become really rich, and if you want to start a successful startup, the key is not exploitation but empathy. What do users really want? What could you do for them that would make their lives dramatically better? That kind of empathy is what we look for in founders, and what we cultivate in the ones we accept [at Y Combinator].
If you're interested, here's the full essay.