41–50 of 302 posts
It's time to start acknowledging that this is never going to be fixed. SB 827 died when homeowners protested fiercely, and it doesn't look like any proposed replacements are going to get traction either. People just have too much of their equity tied up in their homes. I hate it, but I can also see where they're coming from: if you had a savings account that accounted for most of your net wealth and was appreciating…
The sad fact is that long as people are willing to put up with this nothing is going to change. The crazy rents and terrible commutes sound insane to anyone living elsewhere but people are continuously more than happy to continue doing them to work at companies that haven't been priced out yet either. It's not an issue of social mobility either, since people living in the bay area are some of the most socially mobile…
I know I chose to move out here because it was the best career move I could make. Having a FANG company on my resume plus the ridiculous salary and equity while I'm here would be foolish to pass up.
So - how much of the "ridiculous" salary is left after subtracting living costs and taxes, actually?
Oh, tech companies. If only there were a way to have conversations about, create, and transmit computer programs using some kind of long-distance network. Maybe we could break the data up into "packets". Just thinking out loud here. Then maybe everyone creating textual output for a living wouldn't have to transport their physical body to an office. We can dream.
Is it possible that we're missing something in this? And that there might be more to this than companies being unwilling to try remote workers?
I know my own experiences with working remotely and having remote colleagues have upon occasion been other than an unalloyed positive.
This is increasingly common in the Boston area as well. Cambridge/MIT is a massive biotech hub, meanwhile we have huge companies with many large offices in the downtown or in surrounding suburbs. Many workers live in RI, NH, or Central Mass, and getting to work for 9 am consistently will involve leaving at 730 for many, many workers due to congestion, construction, and the god-awful mess that is Boston infrastructure…
Oh, tech companies. If only there were a way to have conversations about, create, and transmit computer programs using some kind of long-distance network. Maybe we could break the data up into "packets". Just thinking out loud here. Then maybe everyone creating textual output for a living wouldn't have to transport their physical body to an office. We can dream.
There are companies out there that are fully remote (like my current employer https://www.sonatype.com/ ). Though I suppose many of them don't like to hire fresh graduates so you could be in a bit of a chicken/egg problem.
I live in a pleasant medium-sized town, I bought a house for less than a Bay-area toolshed, and I can commute myself downstairs to make a sandwich.
If every worker were remote, can you even imagine how hard you'd have to work to justify a physical office to the CFO and potential hires?
A lot of companies have been moving to LA/SD recently for this reason. There are plenty of cities that offer more than the Bay Area without the NIMBY attitude toward building new housing.
The sad fact is that long as people are willing to put up with this nothing is going to change. The crazy rents and terrible commutes sound insane to anyone living elsewhere but people are continuously more than happy to continue doing them to work at companies that haven't been priced out yet either. It's not an issue of social mobility either, since people living in the bay area are some of the most socially mobile…
The article focuses on non-tech workers. Who may not be socially mobile.
These areas need non-tech workers just as they need tech-workers. It's tough to have teachers work and live in Sunnyvale, where the median house price is pushing $2M. Many of your Lyft and Uber drivers will be coming in from 90+ minute commutes.
90 minutes is common if you work in NYC and have a suburban home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren’t busses going to contribute to the problem? A city close to mine wants to extended the light rail a few miles to do hub and spoke. I would think a tunnel or railway alongside a highway would reduce traffic.
How would buses contribute to the problem? Assuming every person who takes the bus would otherwise drive, a single bus would wipe out dozens of cars on the roads.
This assumption is where the problem is. For example, Google employees live in central San Francisco but commute to work in Mountain View because a bus service was added. They wouldn't be attempting that commute in a car in the first place. These busses have added to traffic, not reduced it.
Oh, tech companies. If only there were a way to have conversations about, create, and transmit computer programs using some kind of long-distance network. Maybe we could break the data up into "packets". Just thinking out loud here. Then maybe everyone creating textual output for a living wouldn't have to transport their physical body to an office. We can dream.