So 15000 single family homes? What density are they going for? The language isn't clear.
$1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes
11–20 of 547 posts
Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 'root' cause is that industries tend to concentrate, and that's not an easy problem to solve. And at the same time there's a massive economic draw, California refuses to let the market provide anything like enough housing.
Hire remote. Provide relocation assistance to get developers to move out of major cities, instead of the other way. Fringe benefit: Less payroll overhead since the cost of living in rural areas is much lower. > that's not an easy problem to solve. The solution is simple, it's just getting people to actually do it that's hard. > And at the same time there's a massive economic draw, California refuses to let the market…
I've worked remote, and it's ok, but it's not the same thing as being in the office. It's not the same thing as having a bunch of local companies to choose from. Or from the company's point of view, it's nice to have a lot of local workers. And then there's stuff like high quality universities, and of course venture capital.
Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes
#13Most major tech companies want to hire onsite, when there are plenty of places in this country where you can buy a lot of real estate for much cheaper than the Bay Area. I pay less on my mortgage for a large house with over an acre of land than friends of mine pay for rent for studio apartments in San Francisco or Seattle. Investing $1B into housing in the Bay Area seems nice at the surface, but maybe if we stopped d…
The 'root' cause is that industries tend to concentrate, and that's not an easy problem to solve. And at the same time there's a massive economic draw, California refuses to let the market provide anything like enough housing.
Why is it not easy? The internet is global just like the products these companies create. There's not much, if any, reason they need to be so consolidated in a single region or city.
Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes
#14Most major tech companies want to hire onsite, when there are plenty of places in this country where you can buy a lot of real estate for much cheaper than the Bay Area. I pay less on my mortgage for a large house with over an acre of land than friends of mine pay for rent for studio apartments in San Francisco or Seattle. Investing $1B into housing in the Bay Area seems nice at the surface, but maybe if we stopped d…
The 'root' cause is that industries tend to concentrate, and that's not an easy problem to solve. And at the same time there's a massive economic draw, California refuses to let the market provide anything like enough housing.
Software development isn't an industry like oil refining. Imagine if all the architects or civil engineers were located in a small handful of cities!
Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes
#15That's $50K/home. Is that even remotely realistic in the Bay Area?
Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hire remote. Provide relocation assistance to get developers to move out of major cities, instead of the other way. Fringe benefit: Less payroll overhead since the cost of living in rural areas is much lower. > that's not an easy problem to solve. The solution is simple, it's just getting people to actually do it that's hard. > And at the same time there's a massive economic draw, California refuses to let the market…
I've worked remote, and it's ok, but it's not the same thing as being in the office. It's not the same thing as having a bunch of local companies to choose from. Or from the company's point of view, it's nice to have a lot of local workers. And then there's stuff like high quality universities, and of course venture capital.
> It's not the same thing as having a bunch of local companies to choose from.
What is the intrinsic advantage to having "local companies" to choose from in a world where every company you'd want to work for also offered remote positions?
> Or from the company's point of view, it's nice to have a lot of local workers.
Same question for that perspective, except I do have a few ideas of a cynical answer to that question from the company's perspective.
Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hire remote. Provide relocation assistance to get developers to move out of major cities, instead of the other way. Fringe benefit: Less payroll overhead since the cost of living in rural areas is much lower. > that's not an easy problem to solve. The solution is simple, it's just getting people to actually do it that's hard. > And at the same time there's a massive economic draw, California refuses to let the market…
I've worked remote, and it's ok, but it's not the same thing as being in the office. It's not the same thing as having a bunch of local companies to choose from. Or from the company's point of view, it's nice to have a lot of local workers. And then there's stuff like high quality universities, and of course venture capital.
How about remote offices or remote subdivisions? It always worked out, why wouldn't it work out now?
Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 'root' cause is that industries tend to concentrate, and that's not an easy problem to solve. And at the same time there's a massive economic draw, California refuses to let the market provide anything like enough housing.
Why is it not easy? The internet is global just like the products these companies create. There's not much, if any, reason they need to be so consolidated in a single region or city.
Face-to-face communication has not been supplanted with online tools yet, and face-to-face communication is very important to this job.
Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it not easy? The internet is global just like the products these companies create. There's not much, if any, reason they need to be so consolidated in a single region or city.
Face-to-face communication has not been supplanted with online tools yet, and face-to-face communication is very important to this job.
> and face-to-face communication is very important to this job
[citation needed]
It can be important for some people, and for some teams, but it's not very important for every person or every team.
Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes
#20Nice of google to do this. People who complain about this also complain about google being one of the causes, but there is only so much one can do. Glad that google is setting a good example for other companies to follow!