The housing costs of some second/third/worse tier city are almost completely meaningless. Unless the job gave me a 10 year contract with a golden parachute or something. It doesn't matter if you can make the numbers work once, what matters is that you will almost certainly job hop 3 - 5 times, so you need to be in an area dense with employers to make that viable without having to move your life/family every time. Eve…
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
That goes twice if your significant other also has a similar career trajectory.
> People expected telecommuting to change this, but even though we have many technical tools that make remote work far more practical than it was even ten years ago, physically being in the same place as your coworkers remains extremely valuable. Not for software development. I'm sure there are plenty of industries where this is true. Software just isn't one of them. In fact, I'd argue the opposite for most software…
You can also have poor work and poor working conditions in a remote environment - depends on how the team and yourself operate. A phrase I often tell friends who transition into indie work or remote work is a Merlin Mann phrase "You are your own worst manager".
Even if you want to argue this isn't true, developers still seem to end up in cities for the sake of networking.
(bias: I've been working remotely for ~7 years and had trouble justifying a move to a smaller off-corridor city)
I'm happy to work for a company that embraces remote work, but it's undeniably more efficient and, for most people, fulfilling on a personal level to have a high-bandwidth face-to-face conversation--and "the wifi hiccuped, what did you say?", as happens here and without exception everywhere else I've been, isn't that.
> undeniably more efficient No. It's debatable. Many believe remote work is undeniably more efficient and the fulfillment you feel from high bandwidth conversations is a delusion.
Regardless of how good a substitute you feel remote communication is in general, the effect of network problems and such is an objective fact, not anyone's opinion or delusion.
Also, if we stipulate that my fulfillment from being in the office is irrelevant, that doesn't change the fact that other people will not conform to my preferred mode of communication. I'm fine with instant messaging, and a lot of people are, but in my experience, a majority don't or won't use it well.
The author made a blind guess that 80% of Google would quit If they moved HQ without any actual evidence. If Google opened up a new large office in a place like Kansas City with no salary cut and a strong internet presence and some other tech companies (ICE exchange for example), I bet enough Google employees would want to move there to make it worthwhile. Cheaper cost of living, better schools, better for families e…
With no salary cuts would be amazing. So long as the policy is transparent for new hires in the new market, you would only need to grandfather people those that make the move. There are tons of places I’d move to easily if I could keep my current SF salary.
Since your salary would go much further outside of SF, why would it be necessary to keep the same salary?
With no salary cuts would be amazing. So long as the policy is transparent for new hires in the new market, you would only need to grandfather people those that make the move. There are tons of places I’d move to easily if I could keep my current SF salary.
Since your salary would go much further outside of SF, why would it be necessary to keep the same salary?
Does Google make the same profit regardless? Yup, I think it's necessary.
> undeniably more efficient No. It's debatable. Many believe remote work is undeniably more efficient and the fulfillment you feel from high bandwidth conversations is a delusion.
Regardless of how good a substitute you feel remote communication is in general, the effect of network problems and such is an objective fact, not anyone's opinion or delusion. Also, if we stipulate that my fulfillment from being in the office is irrelevant, that doesn't change the fact that other people will not conform to my preferred mode of communication. I'm fine with instant messaging, and a lot of people are,…
I've been working remotely for 5 years. Left the Bay Area last year. Network problems have not been an issue. Comcast goes down for a day.. I tether. Are we really saying latency and the occasional video freeze is worth forcing the whole company to commute to the office? And live within an hour or so of everyone else?
The people who suck at communicating online suck in person too. At least online there's a record of who can't read or spell. And don't get me started on the hours I've had to wait while someone is in the hallway having a chat.
The author made a blind guess that 80% of Google would quit If they moved HQ without any actual evidence. If Google opened up a new large office in a place like Kansas City with no salary cut and a strong internet presence and some other tech companies (ICE exchange for example), I bet enough Google employees would want to move there to make it worthwhile. Cheaper cost of living, better schools, better for families e…
Would be great for Googlers ... kinda horrible for locals in KC who would still be making the same amount, and housing costs skyrocket.... funding sudden needed school expansions ... and so on...
The economic and political messes of sudden expansion can be an absolute mess.
> People expected telecommuting to change this, but even though we have many technical tools that make remote work far more practical than it was even ten years ago, physically being in the same place as your coworkers remains extremely valuable. Not for software development. I'm sure there are plenty of industries where this is true. Software just isn't one of them. In fact, I'd argue the opposite for most software…
I'm happy to work for a company that embraces remote work, but it's undeniably more efficient and, for most people, fulfilling on a personal level to have a high-bandwidth face-to-face conversation--and "the wifi hiccuped, what did you say?", as happens here and without exception everywhere else I've been, isn't that.
Sure, the communication might be more fulfilling--the efficiency is debatable--for certain people but at a cost of the quality and quantity of work suffering, the commute, time wasted, money wasted on office rent, certain supplies, parking, lunch, tolls, etc.
Does Google make the same profit regardless? Yup, I think it's necessary.
What does Google's profit have to do with your salary needs?
As Publilius Syrus put it, "everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay." Why should google be willing to pay less for continued labor after relocating if profits are unaffected? And if they're not, why would anyone keep working there?