Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let People Move to Jobs

jefftk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 314 posts

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#21

Post by perl4ever »

hashkb wrote: post #17
perl4ever wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The people we're talking about are people whose entire job is communication. They're people persons. What don't you understand about that? I don't get to dictate how they work.

Anyway, I have other reasons for not wanting to work remotely too. I've seen many comments on HN from people that are very sure that the ideal for anyone technical is a private office that's utterly silent and undisturbed for concentration. That isn't me. I do get irritable if someone is having a long non-work conversation that's barely loud enough to be distracting, but I don't want to be shut up in a closet. People derive value from asking me stuff and vice versa.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#22

Post by ShamelessC »

WalterBright wrote: post #16
tomnipotent wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yeah I don't see the connection there either. I think an equivalent salary adjusted for cost of living with maybe an extra 10% to show good faith would be plenty.

People with the 150k-300k salaries FAANG provides would be making a surgeon's salary in Kansas City.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#23

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

remote_phone wrote: post #4

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…

> no salary cut

Unlikely. A lot of the reason the pay here is so good is because of the high cost of living.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#24

Post by mnm1 »

seltzered_ wrote: post #12
mnm1 wrote: post #2

> 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 year…

Sure it's not a panacea for poor work. But it does allow one much more flexibility in terms of working conditions. Having a private space is now the default. That alone is an incredible change especially for knowledge workers. Not being subjected to the noise and distractions of others is huge as is being able to set up one's own office as one wants. As far as moving to smaller cities, that's hardly related to remote work or anything but labor laws when they favor employers so heavily as they do in the US. With zero job security, of course you'll stay in or around a major metro area. That's just common sense and won't change without legislation. It's not tech specific either. But in tech, you can pretty much move to any city in the world that will allow you to work. Hardly immobile.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#25

Post by chrisfrantz »

cagenut wrote: post #6

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…

This statement could be made in a job where remote work doesn’t exist, but thankfully it does. There’s more than enough work out there.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#26

Post by akerl_ »

WalterBright wrote: post #16
tomnipotent wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I feel like this thread is made of the kind of hard-line stances that lower the overall quality of HN. Both sides present a rhetorical question designed to paint the other side’s position as nonsensical, without engaging in any actual discussion.

Google’s profit clearly has to do with salary because salary is a negotiation between employees and employers, and “my work allows you to make $x more dollars than if I hadn’t done the work” is a basic tenet of salary negotiation.

But this is a negotiation. If Google moved to a lower cost-of-living location, they’d be making themselves available as an employer to new employees, for whom their current locations are undesirable. So if there are other potential employees who are willing to do the work for less salary, Google has the option to hire them instead.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#27

Post by tehjoker »

Just... eliminate the private housing market. Unlike companies that produce things, there's zero value add by landlords and banks. Rents and mortgages far exceed the value of construction and allow the richest people to snap them up. Make it more fair, and cheaper by eliminating landlords and private sales of land. The land was all stolen anyway.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#28

Post by lvturner »

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #23
remote_phone wrote: post #4

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…

> no salary cut Unlikely. A lot of the reason the pay here is so good is because of the high cost of living.

Hasn't this been proven false by googlers living in other high cost cities yet earning significantly less than those in SF?

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#29

Post by WalterBright »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #20
WalterBright wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If your money goes 2x further after the move, then you might be much better off even with a salary reduction. This means a move could be a win for both google and the employee.

Also, pegging your salary to corporate profits has its downsides. At Boeing, a good chunk of the worker bees negotiated their bonuses to be pegged to the quarterly profits. They were pretty unhappy about this when the 737MAX problems tanked profits, and the bonuses vanished.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#30

Post by WalterBright »

akerl_ wrote: post #26
WalterBright wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does Google's profit have to do with your salary needs?

I feel like this thread is made of the kind of hard-line stances that lower the overall quality of HN. Both sides present a rhetorical question designed to paint the other side’s position as nonsensical, without engaging in any actual discussion. Google’s profit clearly has to do with salary because salary is a negotiation between employees and employers, and “my work allows you to make $x more dollars than if I hadn…

> But this is a negotiation.

Sure. But negotiating for a piece of the action comes in the form of deciding on stock options and grants. Salaries don't go up and down with profits.

Post reply on HN