This only applies to garbage tier cites that should either be bulldozed or if near a city that people want to live in just be annexed.
Let People Move to Jobs
31–40 of 314 posts
Re: Let People Move to Jobs
#32Earlier 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?
Neither the salary needs nor the profit margins really influence Google salaries. Employees are paid salaries based on the margin at the market.
Re: Let People Move to Jobs
#33The 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.
As someone who has experienced this happen to my home city I can vouch. It does suck.
Re: Let People Move to Jobs
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Salaries do go down with profits, a long enough run of low profits and salaries go to zero.
Re: Let People Move to Jobs
#35Earlier 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?
This should explain it:
Re: Let People Move to Jobs
#36The 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.
Housing costs can be kept reasonable if in addition to a new HQ, the city also builds a housing for a few thousand additional people.
Re: Let People Move to Jobs
#37Just... 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.
Value is absolutely added by both, and suggesting otherwise is pretty naive.
Landlords take on the responsibility for long-term ownership and maintenance of a property and give people access to it on a shorter term basis that is much easier to get out of.
Banks give access to money that you don't currently have with understanding that you will pay them back a premium over time for that service.
If you "eliminated landlords and private sale of land", you would pretty quickly end up with a system consisting of landlords and private sale of land, maybe under a new names.
Re: Let People Move to Jobs
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pr…
I think profit sharing is totally awesome in all forms and losing bonuses when your business kills people is more than reasonable.
But anyway to me the math isn't about win/win but just supply and demand. If they can afford to pay it and were willing to before, it's not like you can't make the same amount (if not more) and have better future prospects without the stress and cost of moving.
I think a more realistic take would be a more decentralized approach to labor in general and allow many smaller satellites to pop up (which they already have) in many places and allow their people to move freely with minor salary adjustments. That way the costs and benefits even out in the long run, mass relocation to a single location probably isn't great for anyone involved long term.
Re: Let People Move to Jobs
#39The 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.
It raises property values. Increases the tax base. For home owners might be a great time to sell.
It also raises prices which means local shops and places to eat would be booming.
Re: Let People Move to Jobs
#40Just... 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.
Value is absolutely added by both, and suggesting otherwise is pretty naive. Landlords take on the responsibility for long-term ownership and maintenance of a property and give people access to it on a shorter term basis that is much easier to get out of. Banks give access to money that you don't currently have with understanding that you will pay them back a premium over time for that service. If you "eliminated lan…
In mainland China, before the communist revolution landlords used to be called "dizhu" (literally "land lord"). The name took on bad connotations (the communist revolutionaries didn't take kindly to landlords), and nowadays they're called "fangdong" instead. Apart from the fact that the land is technically on a 99 year lease from the government not owned, a "fangdong" is still pretty much the same as a landlord anywhere else.