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

41–50 of 314 posts

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#41

Post by rednixion »

adrianN wrote: post #36
duxup wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you might be underestimating how many people will see government housing as a massive downgrad

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#42

Post by usaar333 »

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…

The more interesting question might be what percent of senior employees would quit Google if ordered to move. I have no direct evidence, but my sense is potentially much higher than the average: they could care less about living costs, don't want to uproot their families, love CA weather, love living in such a tech heavy area, have access to better schools than in Kansas, etc.

FWIW, my old company added a Seattle office a few years ago. Sure, some people moved, but it was pretty negligible.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#43

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

WalterBright wrote: post #30
akerl_ wrote: post #26

Earlier 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 don't go up and down with profits.

It objectively the case that salaries vary with profits. Are you just saying you think they ought not?

If the company is losing money, you can bet raises will be harder to come by. When Facebook was poaching a lot of Googlers in the late aughts and early teens, base salaries went up a bunch to make the job more competitive. But if Google hadn't been profitable there would have been no headroom to make that change. Those are two (of many) ways that salaries vary with profits.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#44

Post by nradov »

duxup wrote: post #18
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…

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.

Indeed a lot of long time Mountain View residents are unhappy to have Google HQ there. Sure their property values have skyrocketed, but for those who just want a nice place to live the quality of life is worse.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#45

Post by duxup »

wolco wrote: post #39
duxup wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They might have to sell if there are property taxes.

But if they're a local and not getting one of these high paying jobs ... they're going to have a hard time finding a place they can afford.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#46

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

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?

He neglected to include the selling side. "Everything is worth what it's seller will sell it for." And that in turn is often going to be dictated by what other offers are on the market for the same good. This is a big problem for sellers of software labor in Kansas City.

The problem for the hypothetical KC Googler is that there are substantially no other high paying tech jobs in KC. There's Cerner, but they pay seniors ~1/3rd what Google pays (and it seems to get further from Google comp as you go up the ladder). So if you want to negotiate with Google to increase your pay, you have no credible best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). If you want to work for any other high paying tech company, you have to leave town. Google, knowing they are the best game in town, would face less upward pressure on wages.

I mean, as a matter of simple fact, Google does not pay the same in different metros. Nor do any other large companies I'm aware of. The pay is adjusted to what is required to attract talent in those metros.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#47

Post by _jasper »

usaar333 wrote: post #42
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…

The more interesting question might be what percent of senior employees would quit Google if ordered to move. I have no direct evidence, but my sense is potentially much higher than the average: they could care less about living costs, don't want to uproot their families, love CA weather, love living in such a tech heavy area, have access to better schools than in Kansas, etc. FWIW, my old company added a Seattle off…

I think there's a real possibility that the new Google employees and their kids would "make" the schools in their Kansas town better, through a bunch of different mechanisms. I live in an excellent school district in the rural middle of nowhere, and it's 100% because of the large state university that happens to be here.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#48

Post by hellisothers »

malandrew wrote: post #5
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…

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.

In discussing this with others I’ve found the same sentiment about moving if they can keep the same salary. But then I ask do they expect the inevitable next job after the current one to also offer the same salary? Unlikely. There are tons of great reasons to leave CA for jobs elsewhere, money shouldn’t be the reason.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#49

Post by WalterBright »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #43
WalterBright wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 don't go up and down with profits. It objectively the case that salaries vary with profits. Are you just saying you think they ought not? If the company is losing money, you can bet raises will be harder to come by. When Facebook was poaching a lot of Googlers in the late aughts and early teens, base salaries went up a bunch to make the job more competitive. But if Google hadn't been profitable there would…

> It objectively the case that salaries vary with profits.

Salaries are a function of the perceived value of the particular employee to the company. If the salary is too low, he'll be poached by another company. If it's too high, he's likely to be laid off or otherwise pushed out.

For example, if an employee contributes $100 in value to the company, his ideal compensation would be $100 minus the opportunity cost of the money, which is about $15.

This has nothing to do with the profit of the company as a whole.

It is true that companies often have a lot of difficulty computing what the actual dollar value of a particular employee is, but there is no doubt that the company will do badly if it gets it too far wrong too many times.

Companies falling on hard times that try to cut salaries across the board (or limit raises, same thing) do so at great peril - the underpaid (relative to their contribution) employees leave and the overpaid stay. I.e. this can result in a vicious death spiral. A much harder, but far more effective strategy is to identify the overpaid ones and get rid of them.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#50

Post by WalterBright »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #38
WalterBright wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ta…

Supply & demand is exactly about win/win. People don't wittingly make deals where they are worse off than if they decline the deal.
Post reply on HN