Live data from Hacker News

Let People Move to Jobs

jefftk.com

61–70 of 314 posts

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#61
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"The city builds" can just as easily mean "the city issues permits allowing".

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#62

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…

As a counterpoint, in the leadup and when Amazon announced their HQ2 in Northern Virginia, one thing they were very clear about is that no teams and no employees except some execs were going to actually get reassigned to the new location. All staffing at the new location would be via new hires at the new location. They knew full well that if they tried to move a team, most of the members of the team would transfer to a team that wasn't relocating, and that if they tried to prevent that the employees would just quit.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#63
This argument has been made for decades.

Isn't it about time we realised that people live somewhere amongst social capital they have built up throughout their lives.

And therefore business capital should move where the people are - to avoid damaging that social capital. Not the other way around.

Ultimately people work to live. Those who live to work are a tiny minority.

With modern technology there is little excuse. Fewer and fewer enterprises require physical concentration to operate.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#64
post #54

For most of us here, there's no reason to move anywhere at all. Programmers can work from anywhere in the world. We need to let go of the idea that "work" means 2 hours of commute and sitting in an open plan under constant barrage of interruptions for 40 hours a week. We need to let go of _all_ the components of this definition, from "40 hours" to "office" to "commute". There are jobs which have to be done in the off…

Are you claiming that we don't need to be in offices because it's been validated by research or because it's convenient to your worldview?

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#65

This argument has been made for decades. Isn't it about time we realised that people live somewhere amongst social capital they have built up throughout their lives. And therefore business capital should move where the people are - to avoid damaging that social capital. Not the other way around. Ultimately people work to live. Those who live to work are a tiny minority. With modern technology there is little excuse.…

This - and to add to that, the high value of this social capital when you have lower financal capital.

Someone to help with the kids, relax with, help you fix your car, have a cheap evening or weekend of hanging out with. When you move it can take years to build all that up again. You might be able to do without it all, but you either have to pay to replace it or go without.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#66
post #54

For most of us here, there's no reason to move anywhere at all. Programmers can work from anywhere in the world. We need to let go of the idea that "work" means 2 hours of commute and sitting in an open plan under constant barrage of interruptions for 40 hours a week. We need to let go of _all_ the components of this definition, from "40 hours" to "office" to "commute". There are jobs which have to be done in the off…

Are you claiming that we don't need to be in offices because it's been validated by research or because it's convenient to your worldview?

Because I've been working from home for a while. I wake up when I want, without an alarm. I drink a couple cups of coffee and take a shower, then I go to my "office" downstairs and work. When I'm bored I practice electric guitar or do cardio. Then I work some more. When I'm tired I go do something else, or take a nap. When I'm in the mood for music, I can listen to it on my studio monitors. When I want to work from my backyard in the summer I unplug one of my clients' laptops and go work in my backyard. And, get this, _nobody_ can interrupt my flow unless I choose to be interrupted. I can't imagine being productive in what passes for a regular "office" nowadays.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#67
post #54

For most of us here, there's no reason to move anywhere at all. Programmers can work from anywhere in the world. We need to let go of the idea that "work" means 2 hours of commute and sitting in an open plan under constant barrage of interruptions for 40 hours a week. We need to let go of _all_ the components of this definition, from "40 hours" to "office" to "commute". There are jobs which have to be done in the off…

Maybe it's because I'm relatively young, but I actually like working in an office. I bike 15 minutes to work rather than commuting 2 hours, because my work pays me enough to live close by. I spend some of my time collaborating closely with smart people who are a lot more experienced than me, which seems to be the fastest way to learn. I spend then rest of the time with headphones on facing the corner of the open offi…

And those people can come to the office. But it should really not be a requirement, and work should be structured in such a way as to not penalize people who are remote: around written communication, with infrequent teleconferencing.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#68
I wonder why 100% remote positions and companies are still marginal. Software engineering is one of the few industries where remote work is possible, and yet hardly available, despite obvious advantages.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#69
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you claiming that we don't need to be in offices because it's been validated by research or because it's convenient to your worldview?

Because I've been working from home for a while. I wake up when I want, without an alarm. I drink a couple cups of coffee and take a shower, then I go to my "office" downstairs and work. When I'm bored I practice electric guitar or do cardio. Then I work some more. When I'm tired I go do something else, or take a nap. When I'm in the mood for music, I can listen to it on my studio monitors. When I want to work from m…

I would get extremely lonely if I spent time in only 1 physical space the majority of the time. Also I'd want to be with coworkers during the day. That's just me though - I know a lot of people love working from home and remote work.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#70
post #18

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.

The only reason this happens is because of (perhaps misguided) attempts to resist the changes caused by population growth from local voters. If it was up to the market to decide, what would happen if there was a sudden spike in the demand for housing? Developers would build more housing. Prices might move a bit, but you’re not going to be looking at a crisis. However, entrenched homeowners don’t want that, because it would change whatever it is they like about their nice quite neighbourhoods. So they resist any attempt to develop new housing. Housing supply is artificially constrained, everybody’s property taxes go up (because the supply of property tax payers is artificially constrained too), prices skyrocket, and access to housing plummets.

The idea that when you buy a house, that you’re somehow paying for your neighbourhood/city to perpetually remain in a state that personally satisfies you is behind most of our housing problems. Enabled by the almost universal dysfunctionality of local democracy.

Post reply on HN