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

71–80 of 314 posts

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#71

Post by mrr54 »

grawprog wrote: post #53
sien wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which city?

Not the parent but Vancouver's become like that over the last 10 years or so. I lived just outside Vancouver and I watched the relatively quiet, affordable neighbourhood I lived in suddenly become filled with overpriced highrises and condos and watched rent more than double in price while average wages remained relatively stagnant.

Yeah that's nothing to do with big companies moving there. That's what happens when you let Chinese investors dominate your housing market.

(See Auckland as well)

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#72

Post by anonymoushn »

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.

If we invent some sort of technology that lets us increase the housing supply we may be able to avoid this issue.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#73

Post by thatcat »

eropple wrote: post #3
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…

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.

That's just an argument for government subsidized fiber internet, repeating your self a few times a day is a minor inconvenience compared to commuting.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#74

Post by stkdump »

m0zg wrote: post #67
titanomachy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the problem is that as soon as everyone who has the opportunity to leave the office does so, the training effect for new developers is gone. It might be better for you and your personal performance, but is it better for the company overall?

That might not be so clear cut, and one of the reasons why especially big tech is so hesitant -- as opposed to companies that rely on the perk of remote work to be able to attract talent or pay less.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#75

Post by dorkwood »

m0zg wrote: post #66
brian-armstrong wrote: post #64

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…

Who do you work for, or at least what sort of thing are you working on? This sounds ideal to me, but I'm worried my skill set isn't as conducive to remote work.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#76

Post by brownbat »

desas wrote: post #58
_jasper wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the long term for sure, but for individual families considering to relocate they're looking at the short term. How long does it take to "make" the schools better, and how many of the ten or so years your child is in education before the level gets back to what they already have.

Kansas City already has a mix of great and terrible schools, like every metro area, segregated mostly by the cost of living in that particular district.

They'd probably just move to the wealthier suburbs or send kids to high quality private schools.

Longer term, having a solution for schools that doesn't create such radical disparities between districts mere miles apart would be in everyone's interest, but that's a broader national problem.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#77

Post by jayd16 »

chrisfrantz wrote: post #25
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.

Then why is the article talking about where the jobs should be? If this was actually a reality then this post wouldn't exist.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#78

Post by jayd16 »

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…

Exactly. Who wants to live in a company town? I don't.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#79

Post by jayd16 »

m0zg wrote: 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…

It works great for programming but in my experience most of the job is requirements gathering. Even if I worked in a place that could constantly feed me programming tasks I'd probably just feel like a code monkey and not a developer.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#80

Post by rocqua »

atemerev wrote: post #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.

In my experience, remote work remains less effective than being physically present. Especially if you are never present. It just makes coordination and socialization so much more difficult.
Post reply on HN