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

81–90 of 314 posts

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#81

Post by lazyjones »

neilwilson wrote: post #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.…

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

It's often the case, but SF, NYC, London are very popular outliers, so why can't other regions be?

It's not social capital, it's expected quality of life that makes people move to NYC for work and makes dilapidated areas unattractive.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#82

Post by fredophile »

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.

I left Vancouver almost 10 years ago. Rents were okay at the time but housing prices were already ridiculous and had been for a long time. I'm not surprised that rents moved up to be more in line with the cost of ownership.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#83

Post by lazyjones »

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.

> kinda horrible for locals in KC who would still be making the same amount, and housing costs skyrocket

Surely the locals already have their houses in KC and would benefit more than they'd suffer, as renters, sellers, shop owners.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#84

Post by rocqua »

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.

So all employers should reorganize to meet your preferences to be left alone?

It might work great for you, it would probably help your productivity. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't have downsides for many others!

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#85

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#86

Post by B-Con »

sien wrote: post #52
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.

Google has heaps of offices around the world : https://about.google/locations/?region=asia-pacific&office=s... Does anyone know what proportion of their workforce is not in California? A question to Googlers and those who have worked there, is it possible to move to say Boulder within Google easily?

If you're qualified to work for a team that's hiring, transfers are pretty easy. I work for GOOG outside CA and know a lot of coworkers who transferred teams within the company from out of state. Lateral mobility is something of a perk.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#87

Post by dredmorbius »

anonymoushn wrote: post #72
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.

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

Carpentry?

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#88

Post by dredmorbius »

munificent wrote: post #55
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…

In fact, Google has a Pittsburgh office which is doing quite well as far as I can tell.

There are issues:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21997412

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#89

Post by indigochill »

neilwilson wrote: post #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.…

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

This is situational. There are also people who for whatever reason (usually work for parents) have moved around throughout their early years, thus they have little social capital to fall back on once they reach adulthood. In their case, moving to where the opportunity is makes a lot of sense because that's what they grew up with.

I do agree with you, though, that a lot of jobs are location-bound that needn't necessarily be, although there is a management overhead in incorporating remote workers. I hope as time goes by more managers will learn how to work with remote staff and that opportunity will become more widely available.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#90

Post by jillesvangurp »

People move to where the economic activity is. Typically the best and most in demand skills go first because they get payed extra. This re-enforces the importance of these areas. That's how big cities emerged. They are concentrations of people with skills and supporting infrastructure.

Despite the cost of living (which is insane), San Francisco is still attractive to software companies because of the insane numbers of people with software skills in the area.

IMHO there are a few things that are accelerating this: 1) dropping cost of of transport (clean energy, autonomous driving/flying, etc.) this will allow people to move more efficiently and more often and with less guilt about environmental concerns. 2) improving tooling for remote work. 3) co-working spaces and other flexible work infrastructure. 4) the gig economy, work, living, eating, transport, it's basically all people outsourcing things to each other.

Post reply on HN