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

91–100 of 314 posts

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#91

Post by cinquemb »

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 prefer working remote too and always have (and have done so for that past 4-5 years, I'm 28 years old now), but I don't expect the larger employment environment to conform to my wishes… actually I rather prefer the opposite happens because it makes finding interesting remote work opportunities easier (because I think that a lot of places are starting to have "remote work possible" but mainly its just a lot of noise in the signal compared to places where its the norm).

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#92

Post by sgt101 »

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.…

Jobs and companies are rather ephemeral, migration is disruptive of community and family, and demands not just housing but also infrastructure (roads, transit, sewers, power, schools, health). We should understand the value of community and family and moderate the need for migration and make careful use of existing infrastructure.

The North of England and cites like Pittsburgh and Detroit are cases in point.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#94

Post by sgift »

war1025 wrote: post #37
tehjoker wrote: post #27

Just... 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…

> 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.

By using money that they don't have either. I think that part is important to remember. The difference between a bank and a private person is not that the bank has money to lend. It's that they are allowed to lend money they don't have. If you do that it's called fraud.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#95

Post by ozim »

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.

Because remote is hard, if it would be just about typing code then yes you could live in igloo in Greenland.

You need people who are able to work remotely together. It is not only about having really smart devs who can grasp how to do Y with tech Z. It is also about having really smart managers and really smart company owners. Building such a team takes years, it is not like you can hire 10 devs, a manager and dump loads of cash on them to build a product.

First you have to get all those different people to trust each other. Then there are differences in ideas how things should be done, it is hard to solve some of those when people are in the same room. People have different temperaments, they have different ambitions.

We have all the technology to communicate but people have problems with stating their ideas in clear way in writing. Calling might help a bit, but to build trust you have to work with someone face to face and go trough rough times together.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#96

Post by brailsafe »

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…

Why would your lifestyle be better in KC than SF? With kids I'd expect it to be more manageable in terms of costs, but while I like KC, I struggle to see how it would be better

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#97

Post by m0zg »

dorkwood wrote: post #75
m0zg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have a somewhat rare blend of skills in that I do deep learning (computer vision mostly) and I also do C++ (including low level optimization and CUDA). Usually you get one or the other, almost never both. So I don't really work _for_ anyone. I consult companies when things are too gnarly for them to figure out on their own. Thus far, I have more work than I can possibly handle.

Not a realistic setup for most people, of course, but my point stands: it's stupid to require butts in chairs nowadays. It's also very expensive. If I decide to expand, there's no way I'm renting an office of any kind, and there's no way I'm relying solely on the local talent pool.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#98

Post by tonyedgecombe »

lazyjones wrote: post #81
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.

I'm not sure about that, take a look at any of the who's hiring threads and note how nearly all the UK jobs are in London.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#99

Post by m0zg »

rocqua wrote: post #84
m0zg wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

This is a good example of the "so" tell for cognitive dissonance, whereby the sufferer tries to put words in my mouth and starts their diatribe with a "so".

It's a free country, "all employers" can do as they please. I just won't work for them if they are not in close proximity, and very few of them are. I'm not going to "move" for a job that I can do from anywhere in the world.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#100

Post by Apocryphon »

ozim wrote: post #95
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.

Because remote is hard, if it would be just about typing code then yes you could live in igloo in Greenland. You need people who are able to work remotely together. It is not only about having really smart devs who can grasp how to do Y with tech Z. It is also about having really smart managers and really smart company owners. Building such a team takes years, it is not like you can hire 10 devs, a manager and dump l…

Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's worth trying. For an industry so ostensibly focused on innovation and experimentation, much of tech remains as conservative as any other in terms of trying out new ways of work. Though certainly there are some bright spots opening up to remote:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21764110

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19444960

Post reply on HN