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

121–130 of 314 posts

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#121

Post by anonymoushn »

B-Con wrote: post #86
sien wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have to make sure to join in the bay area though. Offers in my local office are typically for 1/11 the initial equity of offers for the same level in Mountain View, San Francisco, or Sunnyvale, and I was not permitted to speak to any hiring managers in the US after seeing a four-day exploding offer from my local office.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#122

Post by rckoepke »

m0zg wrote: post #97
dorkwood wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Any recommendations on study path for this? Not due to the money/remote aspect, but rather I have genuine interest in these things specifically.

Would a curriculum like this be at all valuable: https://uh.edu/data-science-institute/education/tutorials-co...

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#123

Post by ddxxdd »

sgt101 wrote: post #92
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.

Once upon a time, a rising tide of economic progress would lift all boats in all communities all around the country.

Nowadays, we're in a bizarre reality where a 200% productivity gain among the average worker nationwide means a 1500% productivity gain in the top 10% of counties, coupled with a 55% productivity loss in the bottom 90% of counties. (Numbers generated randomly for illustrative purposes).

One would expect that productivity-boosting technology such as computers, robots, cell phones, and various forms of automation would increase productivity for nearly every person on every square inch of this planet. That is no longer the case, and it is something I plan to study in depth at a later date.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#124

Post by ck425 »

laputan_machine wrote: post #111
6c696e7578 wrote: post #109

I've never understood why with IT jobs in the UK that they're all centred around London. Especially when they then offshore bits of the company to India or Eastern/Southern Europe requiring contracted staff to use a VPN. It seems companies want staff onsite in London, purely for the enjoyment of making people commute there. This does no good for the environment other than help to conversion of fossil fuel into co². I…

There's a push to make less expensive northern cities (Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool) appealing for tech. London still has (and will do for the foreseeable future) the lion's share, but there plenty of good tech jobs up north.

Same with the Scottish central belt. There are plenty of good jobs up here. Part of the reason for the London centricness is that relatively few people realise just how many good jobs there are outside of London.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#125

Post by sgift »

aguyfromnb wrote: post #108
sgift wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You most certainly can lend money you don't have. Of course, you're going to have to come up with it somehow (so will the bank), likely by borrowing it. Which is fundamentally no different than what a bank does, albeit their balance sheets are larger and counterparties different. It's "borrowing" all the way down,and how the financial system works.

> Of course, you're going to have to come up with it somehow (so will the bank),

For the most part modern banks can lend money that didn't exist until they lend it to you and that stops existing the moment you pay it back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#126

Post by [deleted] »

sgift wrote: post #125
aguyfromnb wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You most certainly can lend money you don't have. Of course, you're going to have to come up with it somehow (so will the bank), likely by borrowing it. Which is fundamentally no different than what a bank does, albeit their balance sheets are larger and counterparties different. It's "borrowing" all the way down,and how the financial system works.

> Of course, you're going to have to come up with it somehow (so will the bank), For the most part modern banks can lend money that didn't exist until they lend it to you and that stops existing the moment you pay it back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

[deleted]

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#127

Post by ReptileMan »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #98
lazyjones wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes because London is best for the Founders, VC, Investors, Board of Directors and C level executives. Not because it is best for employees.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#128

Post by 6c696e7578 »

icebraining wrote: post #115
6c696e7578 wrote: post #109

I've never understood why with IT jobs in the UK that they're all centred around London. Especially when they then offshore bits of the company to India or Eastern/Southern Europe requiring contracted staff to use a VPN. It seems companies want staff onsite in London, purely for the enjoyment of making people commute there. This does no good for the environment other than help to conversion of fossil fuel into co². I…

> Especially when they then offshore bits of the company to India or Eastern/Southern Europe requiring contracted staff to use a VPN. But that's the point, isn't it? If you're giving up on locality, you might as well hire someone cheap. The fact that they can commute into the office is one of the things keeping the salaries of UK workers higher. In other words, be careful with what you wish for, you just might get it…

Offshore does not equal cheaper. Often what you think you save in salary, you spend in communication overheads.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#129

Post by 6c696e7578 »

laputan_machine wrote: post #111
6c696e7578 wrote: post #109

I've never understood why with IT jobs in the UK that they're all centred around London. Especially when they then offshore bits of the company to India or Eastern/Southern Europe requiring contracted staff to use a VPN. It seems companies want staff onsite in London, purely for the enjoyment of making people commute there. This does no good for the environment other than help to conversion of fossil fuel into co². I…

There's a push to make less expensive northern cities (Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool) appealing for tech. London still has (and will do for the foreseeable future) the lion's share, but there plenty of good tech jobs up north.

Why though, I don't see what the appeal is with London. There's bits in the Thames Valley, but not much.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#130

Post by paulsutter »

ddxxdd wrote: post #123
sgt101 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Once upon a time, a rising tide of economic progress would lift all boats in all communities all around the country. Nowadays, we're in a bizarre reality where a 200% productivity gain among the average worker nationwide means a 1500% productivity gain in the top 10% of counties, coupled with a 55% productivity loss in the bottom 90% of counties. (Numbers generated randomly for illustrative purposes). One would expec…

Those would be really interesting statistics to know, anyone know where we could get actual numbers?

Also be interesting to know his much is due yu concentration of professions and how much to local network effects.

Post reply on HN