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

141–150 of 314 posts

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#141

Post by jefftk »

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #23
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…

> no salary cut Unlikely. A lot of the reason the pay here is so good is because of the high cost of living.

This isn't right: Google and similar companies pay based on the local market and not cost of living.

London is a great example: high cost of living, low market rates for top talent, low pay from the FAANGs.

Pittsburgh is an example in the other direction: low cost of living, relatively high market rates, relatively high pay from the FAANGs. Still lower than the Bay though.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#142

Post by jefftk »

buboard wrote: post #105
jayd16 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

isn't SF a company town?

A company town is one where there's only one major employer. Things may be good for you if you work for that employer, but they have an enormous amount of leverage over you and their other employees. It's also risky long term, because the town's outcomes are tied strongly not just to one industry but one employer.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#143

Post by lotsofpulp »

conanbatt wrote: post #134
ddxxdd wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Once upon a time, a rising tide of economic progress would lift all boats in all communities all around the country. I think this hasn't been true for centuries. Moving rural to the cities has been documented since the 1700's very clearly by economists.

It may be true that all boats were being lifted before, but some more than others. Or at least the gap between the boats wasn’t as big as it is now.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#145

Post by lotsofpulp »

ck425 wrote: post #124
laputan_machine wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All the jobs are a few clicks away from being found. London probably offers quite a few amenities that people want, even though they hate many aspects of it. One of the crucial amenities a big city provides is security that if you lose an income stream, you will be able to get another easily.

How much are people willing to pay for that?

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#146

Post by cowsandmilk »

systematical wrote: post #57

The article mentions DC and I'd just like vent about how miserable a place this is to live in. I see some people spend 10 hours a week and often more just commuting to work. It's overpriced. And when you look at the state of IT in the federal government you realize why this government fails so badly at non-tech things. I'll be running away from the major cities as fast as possible as soon as possible. Yuck. You actua…

> You actually lose money working in DC, the salaries aren't even worth.

People around DC have such low salaries that they are among the richest counties in the country...

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/censu...

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#147

Post by balfirevic »

6c696e7578 wrote: post #128
icebraining wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What communication overhead, if you've already said you are in favor of telecommuting?

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#148

Post by wongarsu »

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.

From a technological standpoint housing supply is a solved problem. Three story multi-tenant buildings with underground parking and public transportation work great, if that's not enough just build higher.

Solving the political problem is much harder.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#150

Post by jefftk »

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…

(author)

I'm curious what your guess is? I'm not talking about opening a new satellite office in a cheaper area (they've already done this, for example Pittsburg) but actually moving their headquarters. Tens of thousands of roles moving from Mountain View / Sunnyvale to Kansas City.

Most of these roles are occupied by people who have a lot of options and don't want to move across the country. Even if they were up for moving and the company was offering to keep the same (far above market for KC) pay, they'd be very nervous about entering a situation where their employer would have so much more leverage over them.

Post reply on HN