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

181–190 of 314 posts

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#181

Post by [deleted] »

abnry wrote: post #178
esotericn wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and all of those guys are skint and you're not. It works to an extent. Perhaps you don't see the problem because you're theorizing about it rather than having lived experience. As I think most people do. Imagine that essentially everyone you meet in your age group is far poorer than you are. Not most people but everyone. You need some sort of 'app' to find people to speak to who are on your level. Your specific…

"On your level" just screams pretentiousness. Since when is money the measure of a man anyways?

[deleted]

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#182

Post by imtringued »

WalterBright wrote: post #14
malandrew wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With no salary cuts would be amazing. So long as the policy is transparent for new hires in the new market, you would only need to grandfather people those that make the move. There are tons of places I’d move to easily if I could keep my current SF salary.

Since your salary would go much further outside of SF, why would it be necessary to keep the same salary?

Because companies will reduce the salary until the net benefit is 0. You still want a small nudge/incentive to encourage people to move.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#183

Post by bitforger »

abnry wrote: post #178
esotericn wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and all of those guys are skint and you're not. It works to an extent. Perhaps you don't see the problem because you're theorizing about it rather than having lived experience. As I think most people do. Imagine that essentially everyone you meet in your age group is far poorer than you are. Not most people but everyone. You need some sort of 'app' to find people to speak to who are on your level. Your specific…

"On your level" just screams pretentiousness. Since when is money the measure of a man anyways?

It's not really the money, it's the level of education and ambition. I worked remotely from Mount Pleasant, Michigan for a year and had a difficult time finding anyone to talk with about things that were interesting to me. The only group on Meetups.com was "Housewives of Mount Pleasant."

Friends are peers that have similar life experiences and values (and humor). Sometimes people like that are hard to find.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#184

Post by esotericn »

scythe wrote: post #175
esotericn wrote: post #153

The whole idea of remote working to arbitrage cost of living falls apart if you are in any way social. I think that a lot of people banging on about remote work just haven't tried it for an extended period. It works for some, and for those - great. To me, it's just another step down the 'technification' of everything in which people don't speak to the people around them (because they've been 'removed' from their live…

> The whole idea of remote working to arbitrage cost of living falls apart if you are in any way social. [...] I don't want to live in the middle of nowhere and earn 10x what the average local does. I want the people around me to be roughly on my level and share my interests. I don’t really prefer to make all of my friends within the tech/academic bubble that I work in. I would feel weird if I didn’t see my coworkers…

I agree and feel the same, but there are limits somewhere.

Prince Harry isn't seriously going to go down the pub for regular meet ups with his friends from the ex mining town. They might get on if they have a chat, but that's not the point.

I'm specifically referring to the big CoL arbs, not the situation in which someone just lives like, further out from a major metro because they don't have to commute.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#185

Post by imtringued »

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.

It gives the employees leverage during negotiations [0] but it doesn't influence the revenue because Google is a international company, the domestic SF market only represents a small part of the revenue Google receives.

[0] "I wont move to SF if you dont give me enough to pay rent"

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#186

Post by esotericn »

abnry wrote: post #178
esotericn wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and all of those guys are skint and you're not. It works to an extent. Perhaps you don't see the problem because you're theorizing about it rather than having lived experience. As I think most people do. Imagine that essentially everyone you meet in your age group is far poorer than you are. Not most people but everyone. You need some sort of 'app' to find people to speak to who are on your level. Your specific…

"On your level" just screams pretentiousness. Since when is money the measure of a man anyways?

I'm not talking about some sort of scorecard but the fact that a lot of these low CoL areas have crushing poverty.

If you want to be the one-eyed man amongst the blind, go for it, but not everyone wants that.

Socioeconomic groupings exist in the metro areas too. Senior management hanging out with the workers is relatively rare. Because it's just a pain in the arse to guard yourself in every conversation and not seem like a twat lacking empathy when you talk about some benign thing you did last week.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#187

Post by chiph »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #158
esotericn wrote: post #153

The whole idea of remote working to arbitrage cost of living falls apart if you are in any way social. I think that a lot of people banging on about remote work just haven't tried it for an extended period. It works for some, and for those - great. To me, it's just another step down the 'technification' of everything in which people don't speak to the people around them (because they've been 'removed' from their live…

> The whole idea of remote working to arbitrage cost of living falls apart if you are in any way social. Unless you grew up in the area from which you work remotely, in which case you can be more social because connecting with old friends and family is much easier than making new friends at 30+. > If I earned a London salary in my hometown I'd be ostracising myself completely from those around me [...] I don't see ho…

All it would take is the teller at the local bank telling her BFF that you're one of the richest people in the county (which she shouldn't, but she did), and suddenly you're being hit up by every hard-luck case for miles around. You'd be their lottery winner next door.

edit Not to mention the target of every drug user and petty criminal.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#188

Post by grumple »

esotericn wrote: post #153

The whole idea of remote working to arbitrage cost of living falls apart if you are in any way social. I think that a lot of people banging on about remote work just haven't tried it for an extended period. It works for some, and for those - great. To me, it's just another step down the 'technification' of everything in which people don't speak to the people around them (because they've been 'removed' from their live…

You can work remotely for competitive wages and live in a major city... which is what I do. So no sacrifice of social capital.

More employers should embrace tools that let their workers work fully remote. It's started creeping in with more work from home days at most white-collar employers. But you'll have to start judging people by their productivity, not presence in the office. Video chat on demand is just as good (arguably more communication imo, as people no longer have to get up and walk to talk to you).

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#189

Post by imtringued »

balfirevic wrote: post #156
Wildgoose wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communicating across differences in language, culture and just simple local knowledge - in other words, considerable overhead.

True for offshoring to (for example) India, but almost negligible for offshoring to many parts of Europe.

There is still an accountability problem. It's very common for Indian IT contractors to tell you that they assign their best employees to your project and then in reality fill the seat with some intern or trainee that hasn't even finished his first project.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#190

Post by 9c8675a8 »

esotericn wrote: post #153

The whole idea of remote working to arbitrage cost of living falls apart if you are in any way social. I think that a lot of people banging on about remote work just haven't tried it for an extended period. It works for some, and for those - great. To me, it's just another step down the 'technification' of everything in which people don't speak to the people around them (because they've been 'removed' from their live…

> I don't see how that benefits anyone.

It benefits the local community because you and others who do the same will spend your money there. I can't believe this isn't obvious.

Post reply on HN