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

201–210 of 314 posts

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#201

Post by remote_phone »

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 am from Vancouver. The house prices have always been ridiculous since the early 80s when my family moved there. Vancouver’s real estate market has always been unaffordable and the highest in Canada. This is nothing new in the last 10 years, it’s literally a 40 year old problem.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#202

Post by cheese4242 »

chiph wrote: post #187
gurkendoktor wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is a cartoon-like scenario you have cooked up. You really think random people are going to be contacting you for money because of your mid-rate tech salary?

Absolutely hilarious.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#203

Post by amiga_500 »

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 parasitic rentiers.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#204

Post by esotericn »

cheese4242 wrote: post #200
zorak wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with a great tech salary, your wealth is NOT noteworthy at the local bank. The amount of ego in this thread is impressive!

Seriously, tech has got to have some of the most inflated egos on the planet. Do people in this thread really think there aren't plenty of other people making 150-200+ outside of the major tech hubs? Do they really think they are going to be Mr. Monopoly Man because they have a 150k remote job in Des Moines?

The OP's scenario is over the top, but if you had a 150k USD remote job in my hometown you could buy half a street. You would have a very different life to those around you and it would be challenging socially as a result.

I fail to see what this has to do with ego - it's not an assertion of superiority, it's just a factual statement. It's nothing to do with technology - working as a lawyer for remote clients would be the same.

If anything it's the opposite I would think. Ego would be rocking up and flashing the cash.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#205

Post by cryptica »

>> If Google announced it was moving everything to Pittsburgh, ~80% of the company would quit.

They don't have to move everything to Pittsburgh, they could just open a small office there and give their employees the option to move there.

>> People expected telecommuting to change this, but even though we have many technical tools that make remote work far more practical than it was even ten years ago, physically being in the same place as your coworkers remains extremely valuable.

I think office politics are to blame for this. Remote people are often more productive than those who are on-site but they are less likely to be promoted in a mixed envrionment. That's why it's often better if everyone is remote; then everyone has equal opportunity.

>> Good ideas flow more freely between organizations

So do bad ideas. Bad ideas backed by a lot of money spread like the plague.

>> Coordination between organizations is easier

So that they can make cartels which erode workers' rights and monopolize industries.

>> Switching jobs is easier, so people don't get as stuck in jobs they don't like

They can be forced to live in a horrible place that they hate, but at least they can distract themselves from their misery by changing companies all the time to give themselves the illusion of hope.

>> Ease of switching also allows people to take larger career risks

To the point that everyone in your workplace is focused on risky career politics instead of producing actual value.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#206

Post by marcus_holmes »

> "physically being in the same place as your coworkers remains extremely valuable"

I always remain suspicious of this, because there's so many bad managers out there who equate "working hard" with "being at your desk for a long time" and have no idea how to manage a team if they can't eyeball them. Is being physically present a genuine advantage to the organisation, or does it just make managers feel better?

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#207

Post by balfirevic »

cheese4242 wrote: post #200
zorak wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with a great tech salary, your wealth is NOT noteworthy at the local bank. The amount of ego in this thread is impressive!

Seriously, tech has got to have some of the most inflated egos on the planet. Do people in this thread really think there aren't plenty of other people making 150-200+ outside of the major tech hubs? Do they really think they are going to be Mr. Monopoly Man because they have a 150k remote job in Des Moines?

Don't insult entire field based on your interpretation (perhaps justified, perhaps not) of few comments here.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#208

Post by ericmay »

ben_w wrote: post #155
lotsofpulp wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the Communist Manifesto was written precisely because not all boats were being lifted.

Yes, able to identify some of the problems, but not a solution.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#209

Post by notimetorelax »

humanrebar wrote: post #162
dodobirdlord wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counterpoint, in the leadup and when Amazon announced their HQ2 in Northern Virginia, one thing they were very clear about is that no teams and no employees except some execs were going to actually get reassigned to the new location. All staffing at the new location would be via new hires at the new location. They knew full well that if they tried to move a team, most of the members of the team would transfer to…

> They knew full well... How? Short of some background, this could easily be a massive assumption.

I have seen multiple teams move location within one corporation. Most of the time no one moves.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#210

Post by marcus_holmes »

esotericn wrote: post #168
sjg007 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t have to be that remote.. you could work in another city or even in a cheaper suburb. With video conferencing I think some of the social parts are maintained.

In the UK that's not "that remote". There are 5x, 10x house price differentials for driving 3-4 hours up the road. Because no-one wants to live in a depressed town. You can live in a commuter town and not commute, sure, then you're not arbitraging CoL (it won't be much cheaper). If you live somewhere where there are no jobs then you have to deal with all of the issues I've stated.

Get out into the country proper, and you'll find plenty of rich people to hang out with.

They don't tend to live in villages or towns, and they don't socialise with "townies", and they certainly won't share any interests with some nouveau-rich tech worker who thinks they're wealthy

Post reply on HN