Let People Move to Jobs • Hacker News Board

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#251

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

jefftk wrote: post #141

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

These factors are intertwined.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#252

Post by jefftk » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #226

TulliusCicero wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why bother make your town a mess in the name of growth. Yeah, and why bother making the country a mess by letting foreigners into your country? People moving for opportunity is a fundamental part of what America is . To deny others opportunities that you have by virtue of birthplace is nativism, and it's ugly. Sure, it sounds relatively harmless when it's "just your town", but you can look at the bay area and see w…

> Yeah, and why bother making the country a mess by letting foreigners into your country? I mean, that’s kind of the point, isn’t it? And unless you’re a proponent for open borders, you advocate a similar position - just a different scale. I’m also not really a fan of the “deny others opportunities” grandstanding. I mean you do it right now. I bet someone wants the job you have. Why not give your money away so others…

> unless you’re a proponent for open borders

I don't know about TulliusCicero, but I agree with their comment and I think open borders would probably be good. The US's historically high levels of immigration have been very positive for the country and I think we could let more people in.

> My idea of America is a lot of untamed wilderness, clean air, national parks, peace and quiet

The US is enormous, and people who want to move here are primarily interested in living in the major cities. If we allow building dense cities we can easily continue to have very large fractions of the country set aside as wilderness.

> If we could have fewer, better educated people and less wealth disparity this could be an even better place to live.

You're only considering the interests of the people who already live here. Keeping people out doesn't make fewer people, just fewer people here, just like it doesn't decrease wealth disparity only wealth disparity here. Lots of people around the world would love to come here and have the same opportunities we have. I think we should generally let them.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#253

Post by jefftk » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

Merrill wrote: post #232

People do move. Silicon Valley itself is a product of people moving to the San Francisco Bay Area of California. Of the eight founders of Fairchild Semiconductor, only Gordon Moore was from the Bay Area. Large, successful companies create the conditions for attracting employees to new locations. Both Seattle and Austin are examples of this. Earlier, IBM had a practice of locating in small to medium sized cities like…

(author)

People do move. The post is arguing that (a) this is a good thing and (b) we should allow more housing construction to facilitate it (and to keep existing residents from getting forced out).

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#254

Post by jefftk » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

arendtio wrote: post #117

To me, it sounds as simple as everybody does what he thinks is best for him: 1. Companies are founded in the big cities, to have access to talent 2. People move to big cities to have access to better jobs As long as the benefits outweigh the cost, the chances are small that anything changes...

Where this simple model fails is that existing residents oppose the construction of additional housing. Housing prices rise, fewer people can afford to move there, and renters with lower paying jobs get forced out.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#255

Post by jefftk » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

LockAndLol wrote: post #243

> A major factor is that current employees don't want to move. If Google announced it was moving everything to Pittsburgh, ~80% of the company would quit. People put down roots and get attached to areas, generally more so than to jobs. That's the wrong argument to make. It's not about moving somewhere, but deciding to build a new center somewhere else (in this case Pittsburgh).

Perhaps read the next paragraph? "New companies, however, don't have employees they would need to move. Why do tech startups choose the Bay when almost anywhere else would be cheaper? I see two main answers: to be close to their investors and to be able to hire from a deep talent pool."

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#256

Post by devdas » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:02 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #189

balfirevic wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So don't use a contractor. Open an Indian office and hire people directly.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#257

Post by Apocryphon » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:02 PM UTC

kgwgk wrote: post #119

Apocryphon wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, how about Singapore?

https://boingboing.net/2018/03/11/capitalist-ideal.html "Singapore is indeed a country where rich people run pretty much everything and where the finance sector holds primacy. It's also an autocracy run by a dynastic series of strongmen who have expropriated 90% of the land on behalf of the state, which owns nearly all the nation's housing, and whose sovereign wealth fund has a serious stake in most of the country's…

That’s bad, but what about Singapore’s housing policy?

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#258

Post by Apocryphon » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

ozim wrote: post #116

Apocryphon wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is a bit weird argument from my point of view. I argued about that it is hard to get 100% remote companies with 100% remote positions. Nothing about no one should ever do it. If you have smart people who you trust, you can do it. You bring up examples of companies that are doing remote work so someone is trying to do that. It works for them. Expecting every company to do it is not the way to go. Every company sh…

The point is that more companies should not fear experimentation, and should try different policies. If it doesn’t improve, don’t use it. If it does, set a new standard. That’s how advancement works.

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#259

Post by jefftk » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

cryptica wrote: post #205

>> 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 bein…

> 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.

They've already done this, in ~2004, and the Pittsburgh office has maybe 1,000 people?

Re: Let People Move to Jobs

#260

Post by jefftk » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #251

jefftk wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

They're related, but we can pull them apart by looking at examples like the ones I gave where cost of living is high but the market rate is not, and the reverse.