Bringing Silicon Valley to the Midwest • Hacker News Board

Re: Bringing Silicon Valley to the Midwest

#51

Post by swlkr » Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 4:57 PM UTC

lost_name wrote: post #14

I'm jealous -- I would love to telecommute from my home town in the Upper Peninsula, but it just wasn't happening when I was looking for jobs after college. I ended up moving to a bigger city just to get a job as a software engineer. Still looking for a way to get back home, though. There have been so few options, and none where I felt I'd be able to advance my career. Self employment has always been the most attract…

Hey there is http://weworkremotely.com, and there's always automattic, if you're into wordpress

Re: Bringing Silicon Valley to the Midwest

#52

Post by 001sky » Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 4:57 PM UTC

cwal37 wrote: post #32

toomuchtodo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget Fermi National Accelerator Lab (Batavia, IL). I worked there a year (LHC CMS detector), and it was so terrible I jumped right back to the private sector with ~5 other co-workers.

Oh I know Fermi hahaha, my hometown is literally next to Batavia (Geneva). I just wasn't listing all of the labs. It was a bit surprising to me, but each lab really seems to have a completely different overall culture set, and then it splinters even further within each group. I worked at Livermore one summer, and the differences between them and Oak Ridge (my current employer) are stark. Part of it is that these labs…

What drives so much variation in the cultures do you recon/? More isolation type (galapagos syndrome) or is it the parent/funding culture (beauracracy etc)?

Re: Bringing Silicon Valley to the Midwest

#53

Post by dlokshin » Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 5:05 PM UTC

nanidin wrote: post #50

dlokshin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because demand is less. The wage is still dictated by supply and demand. The supply is probably less, but the demand for that labor is far less. The demand for an engineer in the midwest is higher than the demand for an engineer in Thailand because there are less time barriers, language barriers, etc. A house in Palo Alto, CA costs more than the exact same house in Dexter, Michigan. If they were made of the exact sam…

I don't think the house comparison is a good example - a house in Palo Alto can only be utilised in Palo Alto. A remote worker could work from anywhere and produce the same output, regardless of location. Pay levels based on location seem like a good way for companies to "save" money by providing a convenient excuse to pay someone less for the same work.

I meant it in this sort of comparison: if you uproot the house, and drop it in Palo Alto on the same size plot of land it's worth more. If the programer gets up, and moves to San Francisco, his labor is also worth more. Same person, same house, different demand (and supply).

Re: Bringing Silicon Valley to the Midwest

#54

Post by vonmoltke » Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 5:07 PM UTC

nanidin wrote: post #50

dlokshin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because demand is less. The wage is still dictated by supply and demand. The supply is probably less, but the demand for that labor is far less. The demand for an engineer in the midwest is higher than the demand for an engineer in Thailand because there are less time barriers, language barriers, etc. A house in Palo Alto, CA costs more than the exact same house in Dexter, Michigan. If they were made of the exact sam…

I don't think the house comparison is a good example - a house in Palo Alto can only be utilised in Palo Alto. A remote worker could work from anywhere and produce the same output, regardless of location. Pay levels based on location seem like a good way for companies to "save" money by providing a convenient excuse to pay someone less for the same work.

That is correct. I, living in Dallas, am willing to sell my labor in Dallas for a lower price than I am willing to sell my labor in Palo Alto. Thus, a company in Palo Alto can save money by hiring me in Dallas to do the job. There is nothing inconsistent about this.

Re: Bringing Silicon Valley to the Midwest

#55

Post by debt » Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 5:10 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #7

This is potentially a great way to go and solve the "engineering shortage" in the U.S. There are tons of qualified engineers in places all over the U.S., but S.V. never bothers to look for them. The great side benefit is that the cost of living in most of the U.S. is much lower than on the coasts meaning you can almost get 2 people in nowhere Alabama or Nashville, Someplace for the price of 1 San Franciscan or 1 New…

I believe outsourcing to the midwest would fix the housing shortage here in the valley as well. Less people would need to move here and thus, hopefully, help rebalance the housing supply.

Re: Bringing Silicon Valley to the Midwest

#56

Post by supergeek133 » Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 5:11 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #10

supergeek133 wrote: post #6

I wish more companies had this mentality, it's amazing how much talent pool they are leaving out there by not allowing remote work for some positions. Especially for those of us that live in the Midwest but cannot leave for any number of reasons.

Honestly, the "right" way for companies to do it is to simple lease an office near a concentration of a few workers. Even if it's just 4 or 5 employees, a nice office with internet and a kitchen isn't very expensive. That way it's not "remote" work, it's just another corporate office location. Checking online in Kansas City, MO. 13,000 SF of office space runs < $10k/mo. That's a bargain. Spot checking other places (C…

For real, I mean I'd even be open to taking a paycut for something like that too.

There are quite a few companies I'd love to work for as a Product Manager, Solution Architect, or Community Manager (I've done a lot). But I can't even entertain the idea because I can't leave MN.

I'd even consider a part time commute story as well (fly there once a month or something).

It's rough!

Re: Bringing Silicon Valley to the Midwest

#57

Post by cwal37 » Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 5:16 PM UTC

001sky wrote: post #52

cwal37 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I know Fermi hahaha, my hometown is literally next to Batavia (Geneva). I just wasn't listing all of the labs. It was a bit surprising to me, but each lab really seems to have a completely different overall culture set, and then it splinters even further within each group. I worked at Livermore one summer, and the differences between them and Oak Ridge (my current employer) are stark. Part of it is that these labs…

What drives so much variation in the cultures do you recon/? More isolation type (galapagos syndrome) or is it the parent/funding culture (beauracracy etc)?

It's a combination of disparate factors. Most labs were set up under different initial conditions, and their future contracts and direction spun out of their initial intention. There are specific nuclear security/safety labs (Livermore/Sandia/Los Alamos), specific fundamental research labs (Fermi/Brookhaven), and more generalist labs (Oak Ridge/Argonne). This is not to say that each lab doesn't have significant overlap.

Livermore may be fundamentally a nuclear security/weapons lab, but they also morphed into a HPC and biotechnology lab, while I worked in more of their general energy research directorate, which covers everything from hydraulic fracturing and carbon sequestration, to novel enzymes for breaking down free methane. To give an exmaple, I never interacted with the people working at the National Ignition Facility, nor was I allowed in their building except on a tour (it was an awesome tour).

Oak Ridge has a general Environmental Sciences Division, which ranges from genetic engineering, to ecology, to soil sampling, to water power technologies research. That's just in the single building where I work, and these are just small subsets of current missions, while labs have specialties in certain areas, such as Livermore being great for lasers, or Argonne being known for transportation research. Oak Ridge has a big campus, and it's easy to never interact with other buildings. I believe both Oak Ridge and Livermore have 7k+ employees.

The labs are also managed completely differently. Livermore is technically run by a corporate board after it was restructured away from the University of California system, maybe 10 or so years ago. Lawrence Berkeley Lab I believe is still in the UC system. Oak Ridge is managed by a combination of Batelle and the University of Tennessee. I want to say Fermi and Brookhaven are managed by national physicist groups or something, although I'm not certain.

And finally, of course, the overall lab culture is influenced by their hiring practices and regionality. Before I became involved in this system I had no idea they were all so different, and the really amazing breadth of projects across all the labs. Hope this helped elucidate it a bit.

Re: Bringing Silicon Valley to the Midwest

#58

Post by 001sky » Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 5:24 PM UTC

cwal37 wrote: post #57

001sky wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What drives so much variation in the cultures do you recon/? More isolation type (galapagos syndrome) or is it the parent/funding culture (beauracracy etc)?

It's a combination of disparate factors. Most labs were set up under different initial conditions, and their future contracts and direction spun out of their initial intention. There are specific nuclear security/safety labs (Livermore/Sandia/Los Alamos), specific fundamental research labs (Fermi/Brookhaven), and more generalist labs (Oak Ridge/Argonne). This is not to say that each lab doesn't have significant overl…

Thanks, this is really interesting.

Re: Bringing Silicon Valley to the Midwest

#59

Post by roc » Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 5:25 PM UTC

nanidin wrote: post #37

bane wrote: post #7

This is potentially a great way to go and solve the "engineering shortage" in the U.S. There are tons of qualified engineers in places all over the U.S., but S.V. never bothers to look for them. The great side benefit is that the cost of living in most of the U.S. is much lower than on the coasts meaning you can almost get 2 people in nowhere Alabama or Nashville, Someplace for the price of 1 San Franciscan or 1 New…

I don't see how two people producing the same output deserve different salaries based on where they live - why should geographic location dictate my salary relative to my peers?

> "why should geographic location dictate my salary relative to my peers?"

It doesn't. Your unwillingness to relocate does.

Everyone has their own reasons for where they're willing to look for work and why. But those reasons, your reasons, have a price tag attached. To you, your reasons + your salary is equivalent to a SV salary. (Else you'd relocate.)

Similarly, companies who are unwilling to allow remote workers and/or choose not to build remote teams aren't paying more because of their location. They're paying more because they value having their employees at their location and that value is greater (to them) than the difference in SV salaries vs the midwest.

Re: Bringing Silicon Valley to the Midwest

#60

Post by ghaff » Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 5:28 PM UTC

nanidin wrote: post #37

bane wrote: post #7

This is potentially a great way to go and solve the "engineering shortage" in the U.S. There are tons of qualified engineers in places all over the U.S., but S.V. never bothers to look for them. The great side benefit is that the cost of living in most of the U.S. is much lower than on the coasts meaning you can almost get 2 people in nowhere Alabama or Nashville, Someplace for the price of 1 San Franciscan or 1 New…

I don't see how two people producing the same output deserve different salaries based on where they live - why should geographic location dictate my salary relative to my peers?

Because "you" (the generic you--not necessarily you specifically) are usually willing to accept a different salary for a given job description based on where you lived based on a variety of factors: alternative opportunities, attractiveness of the area, cost of living (primarily housing), etc. And, in fact, jobs in higher cost of living areas (assuming equivalent jobs are actually available elsewhere) tend to not fully factor in the difference in housing prices.