As New Zealand Courts Tech Talent, Isolation Becomes a Draw • Hacker News Board

Re: As New Zealand Courts Tech Talent, Isolation Becomes a Draw

#231

Post by EdwardDiego » Fri, Apr 14, 2017, 9:31 PM UTC

jly wrote: post #42

bspn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too am considering a move to NZ for family reasons, and visited Auckland last month. It truly is a spectacular city framed by an amazing harbor, but it's not without some faults. My thoughts on the cons you raise based on conversations I had with a few locals: > housing prices are extremely high. I don't understand that, there is plenty of space everywhere (maybe except Wellington) and somehow they manage to not us…

My wife is an expat kiwi and we visit NZ every year since most of her family lives there still. We have also been contemplating a move back from the US, but housing prices (especially Auckland, but everywhere that isn't rural farmland is an issue) and lower salaries are the only thing preventing us, still. Auckland is an amazing city but it's so incredibly congested and expensive that unless you are wealthy or in the…

Yeah, the rebuild is very slow, which frustrates the locals no end, but it's happening. CBD (aka "downtown") area aside, we've never stopped being like Auckland or Wellington - we have overpriced houses and congested motorways too!

Re: As New Zealand Courts Tech Talent, Isolation Becomes a Draw

#232

Post by jostmey » Fri, Apr 14, 2017, 9:32 PM UTC

There's something special when a certain density of talented people live together. Moving toward an isolated environment is never a good idea. I'm sure the title is a little misleading.

Disclaimer: I have nothing against New Zealand and I am no fan of San Francisco

Re: As New Zealand Courts Tech Talent, Isolation Becomes a Draw

#233

Post by cookiecaper » Fri, Apr 14, 2017, 9:32 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #181

cookiecaper wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those aren't the only jobs in low-cost areas. Almost every mid-size or larger company has an internal software group making real software, and every metropolitan area has at least several of these. Lots of that is on older "enterprise" stacks v. cool open-source or experimental stacks, but it's still a plenty legitimate career path, and you'd be surprised how modern a company that looks like a dinosaur at first glanc…

> Those aren't the only jobs in low-cost areas. Almost every mid-size or larger company has an internal software group making real software, and every metropolitan area has at least several of these. Having one company in an area does not help. My original comment dealt with the risk of when that one company doesn't work out for whatever reason. If that's the only tech employer in the area, you're screwed. Even if th…

I mean, yeah, you're correct that there are many more potential technical employers in San Francisco. However, this doesn't necessarily correlate with those jobs being more accessible or desirable than the jobs available in other places.

For one, you have a lot more competition from other applicants, because every brogrammer thinks that he needs to move to SV to be part of the scene (and I really dislike that SV is becoming Hollywood-for-nerds; flooded with tons of fledgling wannabes who worship at the feet of an elite few).

For two, you have a lot more snobbery and people expecting specific pedigrees. They want Ivy League, they want other startup or big-name tech experience, etc. There are a lot more people who think talking to a candidate coming from a job in Nebraska where he wrote software for a company that runs a machinery rental business (for example) is below them. That type of experience is severely undervalued, and if SF needs anything it's more people with an appreciation for a stable production ethos.

For three, SF is appreciably worse along most axes and the extreme cost of living means the "extra" money go down the drain very quickly, seriously diluting the real value of the salary. This is compounded when you consider that taxes are also very high in CA and SF, especially compared with states without income taxes like TX or FL.

Four, we're talking about "the Midwest" as a unit here, but the fact is there are a lot of cities in the Midwest and some of them have a lot more bustle than others. There are not many companies that are strictly tech companies, but there are hundreds of potential employers in every metro area, and again, some are much more active than others.

Also, when discussing job markets in the "Midwest", I'm really referring to everything that's not a tech hub, because the distinction is really tech hub v. non-tech hub. Houston and Dallas/Ft. Worth are in the top 5 biggest metros in the US and I'm sure there's plenty of tech work there. Florida is one of the most populous states in the US and the availability will depend on the metro, but they have a good share of tech work. The Mountain West has much to offer (especially Utah).

The point is that there is plenty of opportunity for someone who wants to look outside of NYC, SF, SEA, and LA. No one should feel like they're trapped there as long as they're willing to work for some companies that aren't household names.

Lastly, you never run out of opportunities if you're willing to work remote, and this can be a good way to maximize the benefit of low COL areas.

Re: As New Zealand Courts Tech Talent, Isolation Becomes a Draw

#234

Post by RantyDave » Fri, Apr 14, 2017, 9:32 PM UTC

EdwardDiego wrote: post #222

mistermann wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> housing prices are extremely high. I don't understand that, Same problem Canada has: interest rates below the rate of (real, unadjusted) inflation, and no limitations on foreign ownership of real estate (a major catalyst, at least , for a bubble).

Also - no capital gains tax means that most domestic investment is poured into housing as opposed to something productive like investing in business.

This. We also have large numbers of Chinese coming over and buying houses because it's a safe store of value... something the Chinese government can't just take one day.

Re: As New Zealand Courts Tech Talent, Isolation Becomes a Draw

#235

Post by EdwardDiego » Fri, Apr 14, 2017, 9:33 PM UTC

abalashov wrote: post #74

bspn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too am considering a move to NZ for family reasons, and visited Auckland last month. It truly is a spectacular city framed by an amazing harbor, but it's not without some faults. My thoughts on the cons you raise based on conversations I had with a few locals: > housing prices are extremely high. I don't understand that, there is plenty of space everywhere (maybe except Wellington) and somehow they manage to not us…

One concern I always have in the back of my mind about NZ is seismic activity. I thought of it since you mentioned Christchurch. It's unlikely to be seen as a major downside by those living in California and along the Pacific Rim, and it's clear NZ is no worse than Japan in terms of seismic risk, yet an advanced economy with plenty of people thrives there, to put it mildly. But coming from the US midwest and then the…

We are still expecting a very big earthquake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_Fault

But, the earthquake that hit Christchurch directly removed the seismically vulnerable buildings, and typically we've built for earthquakes - hence why our predominant building material is wood not brick or stone.

Re: As New Zealand Courts Tech Talent, Isolation Becomes a Draw

#236

Post by RantyDave » Fri, Apr 14, 2017, 9:34 PM UTC

Tiktaalik wrote: post #113

TheAlchemist wrote: post #13

That's interesting ! I'm intending to make a move with my family in near future, and we actually went to visit the northern island for 15 days last month. The country is really beautiful, and there are not a lot of people around, so you can't help but feel blessed by the surrounding nature. The people are great, probably the nicest I've ever seen (as a whole). I've noted some cons though (not blocking for us thankful…

I've been to NZ a few times, love the country, but agree with quite a few of these downsides. I'd also tack on that the variety of transportation options are very low. Cycling and public transit infrastructure is very poor and far, far behind other first world countries. From my understanding traffic and commuting in Auckland is a complete nightmare due to the weak public transit system. It's a bit of a southern hemi…

Denser living is not necessary if you have good public transport. Like Auckland doesn't.

Re: As New Zealand Courts Tech Talent, Isolation Becomes a Draw

#237

Post by EdwardDiego » Fri, Apr 14, 2017, 9:36 PM UTC

TheAlchemist wrote: post #77

abalashov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One concern I always have in the back of my mind about NZ is seismic activity. I thought of it since you mentioned Christchurch. It's unlikely to be seen as a major downside by those living in California and along the Pacific Rim, and it's clear NZ is no worse than Japan in terms of seismic risk, yet an advanced economy with plenty of people thrives there, to put it mildly. But coming from the US midwest and then the…

Just don't go to Rotorua :) The whole place feels like it's unstable and ready to blow ! I loved the city, but I'm not sure I could live there, with those constant remainders of the seismic activity (this plus the smell...)

I wouldn't worry about earthquakes in Rotorua - if you get any, they're a helpful warning of impending eruption ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taupo_Volcanic_Zone

Fun fact - Auckland is built on a large monogenetic volcanic field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_volcanic_field

Re: As New Zealand Courts Tech Talent, Isolation Becomes a Draw

#238

Post by EdwardDiego » Fri, Apr 14, 2017, 9:38 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #194

pxlpshr wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not saying I disagree with you but... historical immigration policy certainly impacts "today's" population size that you're using to draw your comparison.

The US has an incredibly wealthy continent at its disposal, full of mineral wealth and fertile farmland, with centuries of infrastructure, close to global trading hubs. New Zealand has a couple of mid-sized islands, neither of which are particularly good for agriculture or mineral wealth, are a very long way from trading hubs, and has the shortest history of built infrastructure of all western democracies. But if you…

> New Zealand has a couple of mid-sized islands, neither of which are particularly good for agriculture

That sure hasn't stopped us. We're responsible for 30% of the world's dairy exports.

Re: As New Zealand Courts Tech Talent, Isolation Becomes a Draw

#239

Post by EdwardDiego » Fri, Apr 14, 2017, 9:39 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #190

geebee wrote: post #158

New Zealand does sound pretty incredible. A massive national park, the size of California, with only 5 million people, and very liveable and appealing cities. Here's the thing. Would New Zealand stay that way if it pursued a policy of large scale immigration, they way the US has? The US takes well over a million new immigrants into the country every year. 10 years of our immigration would triple the size of New Zeala…

> Here's the thing. Would New Zealand stay that way if it pursued a policy of large scale immigration, they way the US has? Both NZ and Australia take in a far higher rate of immigrants than the US. You should change your question to "Imagine if the US took in as many immigrants as NZ". NZ has a serious problem in that because it's easier for an NZ citizen to become Australian, a lot of immigrants use NZ as a 'steppi…

> NZ has a serious problem in that because it's easier for an NZ citizen to become Australian

Australia specifically changed laws to make it very hard for an NZ citizen to become an Australian citizen back in the 90s.

Re: As New Zealand Courts Tech Talent, Isolation Becomes a Draw

#240

Post by geebee » Fri, Apr 14, 2017, 9:41 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #212

geebee wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As mentioned above, keep in mind the US has a higher total population precisely because it has had higher historical levels of immigration. Suppose the US had a total population of 500 million and NZ only 2 million. Would that mean NZ is looking even better? How about a billion? By your way of measuring, the more a country grows through immigration, the more immigrants it is required to take in to meet a per-capita m…

...? Per-capita measurements are the way you look at these things. Putting 1M people per year into a country with the infrastructure and resources to handle 310M people is nothing. Putting 1M people per year into a country with the infrastructure and resources to handle 4M is crippling, to the point of destroying the country's social cohesion. Bridges, housing, agriculture, hospitals... none of these things are broug…

To be clear, I absolutely agree with you that percentages are a factor. Our disagreement with you is whether they are the only factor.

To take in a comparable percentage of immigrants, by your calculation, the US would need to take in 3,750,000 immigrants a year.

Now, there are certainly 50,000 well educated engineers, scientists and other high skill workers who would might be willing to move somewhere else. But are there 3,750,000 such people? The nature of the immigration is different. That's not to say the US shouldn't be taking in 3,750,000 people per year, just that the challenges of doing so could be dramatically different from what New Zealand experiences with 50,000.

This is where sheer scale comes in. I don't think you can extrapolate from a simple linear projection. When you hit a certain scale, new challenges emerge. This is especially the case where it comes to population - after all, a high population density can indicate that a region is less able to take in more immigrants, not more! Perhaps your numbers could just as easily lead to the conclusion that New Zealand has a lot of catching up to do?

I do want to be clear about something here - I'm not (necessarily) arguing for policy one way or the other. My point is more narrow, which is that that using the "percentages" argument to praise New Zealand as an immigrant friendly place because it takes 50,000 immigrants a year, and the US as a xenophobic one because it only takes in about 1,200,000 a year misses a large number of critical factors.

For instance, New Zealand has a population density of 15/km_sq. The US has 84. This may reflect a much higher level of historical immigration. The way you calculate it, the US is considered a less hospitable country to immigration because it has had so much of it that the per capita numbers are lower!

And, of course, population density itself poses problems (after all, Australia has a large, hot, and dry interior, and Canada certainly has a lot of frozen land).

In short, I'm not saying your factors are unimportant, I'm saying that you've over relied on a single metric that leaves out far too much to reach these conclusions.