Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Plans Large New York City Expansion

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 394 posts

Re: Google Plans Large New York City Expansion

#231

Post by caymanjim »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #113
ramraj07 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a tech worker in NYC and none of my firends (except one idiot) pays more than 2500 for their studio apartment within Manhattan. I share a super fancy apartment in a hirise in Brooklyn and pay less than 2K. If you're okay living in Queens you can get a 2BR with less than 1h commute. And this is not even talking about distant Brooklyn, Bronx or jersey (also less tax)

You can also get a 2BR less than one hour's commute away from San Francisco for under $2000 / month.

None of the tech jobs are in San Francisco. Unlike most cities, people live in SF/Oakland and commute to the suburbs in Mountain View and Palo Alto to work, and that commute is closer to two hours door to door.

Re: Google Plans Large New York City Expansion

#232

Post by hnmcQIOoQUDv »

zjaffee wrote: post #50
hnmcQIOoQUDv wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

St John's Terminal really isn't the same neighborhood as Chelsea Market. It's little over a mile to the south.

I must've overlooked that part, that doesn't seem too bad actually given that it's about a half mile from the christopher street path stop.

I'd hope they negotiate a ferry (maybe NY Waterway) from Hoboken, PATH is fairly crowded already and that Christopher St stop is a one–exit nightmare.

Re: Google Plans Large New York City Expansion

#233

Post by konamicode »

woolvalley wrote: post #123
chrisseaton wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand - are you giving this near half-million single bedroom as an example of affordability?

Well if your income is $133k/yr, then it would fit in the 3x annual income rule for housing affordability, which the typical sr eng at google now exceeds.

> it would fit in the 3x annual income rule for housing affordability

Could you please expand on this rule? Where did it come from? Feels like impossibility in some countries.

Re: Google Plans Large New York City Expansion

#234

Post by throwawaymath »

MikeKusold wrote: post #219
throwawaymath wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in NYC and I’m not going to try to change your mind, but out of curiosity what don’t you like about it? Winter? The smell? Too many people?

I currently live in Denver and spend almost every weekend in the mountains. To me, the depressing part of NYC is the complete lack of fresh air, outdoor activities, and solitude. Different strokes for different people.

I’ve never been to Denver, but I’ve been to Oregon and your comment reminds me of the beautiful hiking and scenery available there. I can definitely sympathize with that. My partner and I typically flee to a nice area upstate for a weekend every so often so we can enjoy nature more.

Re: Google Plans Large New York City Expansion

#235

Post by lotsofpulp »

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #199
lotsofpulp wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you count the opportunity cost of the time, stress, and money you spend using NJTransit to commute into Manhattan, and especially if you’re commuting further into other boroughs, the tax savings of NJ turn into losses.

There's other ways into NYC from NJ that aren't the train. There are many ferry options along the hudson, and nothern shore area has a commuter ferry that is 40 minutes to Wall St.

Yes, the strip of land from Jersey City to Edgewater is an exception in terms of travel time, but that doesn't apply to many NJ to NYC commuters.

Re: Google Plans Large New York City Expansion

#236

Post by redblacktree »

tootie wrote: post #220
bsbechtel wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define economic winner....you mean top line income and area GDP? These places are the most expensive places in the country to live, and quality of living is considerably lower. Incomes may be lower in many areas of the country, but when you consider you can pay $2k/mo on a 5,000 sq ft mortgage instead of renting a 900 sq ft apartment, I don't view these places as economically successful as many perceive them to be.

People don't want 5000 sq ft anymore. I looked at suburban houses as an option and was thinking I hope I never have enough crap to fill this much space. I think I can comfortably fit my family of 4 in 1200 sq ft indefinitely and never own a car.

Do you have kids yet? Genuinely curious.

Re: Google Plans Large New York City Expansion

#237

Post by del82 »

dionidium wrote: post #205
TulliusCicero wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I mean by having lots of high-paying jobs. Speaking in the abstract, that means economic success. You're not wrong that high cost of living can often cancel much of that out at the individual level though. > quality of living is considerably lower. See my other nearby comment for why this is a "it depends" thing. A lot of people would consider living in Kansas City to have lower "quality of life" than NYC even i…

> "Well, they should care more about A B C instead (because I do)." I'm guilty of this, but I think your formulation is a straw man. All I want to tell people is that they shouldn't reflexively rule out the middle of the country, because a lot of people really would be happier there. Not everybody, but some people . And the way (some people on) the coasts talk about the Midwest and the South is as though they're a co…

I grew up in Michigan and moved to greater NYC after grad school, and I want to push back a bit against the idea that nobody on the coasts even considers the middle of the country.

My spouse and I would love to move somewhere less expensive than NYC, but we just can't make it work. We're both in fairly specialized tech fields, and prioritize walkability, diversity, great schools and career growth opportunity. Outside of say Chicago, it's hard to come up with a place that checks those boxes.

Re: Google Plans Large New York City Expansion

#238

Post by dragonwriter »

ndnxhs wrote: post #76
eloff wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point. It's a tough sell to relocate someone and give them a lower salary. Who'd take that deal?

People who understand the lower salary is easily made up for by lower living costs.

> People who understand the lower salary is easily made up for by lower living costs.

But it's not for lots of people who can afford positive savings in both locations, unless the absolute pay difference is less than the absolute difference in CoL at the level they would maintain in each place; even people who would prefer the lifestyle and environment of a cheaper (often rural) place often spend most of their working life in an area with a more robust economy and higher pay and CoL to increase savings, and then retire to the cheaper place. (A lot of the net domestic migration out from CA is, I suspect, that, as people executing that strategy reach retirement.) And that's not to say anything of how that utilities balance for people who actually prefer the lifestyle and environment of the more expensive location.

Re: Google Plans Large New York City Expansion

#239

Post by saalweachter »

hnmcQIOoQUDv wrote: post #217
saalweachter wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, you can get to dense suburbia in about 45 minutes, sparse suburbia in like 1 hour, and if you're willing to commute 90 minutes, maybe two hours, you're out in what city slickers would call "rural". Also don't forget Long Island, the Other In State. (I'm one of the idiots who commutes ~2 hours from near Poughkeepsie, which is (a) still on commuter rail [the super-express Hudson line train takes ~90 minutes, plus t…

I tried commuting from Poughkeepsie (well, that odd stop one stop south) during the dotcom 90s and it nearly killed me. The train was fine, but that final 30 minutes on the subway downtown just pushed it over the edge. Gave up after six months. If you can manage it and keep to sane working hours (I was working 9:30 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. routinely) keep doing it.

Yeah, I mostly agree; I did Metro North for a couple of years before switching to Amtrak. It's less flexible and a little more expensive than Metro North, but the train is usually faster and it drops you off by Penn Station which is a pleasant walk to the Google office (and like 5 minutes by subway if you don't feel like a pleasant walk).

My personal limit is 12-13 hours out of the house each day; more than that and it burns me out fast. It definitely wouldn't work for me with an employer who was less flexible about when the work day starts or who had expectations of large numbers of hours spent with butt in chair.

Re: Google Plans Large New York City Expansion

#240

Post by esotericn »

wil421 wrote: post #214
esotericn wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been the case in the UK since, well, forever. In every field I can think of, London has the top tier jobs. It surprises me that the US was ever different. I'm wondering whether it's a young country effect. I don't think it's "Elysium" as claimed. It's more like - if you're competitive and want to be the best in a field, you're probably (not always) going to move to London. If you want to live a life, raise a…

You’re comparing the UK to the whole US when you should compare it to California or the Northeast. A better comparison would be Europe but I think London and SF would still be the best paying.

Not a fair comparison.

The UK doesn't have labour mobility with the rest of Europe. Even within the EU it's not as simple as 'move from Poland to France and get a job'.

Most of the countries have different languages.

"Europe" isn't a country.

Post reply on HN