361–370 of 408 posts
The reality is that as long as companies keep building campuses and requiring people to come into the office in the Bay that many people can't move. I work remotely, only because our building was shut down due to a natural disaster. And when management realized productivity actually increased for the three months all 500 of us were working remotely,they never reopened the office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've worked remote for almost three years for a profitable startup. It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but not having a commute is incredibly liberating. I've also found my careeer options to not be limited by being remote. Also, I live in Florida 20 minutes from one of the best beaches in the country. Not as "culturally fulfilling" as say the Mission or Castro districts (have been to SF more times than I can count,…
That sounds great! I'd move back to Florida in a heartbeat if I could. I used to live on the beach for chrissakes. But it sounds like a tremendous risk. You're betting that you're always going to get to stay with that company that allows remote work, or that you'll be able to find another one. I've done a tech job search while living in Florida--not pretty. It goes like this: Company's hiring manager: "Move to the Ba…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two factors perpetuate this: 1) Americans have a self-hating working class. 2) American home-owners are politically organized, and constantly lobby to prevent the construction of both new single-family houses and apartment buildings in general.
> American home-owners are politically organized, and constantly lobby to prevent the construction of both new single-family houses and apartment buildings in general That's over-generalizing. Many locations in the USA have sensible zoning. SF is the exception.
[1] -- http://www.vox.com/2016/6/16/11948630/somerville-zoning-ille...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely private schools in SF don't have metal detectors.
Sure, but irrelevant. Who can afford private school for their kids? I bet executive jets offer great convenience and no security lines, but that doesn't have any bearing on my vacation plans.
The answer is simple: most people don't live intentionally. I regularly meet miserable people in SF that could elevate their happiness by changing their life situation. But they don't, because the default path is easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My town, Sydney is not expensive because there is a handful of Googlers like me live around here. Google here because Sydney is the kind of place that people pay lots of money to stay in. And so I have to pay too much rent. I love Sydney, it is (spiritually) my home town. But I wish the company would move to Wagga Wagga. I mean the place even looks like Mountain View.
Ex-Aussie here. I wish that Australia would adopt a more de-centralise strategy on tech hubs. I live in Germany now and have seen multinational companies setup their European HQ is small cities or towns. This is equivalent to having Atlassian setting up their HQ in Bathurst.
In Europe "far" away from any big town can mean as little as 50km. Especially in Germany, you are never very far from some mid-size city which once dominated a independent principality.
Rhode & Schwarz, B/H/S and Siemens all have HQs within about 10 minute bike ride of where I used to live in Munich. Other companies in small towns were a somewhat more arduous bike ride away.
The companies I dealt with that were more than 100km from any big city were more into heavy industry. They are the Aussie equivalent of Newcastle or Gladstone, only with many more companies to go around.
Is it really that surprising? The cost-of-living vs. increased salary equation almost always works out in your favor if you are young, single, and don't mind a roommate. It's essentially an arbitrage. You're being paid in the employment market where salaries are based on an average standard. Meanwhile you're happy living in the housing market at a below average standard and keeping the profits. That profit quickly di…
The big question: after you get your tech "graduate education", are you able to put down roots and create an adult life in these places, or does it make sense to move elsewhere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they do have many things in common: * Warm weather year round * Lots of great universities * Large hispanic population (and immigrants in general) * 2 largest states in the contiguous US The most glaring difference is probably the conservative politics. But that's mostly the rural areas. And the hispanic population may actually help change that. Note: not implying that all hispanic people automatically vote dem…
As the other poster said, Hispanic people in general are extremely socially conservative and religious. They vote reliably Democrat because the GOP panders to white racists and people with anti-hispanic-immigration feelings. As soon as that changes and the GOP embraces them, they're going to be a very reliable GOP voting bloc; all the GOP has to do is promise to end abortion and pander to Catholicism, and they'll get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I personally there is nothing wrong with being able to buy a visa. Many people in a country don't pay few taxes in their life. So when someone comes and invests a good amount, it is ok to honor this with visa or passport. Would just be cool if every country would allow easier immigration for ordinary people, too.
No, it's not okay, it reduces citizenship and community to a dollar value, which is just more neoliberalism. It doesn't pay the government anything either - for eb5 investor commonly makes a profit, and only has to employ ten Americans at full time minimum wage (not much tax there). The immigrants income is usually left back home (mainly China) and they don't declare it in the US since it's out of reach of the IRS. M…
1) US citizens are taxed on global income forever. (Perhaps it's hard for the IRS to enforce for people whose assets are in countries that don't share information with the US, but it's not impossible.)
2) UK tier-1 investor visa holders must be outside the UK for fewer than 180 days per year, which means they must be in the UK for 185 or 186 days per year, which means they would be subject to tax on their global income during that period. (But of course once they become British Citizens, they could ensure they stay in the UK for fewer than 183 days per year, meaning they'd only pay tax on their local income (which could be zero)).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For every person like you someone buys in a neighborhood that never gets better. Some get worse. It's not a money train. I think you are bragging and that you don't understand the wider system, nor where your gains come from.
I think you need to understand a neighborhood well before you buy in. If you throw a dart on a map, yeah it's a lottery. But anyone without a hole in their head could tell (for example) that Broadway on the red line was going to explode, and it did!