Why does the website complain about my Ad Blocker, when the article was clearly already paid for by the Tulsa Remote Foundation?
Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa
81–90 of 195 posts
Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa
#82> "We've had over a thousand applicants just in the last two weeks alone How many tech people are in the Bay Area? Is this around one percent?
The Bay Area has around 7.75 million people, so 1k people is around 0.013% of the population. So even if only 2% of the Bay Area works in tech, this would be 0.64% of the tech workers. According to this, it looks like it is closer to 12% of residents work in tech: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/14/tech-employment-bay-a... So that would mean this is about 0.12% of the tech workers in the Bay Area.
Thanks. Seems like a better headline might be "Tiny fraction of Bay Area residents apply to..."
Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa
#83Hehehe, Tulsa Oklahoma. I wonder how many of them visited before applying. I don't mean to knock the city, but it is a very different place, and SF residents might chafe at the lack of interesting nature in the surrounding area. Probably the closest large park-ish area would be the Ozarks over in Arkansas. It's a lovely forest, but still about a 2.5-hour drive away. And OK's state highways are absolutely littered wit…
The Ozarks extend well into Missouri as well (also a few hours drive). Ozark the Netflix series even though filmed in Georgia? takes place ~4.5 hrs drive from Tulsa. Besides the forest it's known for all the rivers that people float down.
[deleted]
Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa
#84If $10k is all it took to incentivize someone to leave the Bay Area, I suspect they never really moved here for the right reasons.
Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Part of changing and improve things is to actually move there to dilute the bigotry Yes, bigotry is a nasty stain. Otherwise this thought sounds so tone deaf. The common perception outside California is that Californians royally fucked it up and are flooding out like water from a ruptured damn, except they are bringing their political baggage with them to damage their new home just like the thing they can’t escape…
It’s really odd to me that California is perceived to be such a problem while the area is so economically productive. It’s a very odd type of cognitive dissonance where something is both a model to be copied and a mess at the same time by the same people. People try and recreate Silicon Valley while arguing non competes must be enforced. As if the ideas must inherently be unrelated.
I also agree it seems like some weird cognitive dissonance to look down on California’s labor and environmental laws, as if many people like to pretend they’re in the owner class. Sure, some are crazy, but overall it’s a trend in the right direction to benefit the vast majority of worker bees, at least the ones who aren’t pretending they’re going to be millionaires.
Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you're getting paid a tech salary to live in Tulsa + $10k who the FUCK cares if a clerk is rude to you? They probably make $2k per month and live in a $500 / month apartment and can't afford to leave, can't afford to fly anywhere. Financial success should give you some fortitude to withstand really minor insults like that.
> if you're getting paid a tech salary to live in Tulsa + $10k who the FUCK cares if a clerk is rude to you? I think of my New York City taxes as a country club fee. That way they aren’t half bad. If I made a little less or a lot more they would be a problem. But having distance from racists, homophobes and idiots, who tend to congregate in low-cost places for being, generally, useless, is worth a few tens of thousan…
> for being, generally, useless
While I understand what you’re going for here, this feels a bit eugenics-ish to me. They are as much a human being as you are and people are capable of change. Odds are they didn’t choose to live there.
Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa
#87"If selected, applicants are required to strictly stay in the Tulsa city limits." Once you factor in relocation costs, the fact that urban apartments in major cities are offering revised rates & X months free, and that you're still in a city (free coworking doesn't make sense if you're concerned about the pandemic), it's moot. Thinking wildly aloud, maybe one idea is to have collective bargaining rather than money. S…
What are the effects of transferring sovereignty? Does it mean US citizens or green card holders who aren't Cherokee can't live there?
Cherokee is but one of the nations in Oklahoma.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Native_American_trib...
Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Part of changing and improve things is to actually move there to dilute the bigotry Yes, bigotry is a nasty stain. Otherwise this thought sounds so tone deaf. The common perception outside California is that Californians royally fucked it up and are flooding out like water from a ruptured damn, except they are bringing their political baggage with them to damage their new home just like the thing they can’t escape…
It’s really odd to me that California is perceived to be such a problem while the area is so economically productive. It’s a very odd type of cognitive dissonance where something is both a model to be copied and a mess at the same time by the same people. People try and recreate Silicon Valley while arguing non competes must be enforced. As if the ideas must inherently be unrelated.
Aside from not allowing non-competes what is there to copy?
Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa
#89Hehehe, Tulsa Oklahoma. I wonder how many of them visited before applying. I don't mean to knock the city, but it is a very different place, and SF residents might chafe at the lack of interesting nature in the surrounding area. Probably the closest large park-ish area would be the Ozarks over in Arkansas. It's a lovely forest, but still about a 2.5-hour drive away. And OK's state highways are absolutely littered wit…
These programs existed for decades before the pandemic. They never caught on for a very simple reason: CoL is literally the only advantage. $10K is nothing compared to the uphill climb of career progression that inevitably comes with remote work. Hell, $10K literally less than my first relocation package and I was moving a single bedroom. TL;DR: no one moves to SFBA because it's the best CoL vs salary choice, and the…
I actually moved to the Bay Area because long term it has the best compensation when accounting for cost of living that I calculated for net take home pay unless I wanted to move over to NYC fintech (definitely don’t want to). While $300k+ is a pipe dream in most of the US, it’s attainable in the Bay Area working for a big tech company as a modest goal.
Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Part of changing and improve things is to actually move there to dilute the bigotry Yes, bigotry is a nasty stain. Otherwise this thought sounds so tone deaf. The common perception outside California is that Californians royally fucked it up and are flooding out like water from a ruptured damn, except they are bringing their political baggage with them to damage their new home just like the thing they can’t escape…
It’s really odd to me that California is perceived to be such a problem while the area is so economically productive. It’s a very odd type of cognitive dissonance where something is both a model to be copied and a mess at the same time by the same people. People try and recreate Silicon Valley while arguing non competes must be enforced. As if the ideas must inherently be unrelated.
> It’s really odd to me that California is perceived to be such a problem while the area is so economically productive. It’s a very odd type of cognitive dissonance where something is both a model to be copied and a mess at the same time by the same people.
it's only odd if you think economic productivity is the sole determination of what makes a desirable place to live. regarding SF in particular, it's phenomenal what has been accomplished there, don't get me wrong. but this has to be weighed against the fact that a "starter home" costs $1mm, the rate of petty crime rivals that of the most dangerous cities in america, etc. it's not cognitive dissonance to acknowledge that, while great things have been accomplished, a lot of stupid mistakes have also been made.
and by the way, I don't think the ban on non-competes is usually what people are thinking of when they describe california as a mess.