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

Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 451 posts

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#91

Post by bcheung »

flatline wrote: post #35
syntaxing wrote: post #11

I'm super curious how this will WFH Covid-era will play out for the Bay Area. I think the question I haven't figured out is job mobility. Pre-covid, even if you lost your job here as an engineer, finding another company thats interesting with the right pay isn't too hard which is one of the best appeals of SV. I wonder how this will play out in terms of this dynamic.

I'm curious what it will do to tech salaries as well. Will developers working remotely for SV companies from LCOL areas be compensated the same as those in SV? Will smaller firms elsewhere have to raise salaries to compete with locals taking non-regional salaries?

Short term:

People working remote in other locations will have higher salaries from SV companies since they are used to paying those salaries.

People moving from SV to other locations should expect moderate drops (10-20%). In my own experience moving to a 0% state income tax state, it effectively canceled out the savings from CA tax but the cheaper housing more than made up for it.

Longer term:

Tech salaries will come down as employers hire from a larger talent pool that is cheaper on average. This will make it hard for people in SV to work remote as they won't be as competitive. This probably means SV will become more affordable.

> be compensated the same as those in SV?

Generally speaking no, compensation has an aspect of location. Companies are going to have a harder time paying SV rates if they know you are in a cheaper area.

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#93

Post by throwaway201103 »

majormajor wrote: post #50
rainyMammoth wrote: post #10

How long before all the Californians make Austin the exact same place they fled from?

You're confusing supply-and-demand-driven cost of living with liberal vs conservative politics. NIMBYism and desires for high-paying jobs cut across the American political spectrum. (Existing property owners in Austin, however, may be ecstatic if their property is suddenly priced like SF value... but that doesn't mean they're gonna want to relax zoning and increase density and change the shape and character of their…

I was thinking that Austin didn't have zoning, but that's actually Houston.

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#95

Post by lotsofpulp »

tidepod12 wrote: post #83
lotsofpulp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does a state export a cost of living? Or are you referring to price increases due to increase in demand? If so, that does not seem like a notable phenomenon.

Californians in LA/SF are used to paying $800k for a house, and the Cali salaries are high enough to support it. A Texan in Dallas/Austin is used to paying $250k for that same house, and has a relatively lower salary to match. The Californians, after years of having higher salary, more savings, and a job that lets them move, goes to Texas and offers $400k for that same house. The Californian thinks it's a great deal,…

>The Californians, after years of having higher salary, more savings, and a job that lets them move, goes to Texas and offers $400k for that same house.

Nobody pays more for something just because they have more savings. They pay more because they might be getting outbid by someone.

I don't see the purpose of characterizing that as "California exporting higher costs of living".

People with more money outbid people with less money all over the world all the time. You can say "Americans are exporting higher cost of living" by purchasing avocados from Mexico, or factory capacity in China, etc. and depriving the locals who can't afford to pay the same.

I'm sure the people in the poorer neighborhoods of Dallas and Austin are complaining about the richer neighborhoods exporting a higher cost of living.

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#96

Post by tinyhouse »

abfan1127 wrote: post #24
ilaksh wrote: post #3

Is _this_ the point where everyone and their grandpa has finally figured out that Austin is cool, and therefore it is automatically not cool anymore? What's the next hip town?

based on the skyrocketing real estate prices in Phoenix, I suspect many Californians are moving to AZ.

Really? Never been in Phoenix but I saw last summer they had some heat waves reaching temperatures around 120F (on top of being very humid). Why is it popular?

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#97

Post by vzaliva »

dragonwriter wrote: post #86
vzaliva wrote: post #80

Some people lament the decline of Silicon Vally companies like Tesla and Oracle moving out. I argue it could be a good thing. These giant enterprises are not really a pinnacle of entrepreneurship and innovation anymore. Let them move elsewhere and keep the Bay Area nurturing new entrepreneurs and startups. It is huge cubicle farms vs. garages and coworking places kind of distinction.

Drawing experienced personnel from established firms has, as I understand it, long been a big driver for startups in the region. While some established firms leaving isn’t a problem, if it becomes too common, its a problem for entrepreneurship. OTOH, a few established firms with large campuses leaving also means a lot of space without the usual problems involved available for other established firms that get into lot…

Have you ever tried to "draw" somebody who spent last 20 years working for HP into startup? In most cases these people are not flexible enough, stuck in a ways things have been done at their previous job and having difficulty adjusting. I recall hiring one such engineer for then 5 person startup and he asked who will be the IT guy to set up his computer! Disclaimer: of course there are exceptions.

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#98

Post by bsder »

g42gregory wrote: post #12

I think this is a major news for Silicon Valley. Schwab, HPE, now Oracle. I hope that this would give somebody in California Legislature a pause.

Actually, I think the reverse.

Some of the people who are just sitting in those companies collecting a paycheck have to make a choice now. They either leave the state or leave the company.

The good ones are likely to leave the company rather than move. That's going to be helpful to Silicon Valley as it's going to unlock a bunch of brainpower that was sitting mostly idle.

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#99

Post by tidepod12 »

songshuu wrote: post #89
tidepod12 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been to Austin? It has the worst transportation network in the entire state of Texas, and that's a really low bar. The bus network is mediocre at best, the rail system (actually only one line) is practically useless, and there's only two highways that are notoriously gridlocked at all hours, even in non rush-hour.

Yeah, but they just passed Project Connect so expect that to change quite a bit. https://www.capmetro.org/project-connect

I'm excited about Project Connect, but let's not kid ourselves: construction on the rail lines and highway improvements isn't even going to begin until 2024, with completion dates (barring no delays) in 2029, with most of the completion dates in the mid 2030s.

At Austin's current rate of growth, by the time Project Connect makes any material progress, it'll already be obsolete and overburdened.

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#100

Post by avl999 »

tidepod12 wrote: post #83
lotsofpulp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does a state export a cost of living? Or are you referring to price increases due to increase in demand? If so, that does not seem like a notable phenomenon.

Californians in LA/SF are used to paying $800k for a house, and the Cali salaries are high enough to support it. A Texan in Dallas/Austin is used to paying $250k for that same house, and has a relatively lower salary to match. The Californians, after years of having higher salary, more savings, and a job that lets them move, goes to Texas and offers $400k for that same house. The Californian thinks it's a great deal,…

> The Californians, after years of having higher salary, more savings, and a job that lets them move, goes to Texas and offers $400k for that same house. The Californian thinks it's a great deal, because they get the same size house they previously lived in for only half the price! And the seller thinks it's great, because he now suddenly gets a huge premium on his previously-valued-at-$250k-house. All of the real estate responds in kind, expecting to get $400k+ from all the Cali transplants. However, the average Texan, who doesn't have that high paying salary, gets priced out and can no longer afford a house in their city.

That makes no sense. If the housing prices in a market go up, it is because there is more demand without an increase in supply. Not because a certain group is paying almost double the market value for absolutely no reason.

Post reply on HN