4 ms·

It isn't really a way to get $10k out of an employer at all. The point is that some people genuinely don't want to live in the Bay Area and this offer could gi

by mdasen 10y ago

It isn't really a way to get $10k out of an employer at all. The point is that some people genuinely don't want to live in the Bay Area and this offer could give them an opportunity/incentive to leave. There are plenty of non-Bay Area markets that have thriving software scenes and even places that offer you more disposable income once housing costs are factored in. My cynical view on it is that it's more of a marketing ploy. Lots of non-Bay Area folk will be reading this and might make a decision to apply. I don't think they're trying to trap people. They're already a remote company. It's not like they're a major company employing 5,000 SWEs in the Bay Area and offering to relocate them to Northern Michigan where they're setting up a new office, but there won't be other companies around. While you might have more options in San Francisco than Seattle, I think the amount of leverage that more companies give you in your career is probably logarithmically increasing. That is to say, Seattle would have more than enough other companies around that the company couldn't forego raises and equity grants because you don't have other options. And I think it would be a good thing for our industry to spread out a bit more. Some people have families in certain areas they wish to be close to, some people enjoy the local culture and amenities of certain areas more than others. Having people feel "forced" to live in locations that aren't their cup of tea for economic opportunity isn't really helping anything. The people who do want to live there face increased housing prices and congestion. The people who would rather live somewhere else make a choice for their career that doesn't match what they'd choose for their life. Tying economic opportunity to location isn't a wonderful thing.

hapless 10y ago
Economic opportunity is tied to location. Those are the facts on the ground. A $10k signing bonus in exchange for putting yourself in a more vulnerable position will not change those (unfortunate) facts.
TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
> There are plenty of non-Bay Area markets that have thriving software scenes This is true, there are other tech hubs in the United States, but they are facing many of the problems that the Bay Area is facing now, with a tightening housing market, increasing cost of living, and long commutes. Places outside of those tech hubs generally have a terrible IT industry, and generally only accept people with a bachelor's degree plus 2+ years experience to get into even a junior role.
sidlls 10y ago
> There are plenty of non-Bay Area markets that have thriving software scenes and even places that offer you more disposable income once housing costs are factored in. This is technically true but elides tons of context. "Thriving software scene" does not touch on the quality of the "scene" in question. Places that have software industries with similar perks (e.g. flex time, flexible or absent dress standards, etc.) generally have the same housing and CoL issues that the Bay Area has, relative to the salaries they pay. Places without these perks also have a much higher ratio of employers who tend to offer significantly lower salaries and benefits and have jobs that are of a poorer quality (job titles like "programmer/analyst"). They also generally don't have a sufficiently large employer base to allow the movement we see in SF, Chicago, Austin, etc. Job security in these places is a thing and almost always not in the employees' favor.
logfromblammo 10y ago
I genuinely don't want to live in the Bay Area. I am also genuinely disappointed in all the companies that feel like they must be physically located there to achieve success. So bravo and kudos for anyone out there actually trying to bribe people to not be in SV, not just Zapier. Some of the other comments in this thread are a bit insulting, actually--painting outside-the-valley as some kind of hopeless, jobless wasteland.
- sidlls 10y ago
  I've lived in these places. I wouldn't call them "hopeless, jobless wasteland[s]," but they generally have much poorer metrics. I made a living outside the Bay Area the first 6 years of my career after leaving academia. My view is the quality of the jobs is poorer, the treatment of IT workers is worse (it's bad enough having second-class status even in the Bay Area but it's much worse, generally, elsewhere), the salaries are lower even taking into account cost of living, and the quantity of available jobs at any given skill level above the tech equivalent of "semi-skilled labor" is generally lower per capita. But it is possible (obviously) for software developers to earn a salary doing a job there.

by mdasen 10y ago

hapless 10y ago

Economic opportunity is tied to location. Those are the facts on the ground. A $10k signing bonus in exchange for putting yourself in a more vulnerable position will not change those (unfortunate) facts.

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago

> There are plenty of non-Bay Area markets that have thriving software scenes This is true, there are other tech hubs in the United States, but they are facing many of the problems that the Bay Area is facing now, with a tightening housing market, increasing cost of living, and long commutes. Places outside of those tech hubs generally have a terrible IT industry, and generally only accept people with a bachelor's degree plus 2+ years experience to get into even a junior role.

sidlls 10y ago

> There are plenty of non-Bay Area markets that have thriving software scenes and even places that offer you more disposable income once housing costs are factored in. This is technically true but elides tons of context. "Thriving software scene" does not touch on the quality of the "scene" in question. Places that have software industries with similar perks (e.g. flex time, flexible or absent dress standards, etc.) generally have the same housing and CoL issues that the Bay Area has, relative to the salaries they pay. Places without these perks also have a much higher ratio of employers who tend to offer significantly lower salaries and benefits and have jobs that are of a poorer quality (job titles like "programmer/analyst"). They also generally don't have a sufficiently large employer base to allow the movement we see in SF, Chicago, Austin, etc. Job security in these places is a thing and almost always not in the employees' favor.

logfromblammo 10y ago

I genuinely don't want to live in the Bay Area. I am also genuinely disappointed in all the companies that feel like they must be physically located there to achieve success. So bravo and kudos for anyone out there actually trying to bribe people to not be in SV, not just Zapier. Some of the other comments in this thread are a bit insulting, actually--painting outside-the-valley as some kind of hopeless, jobless wasteland.

sidlls 10y ago
I've lived in these places. I wouldn't call them "hopeless, jobless wasteland[s]," but they generally have much poorer metrics. I made a living outside the Bay Area the first 6 years of my career after leaving academia. My view is the quality of the jobs is poorer, the treatment of IT workers is worse (it's bad enough having second-class status even in the Bay Area but it's much worse, generally, elsewhere), the salaries are lower even taking into account cost of living, and the quantity of available jobs at any given skill level above the tech equivalent of "semi-skilled labor" is generally lower per capita. But it is possible (obviously) for software developers to earn a salary doing a job there.