6 ms·

Doesn't this make it easier for you to retain people by restricting their options in the future? For example if someone moves back to central Missouri, they're

Doesn't this make it easier for you to retain people by restricting their options in the future? For example if someone moves back to central Missouri, they're probably not going to find a lot of similar jobs, especially at the level of pay I'm imaging Zapier provides.

tobz 10y ago
By the same token, moving to an area with a high CoL could be restricting if you lost your employment and had to scramble to find a new job. It cuts both ways.
- pmiller2 10y ago
  I wouldn't have moved to the Bay Area if there weren't as many jobs as there are. If you have the choice to relocate, you might as well go where the jobs are, right?
- mateo411 10y ago
  In today's economy it's usually easier to find a new job in a high CoL area.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - laughfactory 10y ago
    Not in San Diego! High CoL area, relatively low wages, and tech jobs are relatively scarce. We moved to the Greater Salt Lake City area three months ago because CoL is much lower here, and there's a plethora of opportunity.
meddlepal 10y ago
You make it seem like that's a bad thing? It's a trade-off. You're getting location flexibility at the cost of employment mobility. For some this will be a fine trade-off.
bryanh 10y ago
I think that may be true and is worth consideration when making any career or geographical move. In central Missouri - you certainly won't find $2400 studio apartments either! To be honest - I wish more companies were remote welcome. It is just better in so many ways.
lvh 10y ago
In my experience, if you want to go back, job opportunities for senior people come with pretty cushy relocation packages, so, no: not really.
thibautx 10y ago
Would an employee not have the same flexibility to stay in the Bay Area and work remotely from there to preserve their "options in the future"?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 10y ago
This would be my primary worry too. When I moved to the Bay Area I took a massive quality-of-life hit. Went from a place where a big two-story 2000+ sq ft home cost $100K or so and a 15 minute commute to here, where a mud hut costs $500K and your commute is 2 hours. But I was willing to do it because it's less risky employment-wise. If things go bad at one employer here, you're looking at maybe a 1-3 month job search that you can limit to a 50 mile radius. If things go bad in Nowheresville, USA, you're looking at a 3-9 month job search that will likely involve moving out of state.
- nkassis 10y ago
  There are some in between towns that offer a better balance. I've lived in Seattle and Boston and I think the job mobility still high but with a reduced cost of living. Not cheap by any national standard but 20-30% is a big difference in cost of living.
- jclardy 10y ago
  Your post makes it sound like the only place for tech jobs is the Bay Area...which I find is not true as an east coast remote. I mean, yeah if you move to rural South Dakota you won't find much, but there are plenty of growing tech centers like Raleigh, Boulder, Austin, etc. that have much lower cost of living, but still a lot of availability in local tech jobs. Also to note, the 3-9 month job search should be much more sustainable in Nowheresville, whereas in SF you are going to be screwed if your job search is extended.
  - eldavido 10y ago
    So, honest question (not trying to troll) - what jobs are available in Raleigh/Boulder/Austin/etc? Because where I'm sitting, facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple, which are 5 of the top 6 most valuable US companies, are HQ'd in the Bay Area or Seattle. So if you want that caliber of job, with the opportunities and pay ($200-300k+ for mid-level people), you really do have to live in SF/Seattle. I don't work a BigCo job for other reasons but the reasoning does seem sound.
    - 10y ago
imsofuture 10y ago
Remote work is still an option, as is moving back or wherever (since this specific worry is predicated on moving to start with, arguments that moving is 'not always possible' seem weak).
twothamendment 10y ago
"Doesn't this make it easier for you to retain people by restricting their options in the future?" In a way, yes. I am 100% remote and live in a very remote area. I doubt I could get a similar job anywhere in the state, but I did it anyway. Why? First, I love where I work and before moving away and I worked from home long enough to see that it was good. Am I stuck with this company? Yeah, pretty much. Chances of finding remote work are slim, but I accept that. My work/life balance and happiness living where I never thought I could is nearly priceless. It is a trade off, but one that I'm happy with. It may not be for everyone. When I was younger I'd hop jobs every couple years, get a nice raise, learn something new and move one. Now I just don't care. I found a place I can see my self working at for many more years. When there is a mess in the "office" microwave, I know who to blame and you can't put a price on that.

tobz 10y ago

By the same token, moving to an area with a high CoL could be restricting if you lost your employment and had to scramble to find a new job. It cuts both ways.

pmiller2 10y ago
I wouldn't have moved to the Bay Area if there weren't as many jobs as there are. If you have the choice to relocate, you might as well go where the jobs are, right?
mateo411 10y ago
In today's economy it's usually easier to find a new job in a high CoL area.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- laughfactory 10y ago
  Not in San Diego! High CoL area, relatively low wages, and tech jobs are relatively scarce. We moved to the Greater Salt Lake City area three months ago because CoL is much lower here, and there's a plethora of opportunity.

meddlepal 10y ago

You make it seem like that's a bad thing? It's a trade-off. You're getting location flexibility at the cost of employment mobility. For some this will be a fine trade-off.

bryanh 10y ago

I think that may be true and is worth consideration when making any career or geographical move. In central Missouri - you certainly won't find $2400 studio apartments either! To be honest - I wish more companies were remote welcome. It is just better in so many ways.

lvh 10y ago

In my experience, if you want to go back, job opportunities for senior people come with pretty cushy relocation packages, so, no: not really.

thibautx 10y ago

Would an employee not have the same flexibility to stay in the Bay Area and work remotely from there to preserve their "options in the future"?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ryandrake 10y ago

This would be my primary worry too. When I moved to the Bay Area I took a massive quality-of-life hit. Went from a place where a big two-story 2000+ sq ft home cost $100K or so and a 15 minute commute to here, where a mud hut costs $500K and your commute is 2 hours. But I was willing to do it because it's less risky employment-wise. If things go bad at one employer here, you're looking at maybe a 1-3 month job search that you can limit to a 50 mile radius. If things go bad in Nowheresville, USA, you're looking at a 3-9 month job search that will likely involve moving out of state.

nkassis 10y ago
There are some in between towns that offer a better balance. I've lived in Seattle and Boston and I think the job mobility still high but with a reduced cost of living. Not cheap by any national standard but 20-30% is a big difference in cost of living.
jclardy 10y ago
Your post makes it sound like the only place for tech jobs is the Bay Area...which I find is not true as an east coast remote. I mean, yeah if you move to rural South Dakota you won't find much, but there are plenty of growing tech centers like Raleigh, Boulder, Austin, etc. that have much lower cost of living, but still a lot of availability in local tech jobs. Also to note, the 3-9 month job search should be much more sustainable in Nowheresville, whereas in SF you are going to be screwed if your job search is extended.
- eldavido 10y ago
  So, honest question (not trying to troll) - what jobs are available in Raleigh/Boulder/Austin/etc? Because where I'm sitting, facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple, which are 5 of the top 6 most valuable US companies, are HQ'd in the Bay Area or Seattle. So if you want that caliber of job, with the opportunities and pay ($200-300k+ for mid-level people), you really do have to live in SF/Seattle. I don't work a BigCo job for other reasons but the reasoning does seem sound.
  - 10y ago

imsofuture 10y ago

Remote work is still an option, as is moving back or wherever (since this specific worry is predicated on moving to start with, arguments that moving is 'not always possible' seem weak).

twothamendment 10y ago

"Doesn't this make it easier for you to retain people by restricting their options in the future?" In a way, yes. I am 100% remote and live in a very remote area. I doubt I could get a similar job anywhere in the state, but I did it anyway. Why? First, I love where I work and before moving away and I worked from home long enough to see that it was good. Am I stuck with this company? Yeah, pretty much. Chances of finding remote work are slim, but I accept that. My work/life balance and happiness living where I never thought I could is nearly priceless. It is a trade off, but one that I'm happy with. It may not be for everyone. When I was younger I'd hop jobs every couple years, get a nice raise, learn something new and move one. Now I just don't care. I found a place I can see my self working at for many more years. When there is a mess in the "office" microwave, I know who to blame and you can't put a price on that.