8 ms·

The real solution is for companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, etc to have the COURAGE to create large work epicenters outside of the Bay Area. Create headqu

The real solution is for companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, etc to have the COURAGE to create large work epicenters outside of the Bay Area. Create headquarters for tens of thousands of workers in more remote areas with a strong infrastructure, with great benefits for working families. Do what Amazon wants to do with a second HQ, and create demand outside of the Bay Area. If Google created a new HQ in Kansas City, with it's fiber links, and low cost of living, and added really great benefits like free day care, etc, then won't software engineers move there, especially those that are ready to start a family? I bet you they would. I definitely would. Then it would create a new ecosystem of economic prosperity there, and then it would take a lot of pressure off the Bay Area.

jra_samba 9y ago
In its heyday HP did this. Look at places like Roseville and Fort Collins. Essentially company towns. And while the going is good, and the quarterly numbers keep going up, everything is great. But eventually the bad times come, and the employees living in these places are cast off like so many worn shoes, along with their families. I've seen this. I'm never moving out of the SF Bay Area until well after retirement (and maybe not even then :-). Going to a Kansas City HQ is a gamble that whatever company will always do well. Do you want to gamble your future on that ? Do you want to gamble your family on that ?
- pfarnsworth 9y ago
  Risk vs return. That's okay that you prefer the Bay Area. I would have no problems if I knew that Google were committing to a permanent HQ in Kansas City. If they close down, they close down. I have no control over that, but I do have control over saving money and still maintaining a high quality of life because I'm not obsessing over property prices, private school for my kids because the public schools are so terrible, etc.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    You don't think Google moving to KC would have a huge effect on property prices? Not to mention, if they close down, you'll likely have a harder time finding another job than you would somewhere with a lot of tech places.
    - Apocryphon 9y ago
      I think the hope of such a move (ditto Amazon building HQ2 somewhere outside of the usual SF/ATX/NYC tech hubs) is that if one giant did it, other companies would follow, tech workers who leave the giant go and build startups, wealth and talent attract VCs, etc. The hub self-reinforces itself, much like how SF and Seattle have done it. It would be a very interesting economic experiment to see if a cycle can be created in new areas.
- akgerber 9y ago
  The tradeoff is that if you make anything resembling Bay Area wages in Kansas City, you can pay off a lovely older house in a walkable neighborhood in two years or so.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    The first wave might. However, I'm guessing housing prices would adjust.
    - Apocryphon 9y ago
      Depends on the geography of the region. Probably easier to expand and densify the KC metro area vs. the Bay Area or SeaTac.
    - akgerber 9y ago
      A midsized city, when willing to sprawl, build upward, or both, will have housing prices that max out around the cost of construction. Have you ever looked at real estate listings in Houston? Plus the supply of cheap walkable neighborhoods in the Midwest is very high.
- Apocryphon 9y ago
  Amazon seems intent on attempting this. It's incredibly doubtful that they'll build HQ2 in the Bay Area (though the backlash from such a decision would be incredibly hilarious).
usaar333 9y ago
> If Google created a new HQ in Kansas City, with it's fiber links, and low cost of living, and added really great benefits like free day care, etc, then won't software engineers move there, especially those that are ready to start a family? I bet you they would. I definitely would. Maybe some, but I'd be really surprised if you get substantial numbers of your top people to move - which effectively blocks the overall team moving. A Google Staff engineer makes $400k+. On such a salary, the high cost of living in the Bay Area really isn't a problem; sure in Kansas you could afford a mansion on that salary, but a lot of folks (myself included) prefer "paying" for the Bay Area's weather, scenery, and culture over larger living.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Aren't there attractive places in California where tech companies could set up offices to accommodate those who want to leave the valley, while still making sure everyone is still just a few hours drive away if they should be required in a meeting at main HQ?
  - usaar333 9y ago
    Attractive enough to pull the top talent? No The underlying problem here is the same problem you have with remote work - it's vastly harder to get complex tasks done when people are remote. For all sorts of reasons (including project expediency), you ideally want the front-line programmers in the same office as the technical leaders.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      So how do you think most open source software development, for example, happens? Or does that not qualify as a complex task? Because a huge amount of open source development happens through distributed individuals and groups many of which don't even work for the same company.
      - alkonaut 9y ago
        Tbf, Open source is as complex but it would be VERY hard in most open source OSS to coordinate things that must happen quickly. Email a maintainer or submit a pull request? Might be merged tomorrow. Or next week. When he gets around to it. That model just doesn't work in business.
bproven 9y ago
IMO a better (or at least positive) solution would be for these huge bay area companies - especially those on the peninsula - to spread out there offices along the south peninsula and into south bay. We should be adding commercial into these residential areas so that everyone (in tech) is not traveling to the same region from all over the south bay or SF. Live where you work! This IMO would alleviate the traffic exodus that occurs in basically 2 directions every day. Put more companies in Los Gatos, Saratoga, Campbell, San Jose downtown (especially since it is fed by light rail). Stop putting offices in these "office/commercial zones" where there is NO public transportation. Why does everyone need to be in one small section of the bay area? Optionally if we are committed to this current "everything must be in one region" mentality lets get together as communities (Mtn View, San jose, campbell, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, etc) and get the rail built now. One of the biggest stressors in this area (outside housing costs) is the traffic and aged infrastructure. Frankly its easily solved - if this supposed "progressive" area would do what needs to be done. Yes it would cost, but it would make daily life so much better for everyone. Yes, I know its more complex than this (one issue is NIMBYs and those that bought in early to housing and need/want it to go up), but how can our children live in this area and make it home in its current state? Humans seem very short sighted. (sorry for the overuse of quotes and my possibly incoherent rant :) )

jra_samba 9y ago

In its heyday HP did this. Look at places like Roseville and Fort Collins. Essentially company towns. And while the going is good, and the quarterly numbers keep going up, everything is great. But eventually the bad times come, and the employees living in these places are cast off like so many worn shoes, along with their families. I've seen this. I'm never moving out of the SF Bay Area until well after retirement (and maybe not even then :-). Going to a Kansas City HQ is a gamble that whatever company will always do well. Do you want to gamble your future on that ? Do you want to gamble your family on that ?

pfarnsworth 9y ago
Risk vs return. That's okay that you prefer the Bay Area. I would have no problems if I knew that Google were committing to a permanent HQ in Kansas City. If they close down, they close down. I have no control over that, but I do have control over saving money and still maintaining a high quality of life because I'm not obsessing over property prices, private school for my kids because the public schools are so terrible, etc.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  You don't think Google moving to KC would have a huge effect on property prices? Not to mention, if they close down, you'll likely have a harder time finding another job than you would somewhere with a lot of tech places.
  - Apocryphon 9y ago
    I think the hope of such a move (ditto Amazon building HQ2 somewhere outside of the usual SF/ATX/NYC tech hubs) is that if one giant did it, other companies would follow, tech workers who leave the giant go and build startups, wealth and talent attract VCs, etc. The hub self-reinforces itself, much like how SF and Seattle have done it. It would be a very interesting economic experiment to see if a cycle can be created in new areas.
akgerber 9y ago
The tradeoff is that if you make anything resembling Bay Area wages in Kansas City, you can pay off a lovely older house in a walkable neighborhood in two years or so.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  The first wave might. However, I'm guessing housing prices would adjust.
  - Apocryphon 9y ago
    Depends on the geography of the region. Probably easier to expand and densify the KC metro area vs. the Bay Area or SeaTac.
  - akgerber 9y ago
    A midsized city, when willing to sprawl, build upward, or both, will have housing prices that max out around the cost of construction. Have you ever looked at real estate listings in Houston? Plus the supply of cheap walkable neighborhoods in the Midwest is very high.
Apocryphon 9y ago
Amazon seems intent on attempting this. It's incredibly doubtful that they'll build HQ2 in the Bay Area (though the backlash from such a decision would be incredibly hilarious).

usaar333 9y ago

> If Google created a new HQ in Kansas City, with it's fiber links, and low cost of living, and added really great benefits like free day care, etc, then won't software engineers move there, especially those that are ready to start a family? I bet you they would. I definitely would. Maybe some, but I'd be really surprised if you get substantial numbers of your top people to move - which effectively blocks the overall team moving. A Google Staff engineer makes $400k+. On such a salary, the high cost of living in the Bay Area really isn't a problem; sure in Kansas you could afford a mansion on that salary, but a lot of folks (myself included) prefer "paying" for the Bay Area's weather, scenery, and culture over larger living.

alkonaut 9y ago
Aren't there attractive places in California where tech companies could set up offices to accommodate those who want to leave the valley, while still making sure everyone is still just a few hours drive away if they should be required in a meeting at main HQ?
- usaar333 9y ago
  Attractive enough to pull the top talent? No The underlying problem here is the same problem you have with remote work - it's vastly harder to get complex tasks done when people are remote. For all sorts of reasons (including project expediency), you ideally want the front-line programmers in the same office as the technical leaders.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    So how do you think most open source software development, for example, happens? Or does that not qualify as a complex task? Because a huge amount of open source development happens through distributed individuals and groups many of which don't even work for the same company.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      Tbf, Open source is as complex but it would be VERY hard in most open source OSS to coordinate things that must happen quickly. Email a maintainer or submit a pull request? Might be merged tomorrow. Or next week. When he gets around to it. That model just doesn't work in business.

bproven 9y ago

IMO a better (or at least positive) solution would be for these huge bay area companies - especially those on the peninsula - to spread out there offices along the south peninsula and into south bay. We should be adding commercial into these residential areas so that everyone (in tech) is not traveling to the same region from all over the south bay or SF. Live where you work! This IMO would alleviate the traffic exodus that occurs in basically 2 directions every day. Put more companies in Los Gatos, Saratoga, Campbell, San Jose downtown (especially since it is fed by light rail). Stop putting offices in these "office/commercial zones" where there is NO public transportation. Why does everyone need to be in one small section of the bay area? Optionally if we are committed to this current "everything must be in one region" mentality lets get together as communities (Mtn View, San jose, campbell, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, etc) and get the rail built now. One of the biggest stressors in this area (outside housing costs) is the traffic and aged infrastructure. Frankly its easily solved - if this supposed "progressive" area would do what needs to be done. Yes it would cost, but it would make daily life so much better for everyone. Yes, I know its more complex than this (one issue is NIMBYs and those that bought in early to housing and need/want it to go up), but how can our children live in this area and make it home in its current state? Humans seem very short sighted. (sorry for the overuse of quotes and my possibly incoherent rant :) )