6 ms·

Talent doesn't want to work in the middle of nowhere. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

by outside1234 8y ago

smt88 8y ago
There are a lot of places between "middle of nowhere" and NYC/NoVa...
- cabaalis 8y ago
  The statements in this thread are the Hacker equivalents of "flyover country."
wpietri 8y ago
This isn't an unreasonable generalization. But a) there's plenty of talent that wants to live somewhere other than an urban core, and b) if Amazon opens an HQ in a place, that place will become a somewhere, and c) Amazon is at the scale that they can afford to take raw talent and train it up. Personally, I find Amazon's decision disappointing, and I regret getting caught up in the hype. I was hoping that they'd do something bold and interesting, not open a couple of satellite offices in obvious places.
- ghaff 8y ago
  >there's plenty of talent that wants to live somewhere other than an urban core That's true. Although I'm not sure you can build a campus on this scale that doesn't need to function as an urban core in at least some respects. I'm not sure how you plop something like this down on a prairie someplace and expect it to function. (Especially given that employees may not want to live in an urban core but don't necessarily want to live in a company town in the middle of nowhere.) I agree that, if something like this is as reported, it's sort of a boring outcome in that it was entirely expected and safe.
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  A lot of people want to live in NYC, that's why it's so expensive to live in NYC. Amazon cannot replicate NYC in the middle of nowhere, or even the middle of somewhere. The confluence of geography, history, commerce, culture and sheer verve can't be bought.
  - throwaway427 8y ago
    There are more people that don't want to live in NYC than do. What's your point? At no point was there an HQ2 requirement of "be as cool as NYC"
    - jacques_chester 8y ago
      My point is that Amazon's making some place "a somewhere" is never going to be on the scale of NYC. They want to attract talent and the way to do that is to go where the talent is or wants to be. The bay area is such a place. Seattle is such a place. New York is such a place. But they couldn't turn Mt Tinroof Springs into a world centre no matter what they did.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        I actually wonder a bit about NYC in that regard. It's a distinctive place that definitely isn't for everyone. Obviously a lot of people want to live there. I know folks who could never imagine living someplace else. But NYC has improved (if you have money). So maybe it is a place it's easy to attract people to live in.
        jacques_chester 8y ago
        My view is you should live in places that create strong feelings. Living in a place that feels like the aftermath of a cosmic shrug isn't good for the soul. I grew up in Darwin and I still love it. I live in NYC and I love it. I've also lived in Perth and felt ... nothing.
        pbarnes_1 8y ago
        You grew up in Darwin? Awesome. You felt nothing in Perth because Perth is just... there. :)
        wyclif 8y ago
- throwaway427 8y ago
  > Personally, I find Amazon's decision disappointing, and I regret getting caught up in the hype. I was hoping that they'd do something bold and interesting, not open a couple of satellite offices in obvious places. I share this sentiment. I feel sort of silly about thinking that the outcome would justify the groveling and begging that Amazon invited. But at the end of the day it is the same as it ever was.
- niftich 8y ago
  More on this point, there were a number of perfectly reasonable second tier cities in their 'final 20' shortlist already, which were lagging behind first tier cities only in transit, or, for all we know, in the amount of incentives they were willing to throw at Amazon's feet. Raleigh/Durham would have made for a fine urban or suburban campus and would've capitalized on the presence of tech talent already drawn to the area; Austin would have been another obvious choice for pre-existing tech talent. A pick like Nashville or Columbus would have been bold, picking a rising star midsize metro with diverse strengths and no strong background in tech and lifting it further. Instead, it's looking to be NYC and DC. Much ado about nothing.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    It's amazing. All of those months of speculation about what secondary city or emerging tech hub will become the next Austin, gone just like that, in favor of Amazon deciding to set up shop in the super-obvious capitals of finance and government.
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      Guys, Amazon is not a charity. They aren't looking to build up a city. It's a foolish business decision to put something with the needs of HQ2 in a place with no transit. Sure, you can build transit, but A - it's expensive, and B - it's not your job or expertise. Instead of lamenting the jobs they missed out on with HQ2, a forward thinking city would get to work building out its transit system. Many cities are doing just that. Houston for instance. If places like Columbus or Nashville have a better strategy than building attractive infrastructure for competing with places like Houston and NYC for such jobs, then let them pursue that strategy. The market will settle the issue in the end.
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        You're ascribing moral judgment to my post. I'm not criticizing for taking potential jobs away from a secondary city. Playing host to an HQ2 is both a big boon and a great curse; witness all the articles about Amazon's impact on prospective cities' real estate markets and traffic. But my specific criticism is in questioning why did Bezos put on this charade to evaluate cities throughout North America, if he was just going to choose the obvious choices? The only more unimaginative city than NYC and Washington DC, would be to build HQ2 in the Bay Area itself. Was this all a ploy to test how far local governments be willing to bend over for Amazon? A PR spectacle to show how important and influential Amazon is to warrant that kind of kowtowing from mayors and governors? If you're going to claim that Amazon earnestly pursued the search for HQ2, only to decide that NYC and D.C. were the best choices at the end, then their strategists must have done a poor job in not figuring that out before the city talent show. And for us HN commentators: these picks are just boring. So much for innovation, imagination, and daring. Ho-hum.
dmix 8y ago
Why do you wish boredom and reinventing something that already exists elsewhere on o
ghaff 8y ago
It's nice to believe that an Amazon could basically found a new city/locate in a small one or run-down one. But I tend to agree. The premiums they'd have to pay to attract people to work in effectively a company town would be significant. It would take years to build out infrastructure and amenities. And it would probably still end up as a rather unattractive monoculture under many circumstances. You can probably bribe enough people enough to work just about anywhere but it's going to be an uphill battle.
- zemo 8y ago
  > It's nice to believe that an Amazon could basically found a new city given their history of labor violations in their warehouses, I don't see any reason to think that Amazon creating a city would be "nice".
zemo 8y ago
"it"? They're people.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
briandear 8y ago
I definitely didn’t like working in NYC. NYC is a net negative for me, unless the wages are in the $300-400k range, it’s a non starter. If I could work in New Orleans, I would jump at the chance. I worked in NYC for years and got over it pretty quickly. Couldn’t afford to live in Manhattan so I commuted from Jersey City. And when it’s freezing cold, that gets old quickly. Then there is a NYC income tax along with higher prices for everything. If your goal is to recruit a bunch of naïve 25 years olds, sure, pick New York — or be prepared to pay some serious money. Talent goes where the opportunities are. If Apple’s HQ were Albuquerque or El Paso, you’d have talent moving to those places. For startups, obviously proximity to Silicon Valley, Austin or NYC is very advantageous because nobody wants to move across the country for a low percentage startup. But for a FAANG company— the talent will follow, perhaps even more merrily. There are a lot of talented engineers that would be great recruits for the FAANGs, but one look at the housing prices and tax rates in those areas sends them running. Wichita, Kansas isn’t particularly “hip,” but given that some important aviation work happens there, those in the aviation business live/move there. Hartford, CT is a shithole, but if you are in insurance, there are tons of opportunities there. Pharma companies are located all over the country, they don’t locate in New York because of talent, they locate where they want and the talent follows. Software and hardware engineers seem to think they are special and that the jobs should come to them; the real world is the other way around. Acting as if the entirety of software talent exists on the coasts is simply arrogant. For startups, of course, it’s different. For trillion dollar companies that can pay fat relocation packages and offer incredible compensation, there is much less incentive to care about Silicon Valley or NYC. A large portion of the talent recruited by Apple and Google, often come from somewhere other than SV. And, if the talent pool is so big in SV, why does nearly every company worth a damn bother offering relocation?
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > If Apple’s HQ were Albuquerque or El Paso, you’d have talent moving to those places. For startups, obviously proximity to Silicon Valley, Austin or NYC is very advantageous because nobody wants to move across the country for a low percentage startup. But for a FAANG company— the talent will follow, perhaps even more merrily. Nope. FAANG companies want top talent. Top talent has many options. Most top talented engineers, in this market, get multiple offers and can basically choose where they want to live. Not to mention that all FAANG companies have offices in attractive locations. So the office in Buttfuck Nowhere would be competing against offices in cool cities like LA and NYC, for the same position with the same FAANG. Good luck with that.

Talent doesn't want to work in the middle of nowhere. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

smt88 8y ago

There are a lot of places between "middle of nowhere" and NYC/NoVa...

cabaalis 8y ago
The statements in this thread are the Hacker equivalents of "flyover country."

wpietri 8y ago

This isn't an unreasonable generalization. But a) there's plenty of talent that wants to live somewhere other than an urban core, and b) if Amazon opens an HQ in a place, that place will become a somewhere, and c) Amazon is at the scale that they can afford to take raw talent and train it up. Personally, I find Amazon's decision disappointing, and I regret getting caught up in the hype. I was hoping that they'd do something bold and interesting, not open a couple of satellite offices in obvious places.

ghaff 8y ago
>there's plenty of talent that wants to live somewhere other than an urban core That's true. Although I'm not sure you can build a campus on this scale that doesn't need to function as an urban core in at least some respects. I'm not sure how you plop something like this down on a prairie someplace and expect it to function. (Especially given that employees may not want to live in an urban core but don't necessarily want to live in a company town in the middle of nowhere.) I agree that, if something like this is as reported, it's sort of a boring outcome in that it was entirely expected and safe.
jacques_chester 8y ago
A lot of people want to live in NYC, that's why it's so expensive to live in NYC. Amazon cannot replicate NYC in the middle of nowhere, or even the middle of somewhere. The confluence of geography, history, commerce, culture and sheer verve can't be bought.
- throwaway427 8y ago
  There are more people that don't want to live in NYC than do. What's your point? At no point was there an HQ2 requirement of "be as cool as NYC"
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    My point is that Amazon's making some place "a somewhere" is never going to be on the scale of NYC. They want to attract talent and the way to do that is to go where the talent is or wants to be. The bay area is such a place. Seattle is such a place. New York is such a place. But they couldn't turn Mt Tinroof Springs into a world centre no matter what they did.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      I actually wonder a bit about NYC in that regard. It's a distinctive place that definitely isn't for everyone. Obviously a lot of people want to live there. I know folks who could never imagine living someplace else. But NYC has improved (if you have money). So maybe it is a place it's easy to attract people to live in.
      - jacques_chester 8y ago
        My view is you should live in places that create strong feelings. Living in a place that feels like the aftermath of a cosmic shrug isn't good for the soul. I grew up in Darwin and I still love it. I live in NYC and I love it. I've also lived in Perth and felt ... nothing.
        pbarnes_1 8y ago
        You grew up in Darwin? Awesome. You felt nothing in Perth because Perth is just... there. :)
        wyclif 8y ago
throwaway427 8y ago
> Personally, I find Amazon's decision disappointing, and I regret getting caught up in the hype. I was hoping that they'd do something bold and interesting, not open a couple of satellite offices in obvious places. I share this sentiment. I feel sort of silly about thinking that the outcome would justify the groveling and begging that Amazon invited. But at the end of the day it is the same as it ever was.
niftich 8y ago
More on this point, there were a number of perfectly reasonable second tier cities in their 'final 20' shortlist already, which were lagging behind first tier cities only in transit, or, for all we know, in the amount of incentives they were willing to throw at Amazon's feet. Raleigh/Durham would have made for a fine urban or suburban campus and would've capitalized on the presence of tech talent already drawn to the area; Austin would have been another obvious choice for pre-existing tech talent. A pick like Nashville or Columbus would have been bold, picking a rising star midsize metro with diverse strengths and no strong background in tech and lifting it further. Instead, it's looking to be NYC and DC. Much ado about nothing.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  It's amazing. All of those months of speculation about what secondary city or emerging tech hub will become the next Austin, gone just like that, in favor of Amazon deciding to set up shop in the super-obvious capitals of finance and government.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    Guys, Amazon is not a charity. They aren't looking to build up a city. It's a foolish business decision to put something with the needs of HQ2 in a place with no transit. Sure, you can build transit, but A - it's expensive, and B - it's not your job or expertise. Instead of lamenting the jobs they missed out on with HQ2, a forward thinking city would get to work building out its transit system. Many cities are doing just that. Houston for instance. If places like Columbus or Nashville have a better strategy than building attractive infrastructure for competing with places like Houston and NYC for such jobs, then let them pursue that strategy. The market will settle the issue in the end.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      You're ascribing moral judgment to my post. I'm not criticizing for taking potential jobs away from a secondary city. Playing host to an HQ2 is both a big boon and a great curse; witness all the articles about Amazon's impact on prospective cities' real estate markets and traffic. But my specific criticism is in questioning why did Bezos put on this charade to evaluate cities throughout North America, if he was just going to choose the obvious choices? The only more unimaginative city than NYC and Washington DC, would be to build HQ2 in the Bay Area itself. Was this all a ploy to test how far local governments be willing to bend over for Amazon? A PR spectacle to show how important and influential Amazon is to warrant that kind of kowtowing from mayors and governors? If you're going to claim that Amazon earnestly pursued the search for HQ2, only to decide that NYC and D.C. were the best choices at the end, then their strategists must have done a poor job in not figuring that out before the city talent show. And for us HN commentators: these picks are just boring. So much for innovation, imagination, and daring. Ho-hum.

dmix 8y ago

Why do you wish boredom and reinventing something that already exists elsewhere on o

ghaff 8y ago

It's nice to believe that an Amazon could basically found a new city/locate in a small one or run-down one. But I tend to agree. The premiums they'd have to pay to attract people to work in effectively a company town would be significant. It would take years to build out infrastructure and amenities. And it would probably still end up as a rather unattractive monoculture under many circumstances. You can probably bribe enough people enough to work just about anywhere but it's going to be an uphill battle.

zemo 8y ago
> It's nice to believe that an Amazon could basically found a new city given their history of labor violations in their warehouses, I don't see any reason to think that Amazon creating a city would be "nice".

zemo 8y ago

"it"? They're people.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

briandear 8y ago

I definitely didn’t like working in NYC. NYC is a net negative for me, unless the wages are in the $300-400k range, it’s a non starter. If I could work in New Orleans, I would jump at the chance. I worked in NYC for years and got over it pretty quickly. Couldn’t afford to live in Manhattan so I commuted from Jersey City. And when it’s freezing cold, that gets old quickly. Then there is a NYC income tax along with higher prices for everything. If your goal is to recruit a bunch of naïve 25 years olds, sure, pick New York — or be prepared to pay some serious money. Talent goes where the opportunities are. If Apple’s HQ were Albuquerque or El Paso, you’d have talent moving to those places. For startups, obviously proximity to Silicon Valley, Austin or NYC is very advantageous because nobody wants to move across the country for a low percentage startup. But for a FAANG company— the talent will follow, perhaps even more merrily. There are a lot of talented engineers that would be great recruits for the FAANGs, but one look at the housing prices and tax rates in those areas sends them running. Wichita, Kansas isn’t particularly “hip,” but given that some important aviation work happens there, those in the aviation business live/move there. Hartford, CT is a shithole, but if you are in insurance, there are tons of opportunities there. Pharma companies are located all over the country, they don’t locate in New York because of talent, they locate where they want and the talent follows. Software and hardware engineers seem to think they are special and that the jobs should come to them; the real world is the other way around. Acting as if the entirety of software talent exists on the coasts is simply arrogant. For startups, of course, it’s different. For trillion dollar companies that can pay fat relocation packages and offer incredible compensation, there is much less incentive to care about Silicon Valley or NYC. A large portion of the talent recruited by Apple and Google, often come from somewhere other than SV. And, if the talent pool is so big in SV, why does nearly every company worth a damn bother offering relocation?

dunpeal 8y ago
> If Apple’s HQ were Albuquerque or El Paso, you’d have talent moving to those places. For startups, obviously proximity to Silicon Valley, Austin or NYC is very advantageous because nobody wants to move across the country for a low percentage startup. But for a FAANG company— the talent will follow, perhaps even more merrily. Nope. FAANG companies want top talent. Top talent has many options. Most top talented engineers, in this market, get multiple offers and can basically choose where they want to live. Not to mention that all FAANG companies have offices in attractive locations. So the office in Buttfuck Nowhere would be competing against offices in cool cities like LA and NYC, for the same position with the same FAANG. Good luck with that.