3 ms·

Does your ZIP code have the kind of employees that Google needs to succeed?

deathanatos 8y ago
Does his/her ZIP code have the kind of employers those employees need to succeed? It's a chicken and egg problem. Personally, I put the onus on the companies, as they have much more power than any individual employee does. It is certainly possible for a company of that size to open a small office, and gradually grow it, whereas an employee is restricted to what jobs are available in that area. And we need more diversification geographically; too much is centered on the Bay Area, and the Bay Area's housing crisis is proof of it.
- goodcanadian 8y ago
  The trouble I've personally seen is that the companies believe they can pay less in the lower cost of living areas, and therefore don't tend to attract the sort of talent that they need.
int_19h 8y ago
I can think of quite a few qualified people that'd be happy to move to a small town in the middle of nowhere, if they could work in a place like Google, get the same paycheck as their colleagues in California offices, but have a significantly lower cost of living. So I don't think that's really a problem - they would certainly have enough people to kickstart such a thing, and then it would just grow.
- feri339 8y ago
  But that's not gonna happen. They will most likely not get the same paycheck as their colleagues on the coasts. Mostly because the cost of living is much lower. Edit: In my experience I have more net money if I work in place with high cost of living and high comp compared to the opposite.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    > But that's not gonna happen. They will most likely not get the same paycheck as their colleagues on the coasts. Mostly because the cost of living is much lower. See, there's no logic to it once you unpack it. If the company is willing to pay $X for a given person in one location, they can obviously afford to pay $X to them in another location - they're not any worse for that, since they get the same productivity in return (quite possibly more, because less commute time == happier employees). But yes, in practice, they will lower the pay - and then complain that they can't hire anyone in those locations...
    - feri339 8y ago
      Technically the truth. But they might not get the same productivity because the team you'd be joining would be in SF or wherever. If remote working were perfect and the norm then no problem.
- kethinov 8y ago
  This. It's truly amazing to me how much elitism is oozing in this thread from people who just keep repeating as though it is some well known fact that good people only want to live in big cities, hence suffering cities clearly are only suffering because there is something fundamentally, immutably undesirable about them. People need to drop these elitist attitudes. A huge number of tech workers would love to leave SF, NYC, etc if only the damn jobs would let them.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    If what you say is true, then surely it would be reflected in reality.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      It could be, if only large companies would attempt to move to smaller cities, and show any interest in following through with that intention.
      - lotsofpulp 8y ago
        I’m saying it must not be to their economic benefit, otherwise it would have happened already.
        kethinov 8y ago
        The market is not perfectly rational. Sometimes companies do things that are against their economic interests due to irrational perceptions to the contrary.
    - kethinov 8y ago
      It is reflected in reality. The vast majority of GitLab's exclusively remote workforce does not live in SF or NYC. If more companies offered such terms, the labor pool would spread out more.
  - usaar333 8y ago

Does his/her ZIP code have the kind of employers those employees need to succeed? It's a chicken and egg problem. Personally, I put the onus on the companies, as they have much more power than any individual employee does. It is certainly possible for a company of that size to open a small office, and gradually grow it, whereas an employee is restricted to what jobs are available in that area. And we need more diversification geographically; too much is centered on the Bay Area, and the Bay Area's housing crisis is proof of it.

goodcanadian 8y ago
The trouble I've personally seen is that the companies believe they can pay less in the lower cost of living areas, and therefore don't tend to attract the sort of talent that they need.

int_19h 8y ago

I can think of quite a few qualified people that'd be happy to move to a small town in the middle of nowhere, if they could work in a place like Google, get the same paycheck as their colleagues in California offices, but have a significantly lower cost of living. So I don't think that's really a problem - they would certainly have enough people to kickstart such a thing, and then it would just grow.

feri339 8y ago
But that's not gonna happen. They will most likely not get the same paycheck as their colleagues on the coasts. Mostly because the cost of living is much lower. Edit: In my experience I have more net money if I work in place with high cost of living and high comp compared to the opposite.
- int_19h 8y ago
  > But that's not gonna happen. They will most likely not get the same paycheck as their colleagues on the coasts. Mostly because the cost of living is much lower. See, there's no logic to it once you unpack it. If the company is willing to pay $X for a given person in one location, they can obviously afford to pay $X to them in another location - they're not any worse for that, since they get the same productivity in return (quite possibly more, because less commute time == happier employees). But yes, in practice, they will lower the pay - and then complain that they can't hire anyone in those locations...
  - feri339 8y ago
    Technically the truth. But they might not get the same productivity because the team you'd be joining would be in SF or wherever. If remote working were perfect and the norm then no problem.
kethinov 8y ago
This. It's truly amazing to me how much elitism is oozing in this thread from people who just keep repeating as though it is some well known fact that good people only want to live in big cities, hence suffering cities clearly are only suffering because there is something fundamentally, immutably undesirable about them. People need to drop these elitist attitudes. A huge number of tech workers would love to leave SF, NYC, etc if only the damn jobs would let them.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  If what you say is true, then surely it would be reflected in reality.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    It could be, if only large companies would attempt to move to smaller cities, and show any interest in following through with that intention.
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
      I’m saying it must not be to their economic benefit, otherwise it would have happened already.
      - kethinov 8y ago
        The market is not perfectly rational. Sometimes companies do things that are against their economic interests due to irrational perceptions to the contrary.
  - kethinov 8y ago
    It is reflected in reality. The vast majority of GitLab's exclusively remote workforce does not live in SF or NYC. If more companies offered such terms, the labor pool would spread out more.
- usaar333 8y ago