5 ms·

I think he missed a point. Amazon likely can't go to Mississippi, because there aren't enough programmers there. And very few would move there, even if the offe

I think he missed a point. Amazon likely can't go to Mississippi, because there aren't enough programmers there. And very few would move there, even if the offers were good. I turned down $300K in LA to stay in Hawaii. I can't think of what kind of offer would make me move to Mississippi.

zwayhowder 8y ago
Not every employee is a programmer, and how many people moved from places like Mississippi to Seattle/Silicon Valley/NYC etc? Surely some of them would love to return to their home state or nearby earning good money, paying a lot less rent and actually seeing family and friends from their childhood. I can respect your decision to stay in Hawaii, just like I stay in Sydney it's a vibrant multicultural city with everything I want. Despite coming from a small town in a rural area I wouldn't go back, especially as the nearest Korean BBQ would be a 6 hour drive away. However if that small town grew to a medium town and had those things, and enough money to build some community facilities that I desire such as public pools that are open year round and have enough space for multiple activities (First world problems you can't go for a swim on a hot day because the local swim squad has the whole pool reserved), theatres that could host local and travelling groups, a public library that is open more than twice a week and of course city wide broadband, preferably available to outer regions as well (5G networks might bring this one home)... Any big move like Amazon would have to be thoughtfully planned, the last thing a small town needs is thousands of new residents with salaries 2-5 times the local average driving up the price of everything, imposing their worldview on the community and creating an us/them divide in the town.
- iceninenines 8y ago
  Exactly. There's more to a company than just coders. ;) Amazon is a massive organization that needs almost every trade, profession and specialty. Plus, people can relocate. The bigger picture is bringing industry where it can revitalize an area. Chobani is a great example.
- candybar 8y ago
  Not that many people who work at big tech companies moved from places like Mississippi to Seattle/SV/NYC. Lots of them came straight out of school (and top schools these companies recruit from are concentrated on the coasts), lots of them came from overseas and most of the rest came from other coastal areas. Even those who came from places like Mississippi don't all prefer their hometown. Also what makes places like SV and NYC great is that they are big and diverse enough to serve as acceptable second/third choices for lots of people from all kinds of places. Some people may prefer small towns and cities, but most people who do have are often driven by concerns like family and friends and have specific small cities they'd prefer. HQ2 in some small city in Mississippi may appeal to those who happen to be from that area, but don't offer much to others from small towns elsewhere in the US. If you consider that these companies employ glboal workforces, this is even more obvious - if a random American tech worker had to work in Turkey, would they rather work in Istanbul or a random small Turkish village? I don't understand this idea that it would be better for top tech companies to be headquartered in random places in the US - it's obviously terrible for the companies involved but it also doesn't serve the greater good. It leads to 1) company towns that live and die with the company; 2) environmentally inefficient sprawl; and 3) talents being trapped in wrong situations at wrong companies due to immobility. Furthermore, a critical mass is important and innovation is not a zero-sum game - if Silicon Valley's capital and talent, etc was spread around the country, I don't think the outcome is that you get the same level of innovation and wealth creation, only distributed more fairly - a lot of it probably never happens. Innovation is almost certainly accelerated along by a concentration of capital and talent in a small area. This doesn't mean everything should be in SV, but that there are strong benefits that accrue to society at large from companies choosing to bring talent to an already talent-rich area.
charliemil4 8y ago
A threatening misconception is that you can’t teach people — the truth is: you can’t teach the ones who have have self selected out. In these areas, young people have already decided - to either decided to move away, or become one who stays. There are ways to change this — amazon taking a large risk is one, and encouraging the next generation to be powerful is another. I won’t bet on Amazon, and I hope we could fix our education to value “how” people think over “what” they think.
- bufferoverflow 8y ago
  Oh, you can teach, but it takes 10-15 years to become a good programmer, and then another 5 years to learn all the tools and practices to get to the senior level, while Amazon needs them now.
  - taurath 8y ago
    That’s hogwash. You can take someone without professional experience but aptitude, put them in a professional environment and they will be cranking out decent production ready code and features faster than you’d think. Yes, even at Amazon level. They won’t usually be FAANG level senior engineers in 5 years, but actual training when your organizations already knows the right way to do things already can take you really far.
    - simonh 8y ago
      Maybe but you have to put them in a professional environment. Amazon can’t magic up a professional IT environment in Mississippi from thin air for local talent to train up in, and you need senior talent there to create that environment from day one.
    - bufferoverflow 8y ago
      Sorry, I'm not buying it. I worked with enough bad engineers with formal education who caused all kinds of issues with the code quality, scalability, coding speed, etc. And here you are, suggesting to put completely untrained people who will magically start pumping out production-grade code. That's a pipe dream.
jrs95 8y ago
It's also possible that people that would move somewhere they'd probably not want to live otherwise just to work for Amazon would be more motivated and less likely to leave in 2 years for a raise
- bufferoverflow 8y ago
  Do you think Amazon wants these people? High turnover isn't fun, and creates a horrible work environment.
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    Like Amazon gives a flying fuck about their employees wellbeing.
  - jrs95 8y ago
    No, I dont think Amazon wants those people at all, but that's what you're going to get in "tech hubs" a lot of the time. If they were to choose a more atypical location, and everyone had a bigger investment into their job coming in, then they could improve retention & as a result the quality of their engineering teams.

zwayhowder 8y ago

Not every employee is a programmer, and how many people moved from places like Mississippi to Seattle/Silicon Valley/NYC etc? Surely some of them would love to return to their home state or nearby earning good money, paying a lot less rent and actually seeing family and friends from their childhood. I can respect your decision to stay in Hawaii, just like I stay in Sydney it's a vibrant multicultural city with everything I want. Despite coming from a small town in a rural area I wouldn't go back, especially as the nearest Korean BBQ would be a 6 hour drive away. However if that small town grew to a medium town and had those things, and enough money to build some community facilities that I desire such as public pools that are open year round and have enough space for multiple activities (First world problems you can't go for a swim on a hot day because the local swim squad has the whole pool reserved), theatres that could host local and travelling groups, a public library that is open more than twice a week and of course city wide broadband, preferably available to outer regions as well (5G networks might bring this one home)... Any big move like Amazon would have to be thoughtfully planned, the last thing a small town needs is thousands of new residents with salaries 2-5 times the local average driving up the price of everything, imposing their worldview on the community and creating an us/them divide in the town.

iceninenines 8y ago
Exactly. There's more to a company than just coders. ;) Amazon is a massive organization that needs almost every trade, profession and specialty. Plus, people can relocate. The bigger picture is bringing industry where it can revitalize an area. Chobani is a great example.
candybar 8y ago
Not that many people who work at big tech companies moved from places like Mississippi to Seattle/SV/NYC. Lots of them came straight out of school (and top schools these companies recruit from are concentrated on the coasts), lots of them came from overseas and most of the rest came from other coastal areas. Even those who came from places like Mississippi don't all prefer their hometown. Also what makes places like SV and NYC great is that they are big and diverse enough to serve as acceptable second/third choices for lots of people from all kinds of places. Some people may prefer small towns and cities, but most people who do have are often driven by concerns like family and friends and have specific small cities they'd prefer. HQ2 in some small city in Mississippi may appeal to those who happen to be from that area, but don't offer much to others from small towns elsewhere in the US. If you consider that these companies employ glboal workforces, this is even more obvious - if a random American tech worker had to work in Turkey, would they rather work in Istanbul or a random small Turkish village? I don't understand this idea that it would be better for top tech companies to be headquartered in random places in the US - it's obviously terrible for the companies involved but it also doesn't serve the greater good. It leads to 1) company towns that live and die with the company; 2) environmentally inefficient sprawl; and 3) talents being trapped in wrong situations at wrong companies due to immobility. Furthermore, a critical mass is important and innovation is not a zero-sum game - if Silicon Valley's capital and talent, etc was spread around the country, I don't think the outcome is that you get the same level of innovation and wealth creation, only distributed more fairly - a lot of it probably never happens. Innovation is almost certainly accelerated along by a concentration of capital and talent in a small area. This doesn't mean everything should be in SV, but that there are strong benefits that accrue to society at large from companies choosing to bring talent to an already talent-rich area.

charliemil4 8y ago

A threatening misconception is that you can’t teach people — the truth is: you can’t teach the ones who have have self selected out. In these areas, young people have already decided - to either decided to move away, or become one who stays. There are ways to change this — amazon taking a large risk is one, and encouraging the next generation to be powerful is another. I won’t bet on Amazon, and I hope we could fix our education to value “how” people think over “what” they think.

bufferoverflow 8y ago
Oh, you can teach, but it takes 10-15 years to become a good programmer, and then another 5 years to learn all the tools and practices to get to the senior level, while Amazon needs them now.
- taurath 8y ago
  That’s hogwash. You can take someone without professional experience but aptitude, put them in a professional environment and they will be cranking out decent production ready code and features faster than you’d think. Yes, even at Amazon level. They won’t usually be FAANG level senior engineers in 5 years, but actual training when your organizations already knows the right way to do things already can take you really far.
  - simonh 8y ago
    Maybe but you have to put them in a professional environment. Amazon can’t magic up a professional IT environment in Mississippi from thin air for local talent to train up in, and you need senior talent there to create that environment from day one.
  - bufferoverflow 8y ago
    Sorry, I'm not buying it. I worked with enough bad engineers with formal education who caused all kinds of issues with the code quality, scalability, coding speed, etc. And here you are, suggesting to put completely untrained people who will magically start pumping out production-grade code. That's a pipe dream.

jrs95 8y ago

It's also possible that people that would move somewhere they'd probably not want to live otherwise just to work for Amazon would be more motivated and less likely to leave in 2 years for a raise

bufferoverflow 8y ago
Do you think Amazon wants these people? High turnover isn't fun, and creates a horrible work environment.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  Like Amazon gives a flying fuck about their employees wellbeing.
- jrs95 8y ago
  No, I dont think Amazon wants those people at all, but that's what you're going to get in "tech hubs" a lot of the time. If they were to choose a more atypical location, and everyone had a bigger investment into their job coming in, then they could improve retention & as a result the quality of their engineering teams.