5 ms·

Another article about how San Francisco is prohibitively expensive! I think more mid to big companies should consider investing in moving to some of these area

Another article about how San Francisco is prohibitively expensive! I think more mid to big companies should consider investing in moving to some of these areas where there's little to nothing else. If you look at something like Epic in Madison WI, they basically own that town in that sector, so a lot of people end up working there a lot longer than they want to because they've invested in that area (whether economically, emotionally, or something else).

Xcelerate 8y ago
> a lot of people end up working there a lot longer than they want to I’m not sure that’s a good thing—for them or the company
- notTyler 8y ago
  It's certainly not, but I think the company wants it like that because, largely, working in healthcare sucks. If you had C# experience and were tired of jumping through hoops and constantly having fires because of the demands of the medical industry, you probably wouldn't keep doing it if you could take those skills somewhere else. That said, I was more referring to the bigger companies noted for how they treat employees well. Having a 20k employee building for, say, google, in one of the more sparsely populated areas of California, Oregon, or Washington would solve at least part of the problem, but then I'm guessing that whatever population lives there now would absolutely hate the company for coming in and taking over everything.
rubicon33 8y ago
The problem is nobody wants to live in Madison WI. If you're a top performing engineer you're likely to want to head straight to the epicenter of tech innovation. You want to knock heads with the best of 'em, and that isn't in Madison WI or any other small town.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  If that's the case they should absolutely stop complaining about housing prices. It's self inflicted pain. If you must live in the most expensive city in the world due to your own desires, you have no right to complain that it's expensive. The option to live somewhere cheaper exists, you just choose not to take it.
  - rubicon33 8y ago
    Try and look at it another way... It's not that they MUST live in the most expensive city. Rather, they MUST live with (and work) the most bright minds. That creates a geographic pooling problem. I don't think that's an entirely dismissible goal, by the way. Humans are social beings and more often than not we're better off working with other smart people. Collaboration of bright minds is responsible for some of the incredible achievements of humanity.
    - pthomas551 8y ago
      Well that and your labor market power is maximized in places where there are many potential employers. If you put down roots in a one company town, they can just tell you to go pound sand when you ask for a raise or promotion. Also, being in a place with lots of employers is a hedge against layoff risk.
    - nradov 8y ago
      I've seen no hard evidence that the minds there are actually brighter. More arrogant maybe?
      - JBReefer 8y ago
        Isn't the stereotype of SF arrogance? Most of the smartest people I've met work in O&G or aerospace, in places like Texas and Connecticut.
      - rubicon33 8y ago
        What a ridiculous comment. Who exactly do you expect to be collecting this "hard evidence" to prove such a thing to you? Clearly if the likes of some of the biggest, and most successful tech companies in the world are located in the bay area, that might be proof enough that some pretty impressive minds reside there? I'm merely making the point that IF one wanted to work with like minded, smart people, moving to the bay is one way to maximize your chance of finding said people. I think we could both agree you're less likely to find them in Nebraska, though of course there are some very talented people there as well. Furthermore, who is being arrogant here? The person who wants to live in and among bright minds, or the person who denies the bright minds exist? Takes a pretty arrogant person to deny that there's a lot of talent in the bay.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  This is exactly why big employers leave smaller regions. I've seen it happen on numerous occasions. People in Seattle/SV/RTP/NYC are seen by leadership to be "better" than those in podunk mid-western towns. They are more than happy to pay $160k for a median NYC dev rather than $100k for a great mid-westerner. So what incentive is there to stick around unless you really want to? All the good jobs are in those cities.
- JBReefer 8y ago
  As a New Yorker, this comment is hilarious. Madison is about a third of the size of SF. As a polite reminder, SF is a little more than a third of the size of Queens, and fundamentally still kind of a small town compared to real cities. It's about the same size as Hempstead, NY which is certainly a small town. Hell, I bet more people bike to work as a % in Madison than in SF. Lake Nebagamon WI is a small town.
  - tdhoot 8y ago
    Comparing these places to the Bay Area would probably be more appropriate.
  - rubicon33 8y ago
    This comment is hilarious. You assumed (incorrectly) that we're talking about just SF. Try the entire Bay Area. It's also worth pointing out if it's not already clear, that "small" does not always refer to population size, or even geographical expanse. "Small" can refer to accomplishments, and impact/significance in the tech world. By comparison, Madison WI is quite small. And for the record I don't live in the Bay Area. Nor do I want to.
  - Latteland 8y ago
    It's not the size of an area or the number of people that indicate it's quality level as a tech high quality area either. The population of NYC is not the indicator of the number leading tech workers and companies there, of course.
CountSessine 8y ago
No one wants to live in the middle of Wisconsin. Urbanization is a global phenomenon. It's happening everywhere - in rich countries and poor. Resisting urbanization is expensive and ultimately a wasted effort. Instead we should be doing what the Japanese are doing and thinking carefully about how to gradually decommission small towns in the most humane way possible for the few people still living there - how do we provide them with medical services and utilities while they're still alive? And we need to cut the bullshit, implement land reform, and let everyone who wants to live in one of our nice big cities live in one.
- throwawaysea 8y ago
  Actually lots of people want to live in smaller places; you may just not know them personally. "No one" is clearly hyperbole, as I know many such people myself. I find that a lot of people who live in big cities have little idea what life in a smaller place is like. It's looked down upon, and even feared, irrationally so. I bet a lot of folks who favor urbanization actually have a wider range of communities in which they would thrive than they think. What you're asking for, an explicit effort to "decommission" small towns, is in some ways also signing the death warrant on a way of life, a culture. I don't think there's a humane way to do that. I think there are healthier perspectives available, with recognition that different people have different wants/needs. It doesn't have to be only a small number of big cities. It can be some big cities, some medium cities, some small cities, some rural areas.
  - CountSessine 8y ago
    What you're asking for, an explicit effort to "decommission" small towns, is in some ways also signing the death warrant on a way of life, a culture. I don't think there's a humane way to do that The humane save people, not cultures. All the culture in the world isn't worth the suffering of a young working couple who have to live out of their car because of NIMBYism and our continuing efforts to subsidize small towns. I think there are healthier perspectives available, with recognition that different people have different wants/needs If more people really wanted to live in small towns, they would be expanding, not contracting. Clearly some people want to live in small towns, but many of these small towns won't be able to pay for their own hospitals and community services at some point. Some small towns will survive - after all, you seem to want to live in one. And no one is stopping you. But you are now a part of a small minority, and we need to have a plan to care for the last of the old people who live in some of these towns as they fade away. The most unjust thing we could do is ask for young people living happily in their cities to subsidize a 'culture' they have no meaningful connection to or interest in. The real culture is where the people are, and soon that won't be small towns.

Xcelerate 8y ago

> a lot of people end up working there a lot longer than they want to I’m not sure that’s a good thing—for them or the company

notTyler 8y ago
It's certainly not, but I think the company wants it like that because, largely, working in healthcare sucks. If you had C# experience and were tired of jumping through hoops and constantly having fires because of the demands of the medical industry, you probably wouldn't keep doing it if you could take those skills somewhere else. That said, I was more referring to the bigger companies noted for how they treat employees well. Having a 20k employee building for, say, google, in one of the more sparsely populated areas of California, Oregon, or Washington would solve at least part of the problem, but then I'm guessing that whatever population lives there now would absolutely hate the company for coming in and taking over everything.

rubicon33 8y ago

The problem is nobody wants to live in Madison WI. If you're a top performing engineer you're likely to want to head straight to the epicenter of tech innovation. You want to knock heads with the best of 'em, and that isn't in Madison WI or any other small town.

malvosenior 8y ago
If that's the case they should absolutely stop complaining about housing prices. It's self inflicted pain. If you must live in the most expensive city in the world due to your own desires, you have no right to complain that it's expensive. The option to live somewhere cheaper exists, you just choose not to take it.
- rubicon33 8y ago
  Try and look at it another way... It's not that they MUST live in the most expensive city. Rather, they MUST live with (and work) the most bright minds. That creates a geographic pooling problem. I don't think that's an entirely dismissible goal, by the way. Humans are social beings and more often than not we're better off working with other smart people. Collaboration of bright minds is responsible for some of the incredible achievements of humanity.
  - pthomas551 8y ago
    Well that and your labor market power is maximized in places where there are many potential employers. If you put down roots in a one company town, they can just tell you to go pound sand when you ask for a raise or promotion. Also, being in a place with lots of employers is a hedge against layoff risk.
  - nradov 8y ago
    I've seen no hard evidence that the minds there are actually brighter. More arrogant maybe?
    - JBReefer 8y ago
      Isn't the stereotype of SF arrogance? Most of the smartest people I've met work in O&G or aerospace, in places like Texas and Connecticut.
    - rubicon33 8y ago
      What a ridiculous comment. Who exactly do you expect to be collecting this "hard evidence" to prove such a thing to you? Clearly if the likes of some of the biggest, and most successful tech companies in the world are located in the bay area, that might be proof enough that some pretty impressive minds reside there? I'm merely making the point that IF one wanted to work with like minded, smart people, moving to the bay is one way to maximize your chance of finding said people. I think we could both agree you're less likely to find them in Nebraska, though of course there are some very talented people there as well. Furthermore, who is being arrogant here? The person who wants to live in and among bright minds, or the person who denies the bright minds exist? Takes a pretty arrogant person to deny that there's a lot of talent in the bay.
mywittyname 8y ago
This is exactly why big employers leave smaller regions. I've seen it happen on numerous occasions. People in Seattle/SV/RTP/NYC are seen by leadership to be "better" than those in podunk mid-western towns. They are more than happy to pay $160k for a median NYC dev rather than $100k for a great mid-westerner. So what incentive is there to stick around unless you really want to? All the good jobs are in those cities.
JBReefer 8y ago
As a New Yorker, this comment is hilarious. Madison is about a third of the size of SF. As a polite reminder, SF is a little more than a third of the size of Queens, and fundamentally still kind of a small town compared to real cities. It's about the same size as Hempstead, NY which is certainly a small town. Hell, I bet more people bike to work as a % in Madison than in SF. Lake Nebagamon WI is a small town.
- tdhoot 8y ago
  Comparing these places to the Bay Area would probably be more appropriate.
- rubicon33 8y ago
  This comment is hilarious. You assumed (incorrectly) that we're talking about just SF. Try the entire Bay Area. It's also worth pointing out if it's not already clear, that "small" does not always refer to population size, or even geographical expanse. "Small" can refer to accomplishments, and impact/significance in the tech world. By comparison, Madison WI is quite small. And for the record I don't live in the Bay Area. Nor do I want to.
- Latteland 8y ago
  It's not the size of an area or the number of people that indicate it's quality level as a tech high quality area either. The population of NYC is not the indicator of the number leading tech workers and companies there, of course.

CountSessine 8y ago

No one wants to live in the middle of Wisconsin. Urbanization is a global phenomenon. It's happening everywhere - in rich countries and poor. Resisting urbanization is expensive and ultimately a wasted effort. Instead we should be doing what the Japanese are doing and thinking carefully about how to gradually decommission small towns in the most humane way possible for the few people still living there - how do we provide them with medical services and utilities while they're still alive? And we need to cut the bullshit, implement land reform, and let everyone who wants to live in one of our nice big cities live in one.

throwawaysea 8y ago
Actually lots of people want to live in smaller places; you may just not know them personally. "No one" is clearly hyperbole, as I know many such people myself. I find that a lot of people who live in big cities have little idea what life in a smaller place is like. It's looked down upon, and even feared, irrationally so. I bet a lot of folks who favor urbanization actually have a wider range of communities in which they would thrive than they think. What you're asking for, an explicit effort to "decommission" small towns, is in some ways also signing the death warrant on a way of life, a culture. I don't think there's a humane way to do that. I think there are healthier perspectives available, with recognition that different people have different wants/needs. It doesn't have to be only a small number of big cities. It can be some big cities, some medium cities, some small cities, some rural areas.
- CountSessine 8y ago
  What you're asking for, an explicit effort to "decommission" small towns, is in some ways also signing the death warrant on a way of life, a culture. I don't think there's a humane way to do that The humane save people, not cultures. All the culture in the world isn't worth the suffering of a young working couple who have to live out of their car because of NIMBYism and our continuing efforts to subsidize small towns. I think there are healthier perspectives available, with recognition that different people have different wants/needs If more people really wanted to live in small towns, they would be expanding, not contracting. Clearly some people want to live in small towns, but many of these small towns won't be able to pay for their own hospitals and community services at some point. Some small towns will survive - after all, you seem to want to live in one. And no one is stopping you. But you are now a part of a small minority, and we need to have a plan to care for the last of the old people who live in some of these towns as they fade away. The most unjust thing we could do is ask for young people living happily in their cities to subsidize a 'culture' they have no meaningful connection to or interest in. The real culture is where the people are, and soon that won't be small towns.