3 ms·
Companies aren't going to move HQ's, because that's a terrible idea. The knowledge and skills loss would take years and years to recover from, substantially imp
by TulliusCicero 7y ago
Companies aren't going to move HQ's, because that's a terrible idea. The knowledge and skills loss would take years and years to recover from, substantially impeding productivity for a long time. It's economic suicide for a company like Google.
What you're not bothering to grapple with is: why are these companies trying to expand headcount in areas that are somewhat hostile to them, and also much more expensive? Hell, even in Europe, Google's big offices are in the most expensive cities. There's a reason for that, and it's not because they enjoy lighting money on fire.
Once you've figured out the 'why' there, you can work on coming up with a fix or workaround. Until then, just blithely saying "well they're just too lazy to do this other thing" itself just smacks of intellectual laziness. It lets you slam them without having to analyze the very real issues keeping companies in expensive tech hubs.
- linuxftw 7y agoHaving an HQ seems increasingly antiquated. Sure, there probably needs to be a designated executive center, but otherwise it seems far less risky to partition your organization into smaller units. Just look at what Amazon is doing with HQ2.
- TulliusCicero 7y agoEven with Amazon, it was "HQ2", not "HQ50". And big companies already do have lots of engineering offices, it's just still beneficial to have a big main hub, there are costs to fragmentation.