6 ms·

There is a simple solution to this: cover relocation expenses for new hires. As wacky as this sounds, it was standard practice to pay for relocating engineers.

There is a simple solution to this: cover relocation expenses for new hires. As wacky as this sounds, it was standard practice to pay for relocating engineers. That's how my family moved so much when I was growing up. During the 80s, companies started cutting back, so that by the 90s, only managers & executives were getting paid relocation. I've been approached by recruiters trying to hire developers in smaller communities. I know it is hard for them when this is the only employer (outside of retail or fast food) in that "city" because if things don't turn out, you have to move. Moving is expensive. When you're in your early 20s, everything fits in the back of a pickup truck. If you have family, then things get complicated enough that relocation becomes a large project.

calvinmorrison 3y ago
Or more simply, hire remotely. I have laughed off more than few recruiters, all who have tried and failed to hire for a somewhat niche IT job an hour north of Grand Rapids, MI over the last year
- ricardobayes 3y ago
  Grand Rapids, MI has a surprisingly strong tech startup scene
darth_avocado 3y ago
But relocation expenses are covered in a lot of jobs, yet people don’t relocate. Beyond the early career moves, it is extremely hard for people to move. It goes beyond just financial hurdles. It’s not easy for example to move your kids to a new city and new schools.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  But relocation expenses are covered in a lot of jobs Citation? Maybe for lots of jobs that require unique skills, but the average office drone isn't getting relocation expenses.
  - the_only_law 3y ago
    IME sometimes you have to ask for it. Last time I moved I was working for a big soulless F500 type company. When I applied to the job there was a note saying that they would not offer relocation expenses. I was one of two people hired into the team at the time for similar roles, and the other guy told me he managed to get relocation money just by asking
- mleo 3y ago
  More families have two incomes and relocating requires finding two jobs.
- itake 3y ago
  If I sold my house right now, I’d have to realize $150k loss. If I were to buy a new comparable house, I would pay double the mortgage rate. The highest relo package post tax I’ve received is $32k ($50k pretax, but in California)
stevemk14ebr 3y ago
Social connections being lost is not something easy to compensate for. Those often take a _long_ time to grow organically as well.
- geraldwhen 3y ago
  Or never come back.
- clnq 3y ago
  If you can ever compensate for them at all. It’s basically impossible to make lifelong friends after 35-ish. Maybe that’s why all the seniors I know are inflexible about relocation, among the many other reasons. Too much damage for a job you might not even like (who knows, it can go either way despite best attempts).
  - tired-turtle 3y ago
    During COVID, I made friends who are 10/25/40ish years older than me. I firmly believe we will be lifelong friends, i.e. til death do us apart. Lasting friendships form in mysterious ways. You need only be open to the possibility.
snarf21 3y ago
This is not a solution in a system where your position can be cut after you've sold your house but before you start your first day. What you describe is that a main way to get a promotion used to be to move. I doubt that is really the case for most people anymore. Additionally, if you move to the wrong place you will be moving again when the CEO runs the company into the ground doing buybacks instead of growing the company.
dsm4ck 3y ago
If the new hire has a spouse that can't work remote, the moving costs are nothing compared to the spouse's loss of income.
lordnacho 3y ago
Or just make a law that says "if you fire a recently relocated employee, you owe him 2 years salary". That way firms that aren't sure about relocating someone will not do it. Firms with some confidence in their business will not have a problem.
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  The unintended consequences of this are pretty large. I just wouldn’t hire anyone who fit that law because of how onerous it is.
  - licebmi__at__ 3y ago
    A possible solution might be a remote probation period, then if you still need relocation, you will be subject to the law. You get to hire and fire if the relationship doesn’t work, but if you’re still adamant on forcing a relocation then the risk is shared.
  - ResearchCode 3y ago
    It costs nothing amortized over the hundred hires you wouldn't fire in the first month. If you fire often, this law is good to stop you from doing that.
  - grumple 3y ago
    And that's fine. You'd hire locally, you'd move the company, or you'd allow remote work. But you definitely wouldn't fire someone you just hired and forced to move.
- wanttocomment 3y ago
  This kind of thing is why we have such long interview cycles and strong bias against false positives
  - Pet_Ant 3y ago
    ...because a false negative is so much worse than a false positive. I'll take less opportunities for more stability. Many people would. That's what this article is all about. Better for most to have less that you can rely on than more one year and less the other and no sense of calm.
delfinom 3y ago
Plenty of companies do cover relocation expenses. In fact defense contractors who spent decades dodging taxes by moving facilities to bumfuck nowhere rural areas are so desperate they've been ponying up large signing bonuses on top. The problem is many of the companies complaining nobody wants to relocate is because they are located somewhere that's a career deadend. They may be the only employer in the area or there's barely more. The cost of living may also be lower but the quality of life may not be so great too. Boomers put up with this shit. Every other generation is actually prioritizing quality of life long term. Constantly relocating generally isn't fun, even if it's paid for.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > defense contractors who spent decades dodging taxes by moving facilities to bumfuck nowhere rural areas This isn’t why they do it. Getting the vote of that bumfuck district’s Congressperson, who is safely gerrymandered and thus tenured and on powerful committees, is.
- TimPC 3y ago
  Sort of. Most common relocation packages vest over two years and cover some costs. Only the very best packages compensate you for the loss of money on your house in the market and I’ve yet to see any packages that compensate for inflation-adjusted loss. Most of the time if you get fired 6 months after relocating you owe the company 75-100% of your relocation package depending on the vesting terms.
elijaht 3y ago
Everyone I know that has relocated (~10 people, largely SWEs) has gotten a stipend to relocate, including myself. To me, that's not the big barrier. The social/emotional cost of relocation, along with the risk of job loss, is the main driver.
- itake 3y ago
  As others have stated, that stipend would not cover doubling of mortgage (due to high interest rates). That stipend also gets clawed back if they pay you off within 1-2 years. If I sold my house right now, I’d realize a $150k loss + have to pay double the mortgage rate. I’ve never had a relo package above $50k ($37k after tax)
  - elijaht 3y ago
    Sure. Was responding to the claim that no one was getting a relocation stipend
cptskippy 3y ago
I think this is just part of the equation. Begin crazy tinfoil hat rant... Companies have been driven by short term returns for so long that they've completely eroded the trust of everyone. For the last 40 years companies have been renaming compensation as "benefits" and then reducing those "benefits" under the guise of tightening the belt so they can survive the endless wave of recessions. They have gradually whittled down and eliminated almost all forms of compensation at all levels. Pensions became matching retirement plans, then matching up to 10%, 8%, 6%, and 4%. Healthcare use to be free to employees, now it's paid and the cost goes up significantly every year. Companies sold their offices and moved into leased properties where employees pay for parking but got a stipend until a subsequent recession eliminated that stipend. These cuts have all been gradual over the decades and new people entering the work force are unaware and assume this is how it's always been and don't question it. At the same time older employees are forced to accept the concessions because they're minor and it's easier to take a minor cut in compensation than find a new job. We have reached the point where most employees are no longer fairly compensated for their work and have no sense of job security or loyalty. The pandemic amplified this because it forced businesses to enact policies they claimed would be damaging AND then miraculously reported record productivity and profits. Now they're trying to roll back those policies. Employees see long commutes and increased expenses for not real benefit and are rejecting it. So why the rollback? Most of this rollback is being driven by Private Equity firms who are heavily invested in commercial rel-estate and without staff in offices that rel-estate is tanking. These firms have been purchasing private companies and then steering them to lease properties they own for decades. This is also why Private Equity started investing in residential rel-estate, they're double dipping. If employees have to go into the office then they need to live near that office. Post pandemic, these companies reported record profits but those gains are dwindling. To maintain these gains they've driven inflation to the breaking point. But inflation isn't sustainable so it's back to cutting costs. What's the biggest cost? Employees and with record low unemployment you have high wages. So now we have layoffs as a way to sabotage the labor market and drive down costs. This is just part of the cycle the rich use to extract wealth from us.
- m348e912 3y ago
  >So why the rollback? Most of this rollback is being driven by Private Equity firms who are heavily invested in commercial rel-estate and without staff in offices that rel-estate is tanking. I agree that a lot of the pressure for the return to office is coming from investment firms that risk losing their shirt in commercial real estate if it doesn't happen. These firms have a lot of influence at the top of major companies. There seems to be a battle underway between the working class and the investment/management class over remote work long term. It is interesting to watch.

calvinmorrison 3y ago

Or more simply, hire remotely. I have laughed off more than few recruiters, all who have tried and failed to hire for a somewhat niche IT job an hour north of Grand Rapids, MI over the last year

ricardobayes 3y ago
Grand Rapids, MI has a surprisingly strong tech startup scene

darth_avocado 3y ago

But relocation expenses are covered in a lot of jobs, yet people don’t relocate. Beyond the early career moves, it is extremely hard for people to move. It goes beyond just financial hurdles. It’s not easy for example to move your kids to a new city and new schools.

alistairSH 3y ago
But relocation expenses are covered in a lot of jobs Citation? Maybe for lots of jobs that require unique skills, but the average office drone isn't getting relocation expenses.
- the_only_law 3y ago
  IME sometimes you have to ask for it. Last time I moved I was working for a big soulless F500 type company. When I applied to the job there was a note saying that they would not offer relocation expenses. I was one of two people hired into the team at the time for similar roles, and the other guy told me he managed to get relocation money just by asking
mleo 3y ago
More families have two incomes and relocating requires finding two jobs.
itake 3y ago
If I sold my house right now, I’d have to realize $150k loss. If I were to buy a new comparable house, I would pay double the mortgage rate. The highest relo package post tax I’ve received is $32k ($50k pretax, but in California)

stevemk14ebr 3y ago

Social connections being lost is not something easy to compensate for. Those often take a _long_ time to grow organically as well.

geraldwhen 3y ago
Or never come back.
clnq 3y ago
If you can ever compensate for them at all. It’s basically impossible to make lifelong friends after 35-ish. Maybe that’s why all the seniors I know are inflexible about relocation, among the many other reasons. Too much damage for a job you might not even like (who knows, it can go either way despite best attempts).
- tired-turtle 3y ago
  During COVID, I made friends who are 10/25/40ish years older than me. I firmly believe we will be lifelong friends, i.e. til death do us apart. Lasting friendships form in mysterious ways. You need only be open to the possibility.

snarf21 3y ago

This is not a solution in a system where your position can be cut after you've sold your house but before you start your first day. What you describe is that a main way to get a promotion used to be to move. I doubt that is really the case for most people anymore. Additionally, if you move to the wrong place you will be moving again when the CEO runs the company into the ground doing buybacks instead of growing the company.

dsm4ck 3y ago

If the new hire has a spouse that can't work remote, the moving costs are nothing compared to the spouse's loss of income.

lordnacho 3y ago

Or just make a law that says "if you fire a recently relocated employee, you owe him 2 years salary". That way firms that aren't sure about relocating someone will not do it. Firms with some confidence in their business will not have a problem.

monero-xmr 3y ago
The unintended consequences of this are pretty large. I just wouldn’t hire anyone who fit that law because of how onerous it is.
- licebmi__at__ 3y ago
  A possible solution might be a remote probation period, then if you still need relocation, you will be subject to the law. You get to hire and fire if the relationship doesn’t work, but if you’re still adamant on forcing a relocation then the risk is shared.
- ResearchCode 3y ago
  It costs nothing amortized over the hundred hires you wouldn't fire in the first month. If you fire often, this law is good to stop you from doing that.
- grumple 3y ago
  And that's fine. You'd hire locally, you'd move the company, or you'd allow remote work. But you definitely wouldn't fire someone you just hired and forced to move.
wanttocomment 3y ago
This kind of thing is why we have such long interview cycles and strong bias against false positives
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  ...because a false negative is so much worse than a false positive. I'll take less opportunities for more stability. Many people would. That's what this article is all about. Better for most to have less that you can rely on than more one year and less the other and no sense of calm.

delfinom 3y ago

Plenty of companies do cover relocation expenses. In fact defense contractors who spent decades dodging taxes by moving facilities to bumfuck nowhere rural areas are so desperate they've been ponying up large signing bonuses on top. The problem is many of the companies complaining nobody wants to relocate is because they are located somewhere that's a career deadend. They may be the only employer in the area or there's barely more. The cost of living may also be lower but the quality of life may not be so great too. Boomers put up with this shit. Every other generation is actually prioritizing quality of life long term. Constantly relocating generally isn't fun, even if it's paid for.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> defense contractors who spent decades dodging taxes by moving facilities to bumfuck nowhere rural areas This isn’t why they do it. Getting the vote of that bumfuck district’s Congressperson, who is safely gerrymandered and thus tenured and on powerful committees, is.
TimPC 3y ago
Sort of. Most common relocation packages vest over two years and cover some costs. Only the very best packages compensate you for the loss of money on your house in the market and I’ve yet to see any packages that compensate for inflation-adjusted loss. Most of the time if you get fired 6 months after relocating you owe the company 75-100% of your relocation package depending on the vesting terms.

elijaht 3y ago

Everyone I know that has relocated (~10 people, largely SWEs) has gotten a stipend to relocate, including myself. To me, that's not the big barrier. The social/emotional cost of relocation, along with the risk of job loss, is the main driver.

itake 3y ago
As others have stated, that stipend would not cover doubling of mortgage (due to high interest rates). That stipend also gets clawed back if they pay you off within 1-2 years. If I sold my house right now, I’d realize a $150k loss + have to pay double the mortgage rate. I’ve never had a relo package above $50k ($37k after tax)
- elijaht 3y ago
  Sure. Was responding to the claim that no one was getting a relocation stipend

cptskippy 3y ago

I think this is just part of the equation. Begin crazy tinfoil hat rant... Companies have been driven by short term returns for so long that they've completely eroded the trust of everyone. For the last 40 years companies have been renaming compensation as "benefits" and then reducing those "benefits" under the guise of tightening the belt so they can survive the endless wave of recessions. They have gradually whittled down and eliminated almost all forms of compensation at all levels. Pensions became matching retirement plans, then matching up to 10%, 8%, 6%, and 4%. Healthcare use to be free to employees, now it's paid and the cost goes up significantly every year. Companies sold their offices and moved into leased properties where employees pay for parking but got a stipend until a subsequent recession eliminated that stipend. These cuts have all been gradual over the decades and new people entering the work force are unaware and assume this is how it's always been and don't question it. At the same time older employees are forced to accept the concessions because they're minor and it's easier to take a minor cut in compensation than find a new job. We have reached the point where most employees are no longer fairly compensated for their work and have no sense of job security or loyalty. The pandemic amplified this because it forced businesses to enact policies they claimed would be damaging AND then miraculously reported record productivity and profits. Now they're trying to roll back those policies. Employees see long commutes and increased expenses for not real benefit and are rejecting it. So why the rollback? Most of this rollback is being driven by Private Equity firms who are heavily invested in commercial rel-estate and without staff in offices that rel-estate is tanking. These firms have been purchasing private companies and then steering them to lease properties they own for decades. This is also why Private Equity started investing in residential rel-estate, they're double dipping. If employees have to go into the office then they need to live near that office. Post pandemic, these companies reported record profits but those gains are dwindling. To maintain these gains they've driven inflation to the breaking point. But inflation isn't sustainable so it's back to cutting costs. What's the biggest cost? Employees and with record low unemployment you have high wages. So now we have layoffs as a way to sabotage the labor market and drive down costs. This is just part of the cycle the rich use to extract wealth from us.

m348e912 3y ago
>So why the rollback? Most of this rollback is being driven by Private Equity firms who are heavily invested in commercial rel-estate and without staff in offices that rel-estate is tanking. I agree that a lot of the pressure for the return to office is coming from investment firms that risk losing their shirt in commercial real estate if it doesn't happen. These firms have a lot of influence at the top of major companies. There seems to be a battle underway between the working class and the investment/management class over remote work long term. It is interesting to watch.