3 ms·

> If the market works the way it should, then people should shift out of the tighter areas and into the looser areas, reaching something closer to an equilibriu

by bsder 3y ago

> If the market works the way it should, then people should shift out of the tighter areas and into the looser areas, reaching something closer to an equilibrium. The problem is that households require two wage earners. Consequently, it is very difficult for a family to move since both earners have to find better jobs simultaneously. One of the reasons to stay in the overpriced areas is that when one person loses a job, they can get another job without uprooting the whole family.

giantg2 3y ago
"Consequently, it is very difficult for a family to move since both earners have to find better jobs simultaneously." If cost of living is significantly lower, they don't have to be better. My whole comment was about job distribution. What are we doing to address it? Do the mega corp leaders not see the social and business value in opening offices in smaller cities?
- bsder 3y ago
  The maximum cost of living differential is something like +25% (NYC) to -25% (Beaumont, TX). Most differentials are much smaller. "Cheap" places are no longer very much cheaper. Cost of living changes are no longer extreme enough to offset the loss of a wage earner. > Do the mega corp leaders not see the social and business value in opening offices in smaller cities? Um, no? The difference between opening an office in San Jose and one in Pittsburgh is quite large, for example. Your connectivity due to air travel is much worse. Your personal networking is much worse. etc. It was the former CTO of Modcloth who talked about how having the programmers in Pittsburgh was great but that they needed to park the executives in the Bay Area.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    Google actually has an office in Pittsburgh. That's the more or less the type of expansion I'm talking about - satellite offices for the large corps. It's still an international airport, even if the schedule isn't as robust. The emphasis on in-person personal networking, and personal networking in general, is atrocious. Personal networking and the requirement to so it in person is a huge factor in many biases and discrimination. It's only going to get worse as the group-think and physical concentration increases while the job market gets worse. Also, 25% is a big difference. I think we have to compare the commutable areas as well. Some places like NYC and SF do not have much cheaper areas in a reasonable commute. Other areas can have much cheaper areas in a reasonable commute. Many costs are largely the same due to the national brands - cars, electronics, appliances, etc. But things like housing can be massively different. An apartment in a commutable suburb can be close to 50% of what it is downtown in many cities. It's no secret that the salaries and property costs are extremely above average in the bay area.

by bsder 3y ago

giantg2 3y ago

"Consequently, it is very difficult for a family to move since both earners have to find better jobs simultaneously." If cost of living is significantly lower, they don't have to be better. My whole comment was about job distribution. What are we doing to address it? Do the mega corp leaders not see the social and business value in opening offices in smaller cities?

bsder 3y ago
The maximum cost of living differential is something like +25% (NYC) to -25% (Beaumont, TX). Most differentials are much smaller. "Cheap" places are no longer very much cheaper. Cost of living changes are no longer extreme enough to offset the loss of a wage earner. > Do the mega corp leaders not see the social and business value in opening offices in smaller cities? Um, no? The difference between opening an office in San Jose and one in Pittsburgh is quite large, for example. Your connectivity due to air travel is much worse. Your personal networking is much worse. etc. It was the former CTO of Modcloth who talked about how having the programmers in Pittsburgh was great but that they needed to park the executives in the Bay Area.
- giantg2 3y ago
  Google actually has an office in Pittsburgh. That's the more or less the type of expansion I'm talking about - satellite offices for the large corps. It's still an international airport, even if the schedule isn't as robust. The emphasis on in-person personal networking, and personal networking in general, is atrocious. Personal networking and the requirement to so it in person is a huge factor in many biases and discrimination. It's only going to get worse as the group-think and physical concentration increases while the job market gets worse. Also, 25% is a big difference. I think we have to compare the commutable areas as well. Some places like NYC and SF do not have much cheaper areas in a reasonable commute. Other areas can have much cheaper areas in a reasonable commute. Many costs are largely the same due to the national brands - cars, electronics, appliances, etc. But things like housing can be massively different. An apartment in a commutable suburb can be close to 50% of what it is downtown in many cities. It's no secret that the salaries and property costs are extremely above average in the bay area.