3 ms·

Second unpopular take: This was better for all involved, but it constrained the job market to geographical boundaries. People did not apply to jobs in other sta

Second unpopular take: This was better for all involved, but it constrained the job market to geographical boundaries. People did not apply to jobs in other states/countries/continents because they did not see the job postings for other states/countries/continents.

Xirdus 2mo ago
Third unpopular take: this geographical restriction was a good thing.
- reactordev 2mo ago
  Fourth unpopular take: without it Silicon Valley wouldn’t exist.
  - alephnerd 2mo ago
    SV exists thanks to CA's lack of non-competes and the Stanford and UC Berkeley innovation ecosystem. Otherwise, Boston, NYC, DMV, Seattle, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, and others all could have become the next Silicon Valley.
    - paleotrope 2mo ago
      That's interesting because it's way more complicated than that. Boston had the 128 loop and Digital. TI in dallas. Simi valley. I think it's more like the end of defense spending in the late 80s early 90s winnowed down the several "SV"s into only one.
      - alephnerd 2mo ago
        I know, and the reason Digital and TI and Compaq weren't able to make as deep ecosystems as Xerox PARC or Fairchild did was because of the non-compete aspect back when companies were much more litigious than today.
        ghaff 2mo ago
        IMO, the non-compete aspect is way overstated. People moved between the Route 128 computer companies all the time and even moved to California. If it was a slower pace than today, it probably had more to do with people not shifting jobs as often than litigation related to non-competes.
    - red-iron-pine 2mo ago
      > and the Stanford and UC Berkeley innovation ecosystem which is geographic... and let's also not forget the vast, heavy investments from the Navy and government during WW2. the SV wasn't just a couple of fancy colleges, San Fran is a major city that got a ton of investment. the DMV arguably is the east coast SV
    - encrypted_bird 2mo ago
      What does DMV stand for in this context?
      - ghostly_s 2mo ago
        DC, Maryland, and Virginia, a term only used in the DC area because those not in DC proper take offense at being lumped in with it or something I guess.
        encrypted_bird 2mo ago
        That seems like a really niche term. Parent really should've specified what it meant instead of assuming everyone in the world would automatically know what it meant. On that note, thanks for explaining it to me.
kurttheviking 2mo ago
More so than now, but one could still find work elsewhere. At least in the US, you would visit a local library and read newspapers to see job listings in other cities. Or, you could rely on "headhunters" who would work to collect available candidates for many companies; they would advertise their services as regional or national agencies. The market looked different but for someone who wanted to find a job somewhere else, there were ways to do it.
SL61 2mo ago
Interestingly, and maybe surprisingly, moving long-distance is less common than it was in the past. The total number of movers has decreased [1] while the percentage of those moves that are inter-state has stayed constant [2]. Another analysis from 2018 [3] looked specifically at people who move for jobs and found a huge drop since the 1980s. In the really old days you would move somewhere (often because you heard that some industry was booming there) and then look for work. Today you can't do that without a lot of savings. [1] https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/figure-a-1.1.png https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/d... [2] https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/figure-a-1.2.png https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/d... [3] https://www.challengergray.com/blog/historical-analysis-fewer-job-seekers-relocating-new-positions/ https://www.challengergray.com/blog/historical-analysis-fewe...
- eloisant 2mo ago
  I wonder how it relates with housing. Today you couldn't move without a job at your destination, because buying a house is expensive and renting requires a stable job.
  - red-iron-pine 2mo ago
    jobs back then also offered relocation bonuses or covered moving fees and similar my old man used to work for Big Oil back in the day, both in the US and internationally, and in basically all cases it wasn't even really a discussion -- "here's the cash to cover the move, how soon can you be here?" for international, esp. in places like Kenya or Australia, they had apartments or condos for short term workers that they'd put you in until you found something more permanent. after my folks had me + my siblings, they even had listings of nannies and maids pre-sourced so you could find reliable help once you landed.
BrenBarn 2mo ago
I think that is one reason why it was better.
jambalaya8 2mo ago
thus people were treated better and got work faster instead of fighting against thousands of people who mass spooge resumes with email now.
crabbone 2mo ago
For context: my programming career started in Russia (while I didn't live there... it was a very unique situation at the time to have a remote job!), then for some twenty odd years in Israel (on-site), then another five in the Netherlands (work visa). I have an extremely negative impression from jobs that grant visas. Here are some points to consider: * Work visa is an extremely valuable asset to the worker. They will do a lot of bad things before they even consider endangering their status in the country they reside. This leads to a pathologically abusive workspace because no criticism ever goes up the administrative chain of command. This severely impacts product quality, creates a toxic working environment. * There's no good selection process for the applicants. On the other hand, applicants have a huge incentive to stick with whatever potential employer might employ them. This results in the overall poor quality of the workforce hired in such a way, it's also a workforce that's difficult to replace or to improve. In other words, after working in Israel as a programmer for some twenty years (Israel doesn't issue work visas to programmers) I've seen both good quality products and programmers as well as bad. When I came to the Netherlands I was in shock because of how poor was the quality of both the product and the workforce. At first, it didn't make sense to me: how on Earth if these people can pay more and have a bigger candidate pool do they end up with such bad outcomes? My bullet points above are the conclusions I came to while trying to understand the problem. Perhaps they are wrong, but the observation, definitely, isn't: the quality is so bad I want to cry.
CuriouslyC 2mo ago
I don't if it was exactly better, it was less "liquid." Given the reduced competition, you couldn't find primo jobs unless you moved to a hub (which is why most people are in NYC/SF/LA), but when you found a job it was more stable.

Xirdus 2mo ago

Third unpopular take: this geographical restriction was a good thing.

reactordev 2mo ago
Fourth unpopular take: without it Silicon Valley wouldn’t exist.
- alephnerd 2mo ago
  SV exists thanks to CA's lack of non-competes and the Stanford and UC Berkeley innovation ecosystem. Otherwise, Boston, NYC, DMV, Seattle, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, and others all could have become the next Silicon Valley.
  - paleotrope 2mo ago
    That's interesting because it's way more complicated than that. Boston had the 128 loop and Digital. TI in dallas. Simi valley. I think it's more like the end of defense spending in the late 80s early 90s winnowed down the several "SV"s into only one.
    - alephnerd 2mo ago
      I know, and the reason Digital and TI and Compaq weren't able to make as deep ecosystems as Xerox PARC or Fairchild did was because of the non-compete aspect back when companies were much more litigious than today.
      - ghaff 2mo ago
        IMO, the non-compete aspect is way overstated. People moved between the Route 128 computer companies all the time and even moved to California. If it was a slower pace than today, it probably had more to do with people not shifting jobs as often than litigation related to non-competes.
  - red-iron-pine 2mo ago
    > and the Stanford and UC Berkeley innovation ecosystem which is geographic... and let's also not forget the vast, heavy investments from the Navy and government during WW2. the SV wasn't just a couple of fancy colleges, San Fran is a major city that got a ton of investment. the DMV arguably is the east coast SV
  - encrypted_bird 2mo ago
    What does DMV stand for in this context?
    - ghostly_s 2mo ago
      DC, Maryland, and Virginia, a term only used in the DC area because those not in DC proper take offense at being lumped in with it or something I guess.
      - encrypted_bird 2mo ago
        That seems like a really niche term. Parent really should've specified what it meant instead of assuming everyone in the world would automatically know what it meant. On that note, thanks for explaining it to me.

kurttheviking 2mo ago

More so than now, but one could still find work elsewhere. At least in the US, you would visit a local library and read newspapers to see job listings in other cities. Or, you could rely on "headhunters" who would work to collect available candidates for many companies; they would advertise their services as regional or national agencies. The market looked different but for someone who wanted to find a job somewhere else, there were ways to do it.

SL61 2mo ago

Interestingly, and maybe surprisingly, moving long-distance is less common than it was in the past. The total number of movers has decreased [1] while the percentage of those moves that are inter-state has stayed constant [2]. Another analysis from 2018 [3] looked specifically at people who move for jobs and found a huge drop since the 1980s. In the really old days you would move somewhere (often because you heard that some industry was booming there) and then look for work. Today you can't do that without a lot of savings. [1] https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/figure-a-1.1.png https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/d... [2] https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/figure-a-1.2.png https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/d... [3] https://www.challengergray.com/blog/historical-analysis-fewer-job-seekers-relocating-new-positions/ https://www.challengergray.com/blog/historical-analysis-fewe...

eloisant 2mo ago
I wonder how it relates with housing. Today you couldn't move without a job at your destination, because buying a house is expensive and renting requires a stable job.
- red-iron-pine 2mo ago
  jobs back then also offered relocation bonuses or covered moving fees and similar my old man used to work for Big Oil back in the day, both in the US and internationally, and in basically all cases it wasn't even really a discussion -- "here's the cash to cover the move, how soon can you be here?" for international, esp. in places like Kenya or Australia, they had apartments or condos for short term workers that they'd put you in until you found something more permanent. after my folks had me + my siblings, they even had listings of nannies and maids pre-sourced so you could find reliable help once you landed.

BrenBarn 2mo ago

I think that is one reason why it was better.

jambalaya8 2mo ago

thus people were treated better and got work faster instead of fighting against thousands of people who mass spooge resumes with email now.

crabbone 2mo ago

For context: my programming career started in Russia (while I didn't live there... it was a very unique situation at the time to have a remote job!), then for some twenty odd years in Israel (on-site), then another five in the Netherlands (work visa). I have an extremely negative impression from jobs that grant visas. Here are some points to consider: * Work visa is an extremely valuable asset to the worker. They will do a lot of bad things before they even consider endangering their status in the country they reside. This leads to a pathologically abusive workspace because no criticism ever goes up the administrative chain of command. This severely impacts product quality, creates a toxic working environment. * There's no good selection process for the applicants. On the other hand, applicants have a huge incentive to stick with whatever potential employer might employ them. This results in the overall poor quality of the workforce hired in such a way, it's also a workforce that's difficult to replace or to improve. In other words, after working in Israel as a programmer for some twenty years (Israel doesn't issue work visas to programmers) I've seen both good quality products and programmers as well as bad. When I came to the Netherlands I was in shock because of how poor was the quality of both the product and the workforce. At first, it didn't make sense to me: how on Earth if these people can pay more and have a bigger candidate pool do they end up with such bad outcomes? My bullet points above are the conclusions I came to while trying to understand the problem. Perhaps they are wrong, but the observation, definitely, isn't: the quality is so bad I want to cry.

CuriouslyC 2mo ago

I don't if it was exactly better, it was less "liquid." Given the reduced competition, you couldn't find primo jobs unless you moved to a hub (which is why most people are in NYC/SF/LA), but when you found a job it was more stable.