Hacker News Reader

1) Well they'd have to fire their current employees and then move. Nobody is going to move their call center employees to Cleveland. They'd just fire/rehire.

I'd imagine their employees would rather have that job than no job. Otherwise they'd just quit right?

2) A lot of millennials would rather live near poverty in SF than living middle class in Kansas City. I think that is nuts, but it's no sweat off my back.

View on HN

1. it doesn't have to be that way and often you don't need to move across the country, in some cases 40 min to an hour away would probably make a difference.

2. In life we have a responsibility to understand what happens when we put people in difficult situations, even if they don't. Sometimes your employees get trapped. They start out trying to make it work, but find themselves in trouble. For example: http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/online-vancouver-ads...

I've lived in Cleveland my entire life. It's not that bad :(

I don't think he was implying Cleveland was bad; just that very few people will make such a big move to keep their job.

That unwillingness kind of invalidates a lot of peoples complaints though.

Actually, the point was that no company is going to pay to move their employees. The company would just fire employees @ the current location and hire employees @ the new location.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com