Hacker News Reader

Comment by hodder | Hacker News Reader

They are forgetting the main problem: Traders/Bankers (for the most part) want to live in London, not Paris.

It is similar to the article on HN a few days ago shttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13426822aying Montreal is taking over AI. That is highly unlikely to happen as programmers rather enjoy California.

View on HN

It's interesting how perspective matters so much. I grew up in Ontario, work for a tech startup here. One visit to silicon valley convinced me that I never want to work there. I hated the culture, I hated the lazy weather and accompanying attitude. I hated driving everywhere. I hated the prices.

Winter is probably a huge shock to many, but I think it builds character and can-do attitude. Plus hockey.

Winter is also more manageable (or entirely enjoyable!) if you simply leave the house. Buy proper clothes, learn to layer and find something you enjoy doing outside (hockey, skating, skiing, camping).

I too would go crazy if I stayed inside for months.

There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing.

Come to Winnipeg. ;)

Exactly - when the weather report says "its dangerous to go outside" and "exposed skin will freeze in less than 1 minute", there's no amount of clothes that'll save you.

That isn't bad weather though, that's extreme weather.

I saw a CBC story on Winnipeggers and all the pedways. Maybe someday the entire city will be elevated walkways or maybe underground.

Then again cold is one thing but Cape Breton with 160 km/h winds on a typical stormy winter is nuts.

We need bubble cities here in Canada asap.

Nah don't worry. Global warming is on it's way.

It's true, the wind speeds will be much worse!

That Scandinavian quip has become a popular soundbite but they have a fairly stable climate, with only extremes of temperature and snowfall as a consideration in the most northerly regions. Their winds don't reach hurricane-force on land, which is fortunate as no clothes can help in that event.

For the most populated regions their climate is maritime mild-temperate ( to the west ) and continental ( east / south ) due to the Gulfstream. Certianly more mild than other regions at the same latitudes.

I wouldn't take their weather advice if I was going to Siberia, for example: average winter temperature in some areas there is -50 Celsius, which freeze your glasses to your face.

This is entirely true; however, most "bad" weather that keeps people indoors can be made very comfortable with an investment in a few pieces of appropriate clothing and a willingness to learn how to dress and stay dry in winter weather (which, I suppose, I'm defining as weather typical of northern US/southern Canada - not the Arctic).

Obviously there is extreme weather, but bad weather is wind,rain,snow,hail etc. Extreme weather is 3+ foot snow drifts, -25c daytome temp, 40+ mph wind, cyclones etc.

Depending on you, winter is more enjoyable when there are people on the streets. In bay area, this means most seasons are never "enjoyable" since all you see is cars

As I live in Minneapolis, I can assure you that the community continues to take advantage of the outdoors during winter - including a not insignificant number of bicycle commuters.

I have lived in MPLS and the bike scene there actually tiny compared to a real bike city like Boulder, Copenhagen, Tokyo... In MPLS they like to think that they bike a lot, but I just don't see it. In the winter almost nobody bikes, there is maybe 100 people in the whole city who do.

No doubt, but the American Community Survey still ranks Minneapolis relatively high for cities that commonly receive snow. Boulder is indeed higher as a percentage of population, though not in absolute number of bicycle commuters.

That's also tangential to my point - people can get outside and do stuff in "bad" weather if they want to (and will probably be happier if they do so).

and snowboarding/skiing, building snowmen. weather (i.e varieties of it) is actually great, hot and sunny every day and spending a fortune on AC is not that appealing.

Snowboarding/skiing options are a lot better in California than in Ontario. You can drive to Tahoe or you can cheaply and quickly fly to Utah (or Denver, Seattle, Jackson, ...).

(Source: I grew up in Toronto and lived in California for 10 years)

I have a hard time believing that you can gather that much about "culture" from one visit.

I spent two months living in Toronto again as an adult after 10 years living in Mountain View and then San Francisco, and I hated:

- the lack of interesting tech jobs

- the lack of culture

- the terrible weather with no upsides (Ontario is so topographically boring and you have to get on a very expensive flight to get anywhere interesting)

I agree with you. I'm talking about how much perspective matters. None of my feelings about SF are really evidence backed.

I also grew up in Ontario (Toronto), but I work in SF for a tech company. I've lived in SF for 4 years, and before that lived in Toronto.

I love the sunshine here, the lack of snow, the lack of having to shovel driveways, the close proximity to stuff like hiking and skiing if I want to, the relative lack there of extreme weather (hot or cold). I can go running outdoors 12 months a year.

I don't own a car, and I don't have to drive anywhere. I have good work-life balance at work. They pay me a lot, even after taxes and cost of living (much more than I'd get in Toronto).

That being said, I wouldn't want to raise kids here. And the poverty/crime sucks a little bit.

I can't wait to retire to the suburbs of Toronto and raise some kids when I'm 30 :).

Bay Area probably provides the best access to all things outdoor with a relatively short distance: - Water sports/fishing: Ocean/bay, rivers, lakes.

- Hiking/Camping: Most of CA with deeply varying terrain, from thick forests to mountains to plains/desert.

- Snow: Mammoth, Yosemite, Tahoe.

- Motorsport: Laguna Seca, Sonoma Raceway, Willow Springs.

- Wine: Napa, Sonoma, Paso Robles and the surrounding areas of each.

SoCal gets a lot of that too, but usually more driving/flying involved.

You also don't get very extreme weather, but you do get earthquakes.

All-in-all, I'd say CA scores really well for all kinds of active lifestyles, but the big negative is the cost of living coupled with CA taxes. If you don't mind a bit more cold and fewer jobs (slightly fewer?), Seattle becomes super appealing.

Outside of some silly things that the CA gov does (why does everything cause cancer lol? Why are there like 15 transit agencies in the bay area?) my move to here from Texas was like seeing what the world can really be like. In Houston, if I wanted to hike, I had to wake up early and make a 2 hour drive for the good ones. Might as well just go on to Austin. If I wanted to camp, there was ONE good place within an hour drive, otherwise, going on up to Austin or Enchanted Rock.

But in mountain view, I can go straight from work to Rancho San Antonio. If I'm feeling a one nighter backpacking trip, Henry W Coe is an hour and a half drive. Big Sur. That volcanic area north of Berkeley. Dayhike opportunities are too numerous to count. I love it.

"why does everything cause cancer lol?"

Because with 150k signatures, you can get any weird ass proposition you want for a state-wide vote. And in 1986, voters decided that we needed to be warned about every little thing that might cause cancer.

Prop 65 has nothing to do with the CA gov. It's the voting public that made it happen.

Swiss have direct voter initiatives and it seems to have worked out well for them. Even if some may disagree with specific ones.

Boulder Colorado is the most active city in North America. It's got some good tech jobs opportunities too, though not quite as good as the Bay.

California is silicon valley? Haha.

Let me introduce you the rest of the state. Many places are walkable as well, though you'll have to look a little harder.

I love the weather in California, and in some areas of CA I really like the culture. Just not LA, MV, PA, Frisco. The prices suck and you do have to drive a lot. But we have those same two problems in the GTA (housing and car travel).

I agree. The Valley struck me as a cross between north Jersey and Florida. Seemed like a place that was paradise on earth 50 years ago.

The west coast vibe is great though.

London and Silicon Valley are extremely different things.

> Traders/Bankers (for the most part) want to live in London, not Paris

Traders and bankers, for the most part, want to work where they can make money.

My old firm's trading floor was in Connecticut. I, like most of us, preferred to live in New York. That meant hours-long commutes. On one hand, the firm had to pay us more to compensate for this. On the other hand, that amount was minuscule compared to the value we produced. This arrangement persisted--and continues to persist--despite New York City being both the economic and cultural centre of the Greater New York Area.

Comparing London --> Paris to Silicon Valley --> Montreal is unfair. With the former, a material change has occurred to the attractiveness of London. With the latter, no such change has happened. A better comparison would emerge if California started seriously debating a large tax on California-based start-ups, expected to go effective in some unknown form over the next few years.

I wonder if the office in CT is because more senior bankers have a family there?

They prefer London because the jobs and the money are there. Will they prefer it in the future? Who knows. Plus, Paris is more beautiful and enjoyable (subjective, but I'm sure most would people would agree).

Isn't Paris also cheaper?

Taxes are through the roof.

Compared to London?

Not as much as you'd think compared to the UK, when it comes to income tax for example. In the UK, you hit the 40% bracket from £43K, in France that's only at €71K ! Granted, France has a 30% bracket from 26-71K€, in the UK it's 20% from £11-43K.

Capital gains taxes are slightly higher in France, so is corporation tax for big companies (much higher), and there are definitely higher labour taxes on French salaries, but there's no comparison in terms of what public services you get for that money (it includes unemployment insurance, child benefits, comprehensive health care, and a state pension you can actually live on, amongst other things)

The France has a multi-layered tax system.

The 41% is one of the layers.

Before it there is a 20-25% layer that doesn't depend on your income ;)

And it goes on...

I'm not sure what you mean by "20-25% layer", but there are other taxes besides income tax in the UK too : National Insurance contributions, Dividend Tax, Capital Gains Tax, etc.

Overall, it's definitely less in the UK, but not enough to warrant saying French taxes are "through the roof" compared to them.

In the UK. The income tax and the NI are both applied at the same time as a percentage of your gross salary. (Basically 20+11% or 40+2% if on the high tax bracket).

In France. The taxes are layered. There is your gross salary, then one tax is applied (25%)... then another tax is applied (11-45%) on what's left ... then it keeps going on.

I've lived in both cities : housing definitely is cheaper in Paris than London (although not as cheap as say, Berlin). The rest, marginally so.

I would imagine language and culture play a significant role as well. If English is the language of banking business, then living in a place where English is spoken all around you would be a big consideration.

I think most people don't like French people, because they are arrogant, have a hostile attitude and are not welcoming and they refuse to speak the world's no. 1 business/internet language which is English (subjective, but I'm sure most people would agree).

EDIT: This was an extreme sarcastic comment in response to the original comment above: > "Paris is more beautiful and enjoyable (subjective, but I'm sure most would people would agree)"

It was my intent to play an extreme stereotype in response to the comment from above, because I found it funny to be honest how someone can even say that. Anyways, continue downvoting...

Everyone speaks English fine in Paris.

"Everyone" is a strong word, I know people from Paris that live in London and struggle. I'm sure the number of people that speak english is rising every year, but definitely not "Everyone"

This does not correspond to experiences I had in Paris at all, many young people speak english quite well, are open minded and friendly.

> many young people speak English quite well, are open minded and friendly

Entirely true, but not a contradiction. Maybe things will be different in the future.

* based on the cartoon stereotypes this guy saw as a kid...

* based on you disliking this comment, despite having no idea what its sources.

That's an old stereotype. I go there often, and, in my experience, it doesn't hold anymore.

ever lived a month or two in Paris?

Mention this on HN though, and get down-voted - Have an upvote from me to counter nationalistic downs.

I don't think bank employees would necessarily be averse to Paris (as opposed to, say, Frankfurt which is making similar plays for them), but I'm pretty sure banks as employers wouldn't want to go anywhere near French labour law.

French labour law is actually not significantly different from UK labour law for that kind of employees.

Plus, Paris already is the first financial centre in the Eurozone.

Wait till you see the higher tax bracket in France ;)

Paris is a big no-no for any experienced enough bankers.

There is a 2hr train from London to Paris. It is possible that some traders would commute that, it isn't an unheard of distance. It would be tricky without freedom of movement etc, but it is doable.

Yep, my father in law used to work at the Bank of England and commute 2 hours each way on the train tp be at his desk for 7:30 am and home for 8:30 pm - horrible but doable

My commute is between 1 to 2 hours depending on the day and time and I am only traveling 40 miles. I'd rather take a train for two hours seems certainly doable.

My commute is ~1hr and I'm only going around three miles. I could go on at length about the joys of the bus system... ;-)

3 miles? You could easily walk that in an hour, I'd probably walk it in 45 minutes.

You have to get 45 minutes earlier at the station for passport and luggage control. And you also have to factor the time to go from home to St Pancras, and then from Gare du Nord to your office.

Practically, it's a way longer commute.

It's the timezone difference that makes it tiring.

I did that for 3 months. Freedom of mvt isn't the problem (the UK being outside of Schengen, you always had passport controls). But it is extremely tiring on the long run.

I agree. There are a lot of people already who commute to London from, say, Manchester on a Monday, and back on a Friday, and stay away for the work-week. That is also a possibility

It's an expensive journey.

Bankers are often pretty well paid, and probably would be compensated (at least in the short term) for inconvenience and cost, until they can be relocated or similar

Given you're talking about some of the highest paid people. they could just stay in Paris Monday to Friday and commute to London for the Weekend

Doable for short time, but you also have to get to and from the Eurostar train stations. For me it would be 2 hours just to get to Paddington...

But if you have an office close to Gare du Nord and a flat close to Paddington or opposite then it is workable. And one train journey commute without changing trains is enjoyable. (ie sleepable/workable)

The Eurostar is in St Pancras, not Paddington.

Doh, that is what I meant, no idea why I kept saying Paddington. Still upset it is not at Waterloo any more. That would have made it more attractive option for me.

Will have to endure that train, tube, another tube or walk, then eurostar with all the kids & luggage entourage for a Disneyland Paris trip in a few months.

Don't they want to live in London because it's a nice city where their employment opportunities are?

If the latter moves, well, Paris is pretty nice too.

They do right now. Ultimately, they'll go wherever the most lucrative trading can be done.

Having lived in both, I much prefer Montreal. The place gives me more joy and pleasure, and I'm happier there. It's mostly due to the people and their attitude towards life. Montrealers just want to have fun and be in good company.

That said, jobs, pay and weather are better in California.

I wish I could have both, but oh well.

I wonder if there are German and French speaking people who would like to be traders and bankers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com