Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdavis703 | Hacker News Reader

Doesn't this make it easier for you to retain people by restricting their options in the future? For example if someone moves back to central Missouri, they're probably not going to find a lot of similar jobs, especially at the level of pay I'm imaging Zapier provides.

View on HN

I think that may be true and is worth consideration when making any career or geographical move. In central Missouri - you certainly won't find $2400 studio apartments either!

To be honest - I wish more companies were remote welcome. It is just better in so many ways.

You make it seem like that's a bad thing? It's a trade-off. You're getting location flexibility at the cost of employment mobility. For some this will be a fine trade-off.

In my experience, if you want to go back, job opportunities for senior people come with pretty cushy relocation packages, so, no: not really.

By the same token, moving to an area with a high CoL could be restricting if you lost your employment and had to scramble to find a new job.

It cuts both ways.

I wouldn't have moved to the Bay Area if there weren't as many jobs as there are. If you have the choice to relocate, you might as well go where the jobs are, right?

In today's economy it's usually easier to find a new job in a high CoL area.

Not in San Diego! High CoL area, relatively low wages, and tech jobs are relatively scarce. We moved to the Greater Salt Lake City area three months ago because CoL is much lower here, and there's a plethora of opportunity.

"Doesn't this make it easier for you to retain people by restricting their options in the future?"

In a way, yes. I am 100% remote and live in a very remote area. I doubt I could get a similar job anywhere in the state, but I did it anyway. Why? First, I love where I work and before moving away and I worked from home long enough to see that it was good. Am I stuck with this company? Yeah, pretty much. Chances of finding remote work are slim, but I accept that. My work/life balance and happiness living where I never thought I could is nearly priceless. It is a trade off, but one that I'm happy with. It may not be for everyone.

When I was younger I'd hop jobs every couple years, get a nice raise, learn something new and move one. Now I just don't care. I found a place I can see my self working at for many more years. When there is a mess in the "office" microwave, I know who to blame and you can't put a price on that.

This would be my primary worry too. When I moved to the Bay Area I took a massive quality-of-life hit. Went from a place where a big two-story 2000+ sq ft home cost $100K or so and a 15 minute commute to here, where a mud hut costs $500K and your commute is 2 hours. But I was willing to do it because it's less risky employment-wise. If things go bad at one employer here, you're looking at maybe a 1-3 month job search that you can limit to a 50 mile radius. If things go bad in Nowheresville, USA, you're looking at a 3-9 month job search that will likely involve moving out of state.

There are some in between towns that offer a better balance. I've lived in Seattle and Boston and I think the job mobility still high but with a reduced cost of living. Not cheap by any national standard but 20-30% is a big difference in cost of living.

Your post makes it sound like the only place for tech jobs is the Bay Area...which I find is not true as an east coast remote.

I mean, yeah if you move to rural South Dakota you won't find much, but there are plenty of growing tech centers like Raleigh, Boulder, Austin, etc. that have much lower cost of living, but still a lot of availability in local tech jobs.

Also to note, the 3-9 month job search should be much more sustainable in Nowheresville, whereas in SF you are going to be screwed if your job search is extended.

So, honest question (not trying to troll) - what jobs are available in Raleigh/Boulder/Austin/etc?

Because where I'm sitting, facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple, which are 5 of the top 6 most valuable US companies, are HQ'd in the Bay Area or Seattle. So if you want that caliber of job, with the opportunities and pay ($200-300k+ for mid-level people), you really do have to live in SF/Seattle.

I don't work a BigCo job for other reasons but the reasoning does seem sound.

Google is in Boulder. But from what I've heard of the area in general (not specific to Google), they have Bay Area housing prices with Colorado comp, so overall you are taking home less and getting less for your money.

i'm near enough to boulder that google's boulder location would be a <15 minute commute, and <$500k buys you a 2000 sqft house in a quiet neighborhood and enough of a yard you can't see through your neighbor's window. pretty sure that's rather drastically cheaper than sf. if you're ok with a 30 minute commute, you can shave $100k off that. 60 minute commute would shave another $100k off.

while i'm commenting, i'll note that i don't feel boulder really competes with NC's research triangle, or austin. boulder county population is 310k, and a sizable chunk of that is tied up in and around the university and government research facilities that i feel don't impact local tech industry that much.

Would you mind unpacking "NC research triangle"? North Carolina? Three research heavy universities?

ah, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Triangle

The Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill combined metro area in North Carolina.

Home to UNC, Duke, and the somewhat famous Research Triangle Park, a suburban campus containing R&D for Red Hat, IBM, and several big pharmaceutical companies.

The Palo Alto of the South.

Can you share some links to real estate listings like you are mentioning, and what towns or parts of Boulder they are in? There are cheap homes in places like Longmont, but there is no real downtown to speak of. Are these cheap houses you mention suburban subdevelopment sprawl? Or are they urban homes on the edge of the city?

Amazon & Microsoft both have a significant software presence in Phoenix. I don't know if they still do, but at one point Google had some stuff here as well.

Amazon recruiters have also been pinging me for jobs they have in SoCal, although I wouldn't say that LA is significantly cheaper than the Bay Area or Seattle.

I guess your last point depends on one's savings. I think for most people's savings a 3-9 month job search is a pants-on-fire emergency, regardless of where in the country you are.

I used to live in South Florida, and I bet I could exhaust the search space of "tech jobs south of Orlando" in about two weeks of interviewing. After that, you're looking at a move. It's not like the same companies will interview you over and over until you pass.

I've never ever lived in the Bay Area and I've never looked longer than a month for a job. In fact I've never been out of work and it's very easy to change jobs when the need arises. I think your information is very misinformed.

Congratulations on the good fortune but I think your experience is either really recent or atypical. I've been through two major tech job downturns now (2000-2002 and 2007-2009--there have been others before that) and I can tell you things can change very quickly.

I've been working in the field for 20 years. I've seen the same down turns as you. I lived in the heart of the rust belt most of my life. Numerous of my friends have ha the same experience as me, I don't believe it's actually atypical at all.

Would an employee not have the same flexibility to stay in the Bay Area and work remotely from there to preserve their "options in the future"?

Remote work is still an option, as is moving back or wherever (since this specific worry is predicated on moving to start with, arguments that moving is 'not always possible' seem weak).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com