Hacker News Reader

Comment by mabbo | Hacker News Reader

> One problem Mr Rodrigues says the company has faced, is struggling to recruit enough good computer programmers.

Well yeah, he's trying to run a software business in Mississauga. As a developer who used to commute to the 'Saug every day: very few of us want to work there. No decent food, no after work fun, just suburb hell for miles around.

He's competing with the banks and Amazon downtown in Toronto proper. He's also competing with Google Waterloo 30 minutes in the other direction for people not interested in living in the city. And he's going to be competing with them on pay as well as location.

Edit: woo, this may be my most controversial comment ever based on the point swings. I welcome counterpoints! Discussion is always good.

View on HN

Seems like any company in Ontario should have a really easy time hiring just by offering competitive salaries. They wanna offer $100K CAD and think that's high, come on. Bump that up to 130K (that's only 100K USD) and perhaps some people would be interested.

I met someone else complaining about this, that they hired everyone they could and were desperate. Their salaries were around $60K. Don't see how anyone can be scratching their heads over that.

It's become cliche for companies to complain about a talent shortage while wage statistics don't rise in response. I've heard restaurant owners complain about not being able to attract and retain quality wait staff while they pay the tipped minimum wage (less than $3 per hour).

This attitude has to change.

If a company can make significantly more money by hiring someone, then they should be aggressively increasing wages to signal to the market that they are serious. It's basically refusing to participate in the free market, or a complete lack of understanding of how markets work.

Business managers frequently act like they understand economics better than economists yet this attitude should telegraph a level of cluelessness that makes them unfit to manage a hiring process.

Everyone wants to pay less and get more talent. If you can't afford to pay more then compete on other aspects---allow remote work, more flex-time, and so on. Try something different in your interviews. Offer apprenticeships.

Sometimes it's not even a pure talent shortage that force increasing wages. In San Francisco the housing shortage and lack of support for new construction wipes out a lot of gains that come with higher salaries.

> In San Francisco the housing shortage and lack of support for new construction wipes out a lot of gains that come with higher salaries.

You can even see that problem get worse as people leave. Fantastic dev I worked with moved from Seattle back to India. She said that yes, she made more money in Seattle, but cost of living was so low in Bangalore that she effectively made a lot more money there. Coupled with her family being closer, it made perfect sense.

You can retire comfortably in many places in India on 1 year of a developer's salary in the US.

If you don't care about buying 'big ticket' items e.g. iPhones, MacBooks, VR, etc, - this is true. But these items don't change in price depending on where you are, and are likely much harder to buy as a result.

Would you rather own a house and a Xiaomi phone or never be able to afford a house and own an iPhone?

iPhones are cool, but houses are cooler.

and houses in seattle are a lot 'cooler' than houses in bangalore

Not if they actually build houses with A/C in Bangalore.

(mostly joking)

Does it matter if the house in seattle is cooler if you're never going to be able to buy it?

Some of us have no desire to actually own a house, as far as a home goes. I'm no opposed to buying a house for investment, but have no real urge to live in my own house.

unless the difference between your rent spend and a hypothetical mortgage is well invested, you're very likely worse off renting. after all, your rent is paying someone else's investment mortgage!

Rental life is a simpler life. It means someone else is responsible for fixing your sink when it leaks. The biggest financial risk renters take is not getting their deposit back due to necessary repairs when they vacate at the end of their lease terms.

And, from an investment point of view, maintenance may not be worth it if you believe that housing prices are too high and that a correction will be coming in the short to medium term. Why spend your own money on repairs if your house's value is going to tank in a few years anyway?

The problem is companies like this are constantly rewarded by young drop-outs and fresh grads who have faced adversity entering the job market and will take any job. These people are living with their parents and have never been truly employed. They will take these jobs and work their butts off, validating these same managerial processes.

You don't give them enough credit. This process works for them sometimes. And sometimes is evidently enough.

I think this arguably reinforces my point if a company has a process that works yet they complain about a talent shortage.

Part of this complaining can be an attempt to influence/distort government policy, justify a flawed or exploitative hiring process, or managing who to blame when they miss a quota.

I definitely agree that what you said is part of reality for some companies, which is why I think it's important to aggressively point out that there are solutions when the "skill shortage" is brought up.

Additionally, if underpaying younger talent is prevalent, then all the more reason a company should offer competitive salaries to recent graduates when faced with a shortage. They'd start booking some easy wins.

It would seem at least a little disingenuous for a company to hire new grads who will take any job and then turn around to complain about skills shortage. I'm not saying that grads don't ever have skills, but if the company tends to hire desperate noobs then they aren't (or are just barely) shopping for the skills they say they need.

People complain about their costs going up, just like most people complain about their rent / housing costs going up.

It's frustrating. A huge number of top grads move to the US when they graduate for 30-50% higher pay, before exchange rate. Even Amazon will offer you 50% more to move to the US vs. Toronto.

How is this Amazon's fault? Maybe if Canadian companies weren't such tightwads they would have a better success rate in hiring top talent.

And I say this as a Canadian.

confused how you read any of these comments as bashing amazon and excusing canadian companies

I didn't read it as you bashing Amazon. I read as Amazon is "stealing" all the talent by offering better wages, etc...

I don't think you can make an apples to apples comparison of salaries between Canada in the US.

Why not?

Health insurance amakes an apples-to-apples comparison difficult.

Sure, but even if you count $1K a month for health insurance, it's still hardly competitive. Even at $2K they're only starting to get close. And from what I see, $120K CAD is basically the absolute top you're going to get as a very experienced dev.

I think that depends on the specific skillset they are looking for. In the systems software industry $120K CAD total compensation is about half of what a Senior Staff makes based on what I've seen.

Generally speaking, people need to start being more proactive asking for raises and switching to higher paying jobs if we want compensation in the GTA job market to improve.

This is part of the problem. Canadians are generally more complacent and have a lower tolerance for conflict compared to Americans from what I've seen. (I'm Canadian)

I can't speak for other regions, but for Vancouver $120k CAD is about the upper end of the middle. Most truly senior developers in the $150k-$180k range.

I'm just going off of what senior folks have told me in the Toronto area, for banking, or at big employers like AMD. $150-180k makes it far more reasonable, and if I had seen hints that offers would be close to that, I would have moved back to Ontario years ago.

This is very different from what I understood about Vancouver tech jobs. Do you have concrete examples of positions/companies that pay this?

Senior positions at EA, MS, and Amazon all pay at that level in Vancouver. That's what I was making as a TD at EA 7 years ago -- wow I can't believe it's been that long. Pretty much everyone in my peer group has a base salary in that range.

The problem in Vancouver is that it often feels like any PHP jockey with 3 years of industry experience is called "senior". This doesn't happen in other market's I've experienced. It happens here because the Vancouver talent pool is very shallow. We have a very wide base of low skilled juniors and intermediates with a very narrow point of experienced senior engineers. There are far more juniors than there is demand for juniors so that pushes down salaries. Conversely, there is a lot more demand for seniors, real seniors, than there is supply in the local market and that pushes up salaries.

It means Canadian salaries ought to be much higher since they aren’t paying health insurance for employees. It makes zero sense: US employers pay salary + health insurance. Canadian employees pay salary.

So it’s backwards. Canadian salaries should be a lot higher to reflect that they have a lower total employee cost.

But they also have the Skilled Worker immigration program that takes in people with specific skills and fast tracks them to a Canadian permanent residency (with higher priority given to people with job offers in hand.) Thus, they are able to attract talent from the rest of the world. I think that might help keep things low too, perhaps? Probably balanced a little bit by all of the Canadians who leave for the US searching for higher salaries?

I was wondering this too, and would love to hear the parent's reasoning.

One difference I can think of is that Canada has Universal Healthcare. Maybe the compensation system differs because Canadian companies can pay <Salary> and US Companies have to pay <Salary + benefits>?

(I mostly see people here on HN throwing salary numbers around, not total compensation. Also, I wonder if having the government handle benefits would make it easier to pay more (since companies don't have to pay benefits) or less (since companies just pay the government to do the benefits). )

If that was the case, Canadian employers should have the upper hand in competitive salaries, because they don't have to cover healthcare, and corporate taxes are also cheaper. This happened in the auto sector, where Canadian plants have enjoyed a few decades of favoured status compared to American plants due to lower employment costs. That's now changed since the UAW has caved in so much to the automakers and workers in the U.S. South will work for peanuts, on top of state government offering massive subsidies to attract new plants.

What happens is simply that many Canadians like Canada and don't want to move south, and the Canadian economy is poorer than the American one (in particular, there is way less VC investment per capita), so companies have less money to fight over developers, and many developers (like myself) are content with this market.

The one reason that occurs to me is the different expectations for social safety nets, which most people I think ignore when they are youthful and/or healthful. In Canada, losing one's job (sometimes following a bad health diagnosis) will not likely condemn the person to bankruptcy and worse. It was stunning to me how different Canadian society is compared to the US when one digs just below the surface. In some sense, the analogy that occurs to me is riding a motorbike (US) to riding a Camry (Canada) - the former is thrilling, full of freedom, and 'bad', until you get in an accident.

I agree that Canadian employers can totally up their hiring game by upping the miserly salaries but they could emphasize the social differences between Canada and the US to attract risk-averse/future-focused candidates.

It's about the personal calculus. It's easy to move to the US for work, if crap really hits the fan they can move back. The actual likelihood of that happening is minor, and if your young then it's rational to live in the USA for a 10-30 years and save up the huge compensation difference. If you stay long enough to reach 65, then you'll have medicare, and you can pocket the lower cost of living difference too.

Also employers pay for your medical insurance with pretty good plans, if you have a medical issue your paying at most ~$5k and $3k/yr for family medical insurance.

So universal healthcare isn't a good enough reason to not move to the USA. Also the US might get universal healthcare in that time span.

You are kind of proving my point: for Canadians to come to the US for more money as you state makes a lot of sense. You get to keep your Canadian citizenship and if things go badly, you move back. Also, re. 'employers pay for your medical insurance', the trouble is how long said employer will keep you around if some unforeseen illness comes about. COBRA, for which the premiums are very high, is good for another 18 months, assuming you have enough money saved up to pay for it along with the medical expenses brought about by the adversity.

I think my motorbike vs. Camry analogy is reasonable. Vast numbers of people ride motorbikes every day and live for decades without encountering a problem .Others can end up having their lives turned upside down as a result of some accident. A social safety net is not designed for everyone to bounce on but to catch the most unfortunate in society and help them cope as best as possible at their time of extreme adversity. My point is that the US, especially with the impending destruction of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid defunding, is about to lose its very short-lived and already weak safety net. If you can go back to Canada when adversity strikes, you are in good shape. Most people don't have that option.

You can use a relatively small amount of your salary to buy income protection or disability insurance in the US, and pocket the difference.

I am aware that most companies will automatically buy a certain amount of disability insurance for employees with option to buy more, often as a pre-tax deduction. These cover, afaik, something like $1 million in expenses for the specific circumstance of disability. However, I think the overall sub-thread was discussing healthcare. It is not clear to me that a long-term debilitating disease, such as (heaven forbid) cancer, would be covered adequately by such plans. Certainly, even healthcare prior to the Affordable Care Act could deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions or if there ever was any lapse of coverage; for such circumstances, assuming the disability insurance applied, the money would get spent pretty quickly. Real disability expenses are often much more expensive than anticipated - the referenced link [1] shows the expenses for Texas governor Gregg Abbott, who was disabled by a falling tree trunk while jogging at age 27; he managed to negotiate a pretty good settlement with the homeowner and you can see that his disability, for which he was too young or unprepared to have purchased disability insurance, had cost $6 million as of 2013.

My intent was to outline the fact that the US safety net is weak and there are plenty of corner cases that one could fall into from which recovery will be tough. Reduction in Medicaid will only worsen this. If you have coverage that you feel covers you in a majority of worst case scenarios, then you are in good shape but hopefully you are up to date on your read of the coverages. The Canadian safety net, in my opinion, saves one a little bit from this planning.

[1] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-politics/2013/08/02/gr...

In Canada, you pay for that healthcare via taxes, so pre-tax salary shouldn't be different. If you're on a high salary, you can get income protection and healthchare insurance.

Though I'll note that the US puts a higher percent of GDP into public healthcare expenditure than Canada (yes, Americans pay more taxes for healthcare than Canadians, despite not having much public healthcare), so I guess the US is just bad at doing healthcare efficiently. Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PUBL.ZS

I agree, Canadian employers are really not paying good wages for the same skills as the US. The reason for that, AFAIK, is Canada's skills-based immigration policy. In the original article, notice that the CEO effectively brought over teams of people permanently to the country fairly easily (it seems like) so perhaps that causes wage depression?

I was answering the parent post on why salaries are not directly comparable in the US and Canada with one opinion, re. the healthcare safety net. It is entirely possible that having a sane immigration policy rather than the indentured sickness that is the H1B also leads to a healthier supply of talent and thus lowers wages. I am sure there are other factors.

Living on the border, from what I have observed salaries are roughly 30% lower in Ontario compared to the US, across the board.

Seriously? These are people just working on one piece of software. On what planet does someone who is maybe doing unit tests, or working only on one part of a code base, deserve or even demand such a high pay?

If your firm makes less money because it can't get enough developers to reach full capacity, then it makes sense to spend extra money on salaries to make even more money from customers.

Assuming that this calculation applies to your firm, are you going to leave profit to others when you could instead have a win/win situation for everyone (business, employees, customers) instead?

Markets aren't made by how much something costs. They are made by the perceived value of things.

In the same vein, people aren't paid based on the content of the work -- they are paid based on market rates. Doing mundane work like fulfilling unit test contracts doesn't sound that valuable until there is no one in your geographic area that can or will take that job {in that place, at that time, with the legal ability to work, etc}.

"He's competing with the banks"

Canadian banks are horrid employers for software devs. I worked for RBC FG after having my first child -- e.g. time to get serious, etc -- and it was absolutely soul crushing. My pay was out of their bands so every year was a new middle manager making me and everyone else justify it, etc. They're always trying to replace you with either external solutions, or outsourcing. Peers at other banks have all the same impressions.

The Waterloo thing is just weird. No, not really.

And for what it's worth, of the programmers I've worked with, having spent years working downtown for both RBC and Bell, and then a number of smaller firms all through the GTA, the overwhelming majority live West of town in the "suburban hell". Increasingly pushing even further to Oakville and Burlington. Most prioritize positions to the West of downtown. And there is good food everywhere in the area.

Don't mean to bash you but you want to use "i.e." there.

> They're always trying to replace you with either external solutions, or outsourcing. Peers at other banks have all the same impressions.

This sounds like cutthroat capitalism to me. It's what happens to every industry when the margins are thin.

I suspect it will come to the wider tech sector sooner or later when innovation slows and VC capital dries up.

Then again, maybe some large corps will figure out that company culture, mental health, incentives, innovation, and creativity can be boosted by giving people some additional sense of job security.

The margins in Canadian telcos and banks are the opposite of thin...

When a company says, "we can't find enough good developers." To me that is a huge red flag and makes me look for a few things.

One it might say they have so much tech debt they need an army of programmers to maintain it. willing to bet good programmers stiff this out quick.

Second they are doing recruiting all wrong and/or have some senior guy that asks some dumb riddles and if people get it wrong or mess under stress they don't offer a job to them. I have been to so many job interviews like this in my career, where they have a programmer on staff with a huge ego and it shows in the interview. I never even entrain an offer if I meet anyone like this at all.

Third, which was cover heavily in comments here is salary and benefits. It isn't always salary either. I have take less money for more vacation time and other great benefits. I like to look at the big picture, not just the salary, as long as the total package is within the average.

Last and I think the most important is company culture. I think you can have all the others correct but if this isn't working great you will just keep losing people. It only takes one bad apple at the company for this to drive people away. This is the hardest to see and fix, especially if it starts from the top management.

What a world we could have if companies realized they could sidestep this problem entirely if they hired remote workers.

Don't be silly; you can't trust people to do any work unless you're standing over their shoulder.

but then how would the boss micromanage you!?

Thank you for a great idea for my next startup - an application to micromanage remote workers. It will be even better than office micromanagement since the boss will have a large screen where all the remote desktops will be visible and under control simultaneously and the boss will be able to assist remote developers get back on track should they ever consider taking any initiative or heaven forbid be creative. It will also make it much easier to spot activities that do not seem to be directly work related. I feel I'm really on to something :-)

This is already a thing, Upwork/odesk automatically screenshot freelancer's desktops and make them visible to the clients:

https://support.upwork.com/hc/en-us/articles/211068518-Use-Y...

records the total number of mouse clicks, scroll actions, and keystrokes

What amazing metrics they have! /s

Not everybody wants to work remote. Some folks enjoy the social aspects of an office. Those people won't be attracted to this location.

What I'm saying is that a company that hires remotely very likely won't have issues hiring, because they haven't arbitrarily decided that what they do requires everyone to be in the same office.

If you're trying to hire for a place people don't want to work in or if you're having issues with skill levels of new hires, the solution is to widen the net: Not in terms of skill ranges, but in terms of geography.

Not everyone wants to work remotely and that's fine. Especially considering that for the vast majority of people, there is someone better than them out there that desperately wants remote work.

> a company that hires remotely very likely won't have issues hiring, because they haven't arbitrarily decided that what they do requires everyone to be in the same office.

Right, no issues hiring, but maybe some issues managing, communicating effectively, and completing work. You're potentially trading one set of problems for another.

Perhaps they've tried a bit of remote and it hasn't worked for them. We don't know.

Issues managing and completing work? How does remote make those issues any different? Do we write code on paper? Does a manager need to physically direct us to our keyboard?

When I hear comments like this I roll my eyes because those issues aren’t remote issues, those are incompetent manager issues – issues that don’t get resolved by simply sitting in an office.

Management, communication and productivity are challenges regardless of work location. Why do many remote companies “make it work” while others fail? My theory is it has nothing to do with on-site vs remote. It’s a scapegoat used by insecure or incompetent managers who lead mediocre employees they shouldn’t have hired in the first place.

If your workers can’t perform in a remote environment, then they aren’t going to suddenly get better by virtue of sharing a ping pong table.

I think the big thing is that if you work in an office you can more or less gauge if the person is working by glancing at them. Yes there are better ways to keep track of this, but by simply glancing at the person once every 30 minutes to an hour you can more or less gauge how much they appear to be working.

For remote work a manager has to be more on top of keeping track of his/her employees.

I understand you have strong opinions about this, FWIW I work remotely so yeah I get it.

> I think the big thing is that if you work in an office you can more or less gauge if the person is working by glancing at them.

It's much more than this for me. Coding still requires teamwork, and, short of everyone being able to execute perfectly without in-person discussion, it's useful to communicate with all human gestures being immediately apparent.

I'm surprised at the level of negativity here against office work. I expected people to argue it as another option- not that it should always be the only option for effective teams. I say this as someone who works remotely, and who prefers office work with the right people and not too long of a commute.

I think the bigger issue is just finding the right people with whom you work effectively, not whether work is done in the office or remotely.

> Why do many remote companies “make it work” while others fail? My theory is it has nothing to do with on-site vs remote. It’s a scapegoat used by insecure or incompetent managers who lead mediocre employees they shouldn’t have hired in the first place.

This strikes me as a bit rude and prejudicial. Not all of us are rockstars who can function effectively without social contact. I personally prefer a central meeting point and face to face communication.

All I'm arguing is that in-person work is preferable by some managers and employees. I'm not arguing that it should dogmatically be applied to everyone.

From your hn profile, I gather you understand yourself to be a bit disagreeable,

> I'm opinionated, inconsistent, irrelevant, irreverent and incontrovertible

I don't see that as a problem myself but I wonder, based on this statement, whether or not you've found working in offices to be effective for you. I'd also wonder if you ever admit to being wrong, and how you react under those circumstances. I'm not convinced you could lay any and all disagreement at the feet of insecure managers.

Fair points. I will concede that one size doesn’t fit all.

Or paid more. Whenever companies say "there's a skills shortage" or "we can't find enough good developers" or whatever, they are missing off the important "... for the price that we would like to pay" part.

How much does Soti pay? How do you know it's bad?

https://www.glassdoor.ca/Salary/SOTI-Salaries-E156148.htm

Was just going to reference that, they are not well liked on glassdoor.

I don't think most companies are. I will say I tried applying several years ago and during the initial phone interview I was told I would get exactly my salary at my current company and no raise if I came aboard, before any technical interview. After that I was sent an email telling me exactly how to dress for my second interview... I declined.

I was later in their office on Hurontario near the 401 for a HackerNest meetup. I was speaking with a manager of theirs and mentioned someone who I knew that worked there, to find out he no longer did and he laughed about this person with a colleague.

I love hearing about a Canadian success story but their culture seems a bit off.

Exactly. Soti is paying on average $80k/year for their non-senior devs (source:glassdoor). That's $20k/year less than the median starting salary of graduates from my undergrad. Of course, they are in Canada, but still, it's no wonder they're having trouble hiring people. Just pay more for less positions...

Yes they are in Canada where they don't need their employers-sponsored health insurance, get more vacation time, don't have huge student debt, and can't get laid off with no severance and no notice.

Just as a rebuttal, I don't have student debt and get plenty of vacation time, and my employer has pretty amazing health insurance. Not everyone is lucky this way but I personally would never move to Canada for a tech job and don't know anybody who has done so, while I have definitely met many Canadians who have moved here.

The Canadian and US labor markets are pretty interconnected so in my opinion these companies are going to have to start raising salaries if they really want to get talent. I feel like I read something on HN every week bemoaning the Canadian tech industry, when most of the problems have a pretty simple solution: pay more. Of course, that's easy to say but not necessarily easy to do financially.

No argument here that the jobs are more lucrative, on paper, South of the border. Just trying to point out that there are lots of aspects to consider when you're looking at compensation. Being young, healthy, and single in the US can net you a lot, but I suspect that other bills would quickly eat up the difference if you aren't all 3 of those things.

As a Canadian who moved south for work and is rapidly approaching or in middle age, this is my position on the healthcare here: If you have good insurance, it is AMAZING! I understand that others have it worse, but all major software dev employers that I've looked at had really really great HI. In Canada OTOH, the service is much worse for non-emergency things, but everyone gets to have it. From an ethical standpoint, of course I support some kind of 'everyone gets sensible healthcare'. But I pay less out of pocket here than I would in Canada for my family of 5. Financially, moving back to Canada would be a disaster.

If the employer doesn’t pay health, then salaries should be much higher than the US. Salaries in the US are exclusives of health benefits. So an SV company paying $140k is paying that in addition to health benefits. A Canadian company is paying $60k AND they don’t have the additional expensive of health. Then on top of that low salary, the employee has to pay taxes which obstensiby funds their health care.

Perhaps it’s worker protection that makes salaries lower in Canada? If it’s harder to fire people, that cost gets spread across all salaries to reflect the risk of having an employee you can’t easily fire.

Canadaians make far less than Americans even after accounting for the “benefits.”

I once saw a company looking to hire a senior rails developer at $25 CAD per hour. Insanity. I think it was even for a Vancouver company.

What are Canadian business tax rates vs US rates?

0% for both, for any money spent on salaries.

This is potentially misleading.

The US has a "payroll tax", which is paid by companies and is usually a percentage of the salary paid to the employee. You may not consider it a "business tax", but others might.

Also, some cities have business taxes on a per-employee basis.

Additionally, there is potentially a lot of variance in business taxes between one state/province/municipality and another.

I don't believe for a second that the average amount a CS undergrad from any Canadian school is getting is 100k. The top students sure, they will get offers from big places in California for 90k USD but the top students are far from "average."

Even in the US when you consider the whole instead of just Silicon Valley that is not a reasonable number to expect.

Top students getting offers in California are getting 150k USD minimum (including equity and bonus).

Maybe if you have a PhD, but not from undergrad. If you have any sort of data to back this up please present it, because public statistics don't reflect this, and logic doesn't support paying an undergrad anything close to that.

You're right, I don't go to a school in Canada. But 90k USD is actually very low these days for places like Google/Facebook/MS so your comment is still not quite so up-to-date. 100k really is the median starting salary of graduating undergrads (at my undergrad, at least).

If Canada doesn't want all their CS graduates chasing the huge amounts of money they can make in the US, they need to raise their salaries. Otherwise they won't only face a tech-worker shortage, they'll have to deal with a full-on brain drain, which is even worse (of course, Google is expanding in Canada so hopefully this won't happen).

Our company has been fully remote for 3 years now and I don't think most programmers are capable of remote work. Poor communication, inconsistent work schedules, spending way too much time down rabbit holes that would have been avoided if we were in the same office, and generally not delivering the desired results on a reasonable timeline. In the past 5 hires, we had one employee who actually was a solid remote worker.

I'd love to a) know how to recruit good remote-capable employees and b) how to better manage remotely -- because at this point, we're going to open an office and hire locally.

Interstate taxation, necessary corporate filings/fees/forms, and offering healthcare in multiple states also make being fully remote incredibly difficult unless to restrict employees to being "remote" from the states in which you're already established.

there are a few hundred people at Wordpress.com and Automattic that would beg to differ. Give a read to "Year Without Pants," it's very interesting and might help your team make the transition.

I don't understand this. I have worked remote and semi-remote for several years at large and small US companies, with internationally distributed teams. Generally, we have run loose SCRUM/agile processes with good results. There is really nowhere to hide. Either the bug is fixed or it's not. The new feature is there, or it's not! You make stories/tickets. You run sprints. You check in code. You see passing or broken builds. You demo to customers or management that serving as proxies for customer interest. There is much imperfection in our processes, but basic visibility is good. The stakeholders can see Jira, Github, Jenkins/Teamcity. The devs cannot hide, so the work gets done.

i guess it depends on the project. if business side is not too complex and can easily be translated into jiras and stories, then developers should have a good grip on what needs to be done and why. then remote is fine.

but if business requirements, on the other hand, are complex, poorly understood or fluid, then developer will be absolutely lost and will start cranking up patterns instead of solutions. teamcity will be building alright and scrums will roll, but project will be a complete mess heading for a disaster. face to face will not save the day, but to some degree will mitigate lack of communication and understanding of common goal.

Weird, there are a bunch of software companies/jobs in the northern Atlanta suburbs. I've spent time in Oakville and Burlington and they are a lot like the suburbs here, can't speak for Mississauga. I feel like there is a cultural difference: here people will think nothing of driving 45 or 60 minutes across the city not just for commuting but for restaurants, entertainment, or visiting friends, but a similar drive there, Toronto to Hamilton for instance, is a major trip!

Counter-example: after GaTech, I refused any job offer outside biking distance of midtown.

> Weird, there are a bunch of software companies/jobs in the northern Atlanta suburbs.

that definitely makes sense; the only reason anything aside from housing exists in the Altanta suburbs is because of how long it takes to get anywhere more than a couple miles from where you live. Our company has an office in the midtown area, and the work schedule for a large part of the office is:

8:30 - 9:30 = work from home, fuck traffic; 9:30 - 10:00 = drive to office; 10:00 - 3:30 work; 3:30 - 4 = drive home, fuck traffic; 4 - 5:30 = work.

I can't imaging working anywhere in Atlanta that requires you to have your ass in the office at 8. I've heard people in Atl joke about how they used to be friends with someone that moved 10 miles away, and they can't hang out anymore cause it legitimately takes too long to get there.

That is my schedule when I have to go in (thankfully only a few times a month), but usually the 10:00-3:30 becomes a 10:00-6:30 or 7.

I guess the friend thing kind of depends on which direction they moved in relation to traffic.

Atlanta traffic has nothing on DC.

the thing is once you get ACTUALLY GET IN DC, it's not that bad. You are screwed trying to get in or out though.

Living in Toronto now, I can't imagine doing all that driving. (I used to live in Barrie, ON and did way too much driving).

The TTC subway is hated here, but I love it. Commuting is a breeze, no effort, no stress, and I always know I can get home if I go out for drinks after work.

The trains itself are okay, but it's an unreliable system that stops running much too early.

The article mentions that they hired programmers from Ukraine and helped them to relocate to Canada with their families. I happen to know one of those programmers and he's been with the firm for 10 years and seems to be quite happy.

Mississauga is no better or worse than any other suburb. The fact that you have to drive to get food, forces you to plan better and actually bring food into the office instead of eating take out all the time. In a way, that's a plus :-)

This perception probably depends on what life stage you are in: if you are single or married no children then "no after work fun" and "suburb hell" are minuses. Once you are "married with children" ;-) then those things stop being important as you have other priorities to rush to.

Mississauga: Density Without Urbanism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3iliEa0rwc

>No decent food, no after work fun, just suburb hell for miles around.

???

I live in Port Credit (south Mississauga)... I can tell you absolutely that is not the case. Also it would be hard to name a culture that didn't have food here.

https://www.insauga.com/

Specifically my food problem in Mississauga was that lunch sucked. You had to drive at least five minutes from my office to get anywhere, and then it was just fast food. Maybe go a bit further to streetsville, get something a bit better. It was just corporate mid rises and suburbs everywhere else!

In Toronto, I am walking distance from everything after work, plus the subway to get me home. Port Credit may be cool, but it can't compete with that. Also, as you said that's south of Mississauga- again, we're going to have to drive everywhere.

That's just not there lifestyle I want, and very few in my office did- which was why we pushed so hard for a downtown office instead.

It's the southernmost neighbourhood in Mississauga, not south of it. I live and work (in IT) here. I can walk to several award winning restaurants within a couple minutes from my office at the marina here. Just look on Google Maps, this place is more walkable than most of TO and my rent is <$1000.

I will not argue: your rent beats Toronto's. Oh God, this housing market.

My rent is the exception and not the rule, even here. I feel your pain.

> You had to drive at least five minutes from my office to get anywhere

Five whole minutes, my word. Not sure how you survived as long as you did.

I think the issue is with being forced to drive instead of just being able to walk.

walk to the car, drive 5 min, find parking. same in reverse. at least 30-40 min wasted. esp during the winter.

i hate commuting to downtown toronto, but it is hard to beat the Path, abundance of pubs/restaurants and constantly bumping into people i used to work with (aka stay in the loop). there is no fricking loop in mississauga.

If you don't live or work in a walkable area, or that otherwise makes up for this somehow, this won't sound that awful to you. As a native Texan, this sort of thing didn't sound that bad to me in general. But once you work somewhere where a 5 minute WALK will net you two dozen food options, it's a big shift in your quality of life, as far as work lunch goes.

It takes me about 5 minutes to walk from my desk to my car. Then another 5-15 minutes to drive for food. Then a minute or two parking and walking to the restaurant - if I'm lucky. If I wanted to go somewhere popular during the lunch rush, or that has shitty parking, maybe that's 5-10 minutes finding a parking spot and walking.

It doesn't seem like a huge deal, but it really can be.

Depending where you are and the state of the roads at that time, port credit could be an hours (or more) drive away. Some way to spend your lunch break!

A bit exaggerated, but you're largely correct. I was more countering that we have no food and no nightlife, although I do live and work here.

I understand the argument in SOTIs case because their office is in the middle of nowhere, although there are restaurants very close to it.

SOTI is up the street from where I used to live. The area is pretty boring: highlights are the Old Britannia Schoolhouse and Highland Farms.

What salary does Soti offer? Your points about the office location are valid, but do you know how much they are paying their developers? You make it seem like they are paying less than Google/Amazon. But how much less? Would your comments be the same if they were in fact paying just as much as Google? I think it's productive to talk in numbers, or else Canadians will be perpetually wondering if they are paid below market or not.

It's a balancing act, to be sure. I'm sure all of the issues you raised would be serious impediments to hiring 20-somethings but many of us have only improved our programming prowess with age.

I'm in my 40s, I don't care about after work fun. I HATE that I have to commute into the city every day.

I would LOVE a 15 minute suburban commute to work. If the pay/benefits are right the only big concern would be stability.

Well from the photo it appears he has a shitty open floor plan work environment too, that can't be helping.

How is Waterloo 30 minutes in the other direction...Also Mississauga has grown and with the transit and rail systems, Toronto to Mississauga is a breeze so you don't have to live in Sauga to work there.

Under an hour, let's say. And the major traffic is all going the opposite direction.

More to the point, if I'm willing to work and live in a smaller suburban area, why not just move to Waterloo?

His potential list of developers is much smaller because of his location.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com