Canada facing ‘brain drain’ as tech talent leaves for Silicon Valley
theglobeandmail.com
theglobeandmail.com
Some solutions I can think of, which might help:
- Aggressively pursue the brightest non-American engineers, who are hesitant to move to USA because of immigration restrictions.
- Offer very lucrative perks to the major software companies, to expand their engineering presence in Canada. Yes, it stinks having to offer tax-breaks, but at least it will help build initial momentum.
- Aggressively encourage/fund/facilitate startups. Unlike salaried employees, startups aren't turned off by the low-engineering-wages. Once Canada can grow 5-10 startups into major established companies with Canadian HQs, that will really boost the local engineering ecosystem and job market.
- Canada does offer some tax breaks [3] and grants to startups, but more is also welcome.
- Agreed that there should be a bigger focus on startups. I wonder if having provinces create VC funds (like Investissment Quebec [4]) tailored specifically to startups would help here.
[1] http://mgalligan.com/post/52327738889/canada-h1b
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-04-20/h-1b-work...
[3] https://www.investinontario.com/incentive-programs-and-servi...
While I agree that the efforts are working, this is very much like using a tea spoon to bail water out of the Titanic. You also have to consider that given a choice between the US and Canada, very few people would pick Canada so many of the people that arrive would leave the minute an opportunity in the US opens up.
The problem of trying to get Canadian tech up to par with the US is much deeper than pulling some tax/incentive levers, I think. There are some really deep cultural issues that I don't think can be solved for a few generations.
That had me LOL because I think it’s so true. If you were to suggest perhaps to start a business that innovates you’d be considered crazy. Although of course the new tech out of the USA will be adopted by all immediately.
You'd also be considered crazy if you expressed those ideas in Chicago or San Diego, or Charleston, but that doesn't mean that we stereotypes about America not respecting 'changemakers' are accurate.
To quote this excellent article[1]: "the default setting of the Canadian male: a dull but stern dad, who, under a facade of apparent normalcy and common sense, conceals a reserve of barely contained hostility toward anyone who might rock the boat. To these types, those who make a fuss are bothersome and ignorant at best, and probably dangerous and destructive too."
I was born in Canada. I went to school in Canada. Only once I moved to the US did I feel like I could express and be myself. That I am surrounded by people who think like I do and value the things I value. Dogmatic adherence to the way it's done, because change is dangerous is the default state of many Canadians. For those who it's not, well, you know them, they're already living in the US.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/opinion/jordan-peterson-c...
Agreed. Ontario is a few weeks away from voting in a conservative government with Doug Ford at the helm.
Canadian federalism is incomplete in that regard.
However Ford could pull a Mike Harris and start firing nurses. His economic plan promises a balanced budget with no job cuts and no tax rises. He claims there are efficiencies to be had whatever that means.
As of legal cannabis, it is better when it is federal. In US you will go to jail in one state, and can be just fine in another.
In the political sense, Germany is more liberal than the US (especially economically), but there's this sort personal conservatism that manifests in paranoia about data/privacy, aversion/skepticism around change and technology and risk, less acceptance of weirdness. German culture just feels...rigid. It's stable and very functional, but also inflexible.
And the constant skepticism to anything that is not a physical product. Writing Software in the eye of the layman is something between boring and con-artistry.
Software is different in that problems can be fixed instantly (since online updates) and the first to build the user base is often the winner.
The real problems occur when the "software startup" model is applied to a product that it does not fit.
Republican authored bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/975/
And Diane Feinstein opposed California’s 2016 legalization.
It’s ridiculous to suggest Democrats are more likely to legalize than Republicans because the facts don’t really support that. It’s much less of an obvious partisan issue. Remember, Democrats controlled the house, senate and White House in 2009-2011 and not a single legalization bill even made it to the floor.
Frankly, as a Toronto area dev Doug Ford winning the election would definitely cause me to consider looking for work in the US. Toronto's in a pretty crucial moment right now wrt growth and infrastructure, and I don't really see the point staying if the party of stagnation wins - whatever tax cut they may introduce is dwarfed by higher salary + lower CoL in the US anyways.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/g...
A growth in the value of land isn't, in and of itself, an actual product, though I do agree the construction is. However, how much of that construction is actually in service of a different industry (i.e. would never have happened but for, say, mining and oil)? Similarly, how much of that real estate value would drop to approximately zero if the industries supporting it disappeared?
I'm sure there's some construction, especially residential, that must be happening just due to population growth, but I'm skeptical if that accounts for even a majority of that number.
http://www.investorsfriend.com/canadian-gdp-canadian-imports...
I'm pretty confident that someone who, according to that chart, is in the "real estate" industry who works selling houses in newly-built mining towns knows full well what industry really supplies his income.
A very brief search resulted in this:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/607742/gdp-of-manitoba-c...
If that's accurate, it suggests that Manitoba, which, though known as more agricultural and manufacturing rather than mining, has the same pattern of "real estate" accounting for individual income. Of course, the significant majority of the population is in Winnipeg, but I don't think that qualifies it as a major, on the same scale as Vancouver or Toronto.
Again, I think that even real estate "industry" workers in Winnipeg know their money really comes from manufacturing, just as the ones in Edmonton know their money really comes from oil.
Maybe in the major cities you mention it's not so obvious, but "real estate" still fails to eclipse the sum of all the industries that actually produce something (manufacturing, resource extraction, construction).
If resisdential RE tanks in Canada, a real possibility with rising interests rate and extreme debt levels, the economy goes down with it.
Mining / Oil & Gas isn’t going to save it.
(Those charts also fail to show how much of that income is from residential transactions/management versus commercial ones.)
It just doesn't stand to reason that if people entirely stop paying other people to buy and sell each other houses (even if it does account for the vast majority of that 13% of the GDP) that the economy would collapse completely.
However, if housing values collapse due to questionable (or worse) lending practices, as happened in the US around 2008, could collapse the financial system and thereby the economy. It might even increase the GDP of the real estate category, especially as a percentage, at the expense of the finance category.
More importantly, though, I don't think there are any voters that buy the notion that they could, for example, do away with their real industry, such as mining or manufacturing, and replace it entirely with selling each other their houses. Because of that, whatever conservatism they may hold would remain from that real industry, regardless of what category the statisticians put their income in.
When you discovered a deposit you'd stake a claim (e.g. patent) and then seek investors to exploit it (e.g. venture funding). If the discovery turned out to be genuine and the mine was successful the returns would often be extraordinary.
Thing is, a lot of mines fail. Maybe there's resources there but extracting them isn't practical or profitable. Maybe there wasn't as much there as theorized. Maybe it was all a lie.
The paradox is that once you have a successful mining industry built up, people think of those as the conservative play, the safe bet, and are reluctant to go through that process all over again with a new industry.
I live in the US now, and don't disagree that Americans as a people are more...well, I like the word 'ambitious'.
But I think your characterization of Canada is overly harsh: in Toronto and Montreal I know (and love) misfits just as individual, wild, and free as anyone I met during my years in Brooklyn.
If I may, when I visited Vancouver (several times), I couldn’t find a coffee shop culture there. For some reason this seems like a big deal. In Manhattan and in San Francisco, people write in coffee shops and it’s kind of a thing. This seems like a big deal too. There’s more startups that started in a coffee shop than you’d think. Again, it goes towards a certain kind of intellectual experimentation.
[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_johnson_where_good_ideas_co...
But if you're in it for the money, the 2x salaries can't be beat.
Just being a conservative or a right-winger is bothersome and ignorant and dangerous and destructive and lots of bad things. What a way of seeing the world. :-)
Here in the USA it's normal for everyone to have big dreams, and weird if they don't. I think I like it.
I think the bay area tends to do a lot more experimentation darwinian style, but I suspect it's because they can (more seed money/angels, etc)
West coast has always been about experiment wheareas east coast is more conservative. I've always wondered if it was because the Europeans took hold of the East coast first and it was only the more brave who would take on the Westword journey. Perhaps that mentality is still engrained in the culture?
I think Dragons Den vs Shark Tank is a clear example of how much stronger the US is (population is 10x too though).
I expect the enormous wealth captured by computers and software gives people the leeway to experiment.
When those people meet those ideas at the end of said journey is when then magic happens
Not surprisingly they moved out west soon after school and I've been forever poisoned to the east!
That's a truly awful saying that's emblematic of the stupid prejudices brought about by American exceptionalism and the even more obnoxious (to me) West Coast exceptionalism.
You very much can. Parent didn't ask Californians to build infrastructure in Yosemite or the Death Valley. Heck, not even in Bakersfield.
How's that L.A, San Diego, and San Francisco public transportation infrastructure? Places that, if anything, have more population density than the most populus German cities?
Everyone complains how few things can be built in SF or LA, but suddenly having a lot of space available is something negative? Californians have a dream scenario on their hands as the high cost of construction can relatively soon be offset by the huge gains in capturing the global tech market. Something that will pay off for a century. And they should have the money to do it. It is probably one of the best infrastructure investments available anywhere.
Instead, New Yorkers are more likely to call bullshit on an idea when it isn't good or at a minimum challenge it to be better. You don't have nearly the same survival of the fittest attitude in the Bay Area from my impressions, and as a result tons of crackpot ideas end up funded. Admittedly, crackpot ideas in NYC also get funded (Juicero, oy) so I'm not sure if the difference can totally be attributed to New York's adversarial nature.
Mostly what it boils down to here I suspect is that start-ups just aren't as visible because all of the software devs and engineers realized that they could go work in finance rather than a "tech company" and make millions of dollars more. In this sense, lots of New York's innovative spirit gets channeled into problems relating to designing custom ASICs for HFT and trying to outwit the market.
As another point, who claim that the East Coast is averse to experimentation have a marked tendency to ignore counterfactual examples like BBN and Bell Labs. Even Xerox (in Rochester) and Kodak were pretty deep into R&D before they fucked themselves.
It exists out West too but in my experience so far is less prevalent and is given less weight. People out East often start a presentation, pitch, or interview with where they went to school. Out West I have done a dozen VC meetings and have only been asked once or twice and I didn't get the impression it was a major data point for them.
Dominant mentalities are:
East: who are you? What is your background?
West: what can you do?
Winters in the East Coast are harsh so it forces people to be more 'realistic'. Whereas the sub tropical West Coast gives people an environment to think in more imaginitive ways.
Also Juicero was headquarted in San Fran?
Weather certainly does have an effect on culture. That said, the East Coast vs. West Coast, U.S. vs the World rivalry is mostly contrived, and claims that one area is more innovative than another are dubious. It's reasonable to claim that the Bay Area has more of an engineering-centric culture, but that is likely due to a) Intel and b) the presence of multiple well-funded National Labs within close proximity.
If you look at the case of Leland Stanford, for instance, you'll notice that he maintained pretty deep personal and economic ties with his hometown of Albany up until his death- a lot of his success wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't been able to rely upon his extended family in the East Coast for support.
Stanford University was actually originally supposed to be in Albany, but was the location was switched to Palo Alto- allegedly because people got greedy. Instead Albany got a children's orphanage sponsored by Stanford's wife, which didn't last past the 30s. [1]
[1] http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2010/10/01/why-stanford-isn...
This is just flat out wrong and a bit egotistical. Now the west coast thinks it’s the “experimenters” rolls eyes
I don't think it's egotistical though.
It makes Americans easily manipulated and exploited.
To infinity and beyond guys
I found that people in Canada were much more focused on happiness and were more willing to make sacrifices to improve their quality of live, though in Vancouver the housing crisis was a gut check for anyone who's goals include owning a home, or starting a family.
There is money to be made here in the valley, especially in tech, but it is not where I intend to be permanently. I want to retire one day, and I probably can't do that here. I definitely couldn't do that in Vancouver with a local salary.
Because they could be very easily if they don't have a family safety net. I think that ultimately puts a damper on peoples' productive and creative ability as they tend to then focus more on keeping their job rather than being the most productive they can be for their employer.
You could also look at it the other way. The lack of a safety net is like burning the bridges: it encourages you to be more productive and creative precisely because if you're not, then you've got nothing to fall back on.
Poor people get free healthcare in the US. I'm not sure how you could not know that after decades of that being the case. Medicaid has existed since 1965. Not only has it broadened out considerably, today there is also CHIP and SS disability to further supplement that along with countless smaller programs.
Just Medicaid + CHIP covers 70 million people, about 22% of the US, or twice the entire population of Canada.
The US also has vast housing subsidization programs for poor people.
After Medicaid expansion, Medicaid is offered to those with an income of below ~130% of the federal poverty line: roughly $16k a year for an individual. I think we'd both agree that $16k/yr is abjectly poor, and those making even 50% more than that are still very poor.
However, only 33 states have expanded Medicaid. Some of the poorest states in the Union have not expanded Medicaid. Therefore, Medicaid is still strictly for disabled population under a certain income in those states.
To say poor people get free healthcare in the US isn't a true statement. Some very poor people in the US have access to Medicaid, depending on their location and income. Some poor people in states that have expanded Medicaid will still not get free healthcare because, while they are objectively poor, they do not meet the income requirements for Medicaid.
For those with a low income, and without access to Medicaid, health insurance premiums are very high and have deductibles that people would need to take a car loan out to pay.
Over 67 million people are enrolled in Medicaid, over 6 million are in CHIP. That's over 22% of the population.
Your definition of objectively poor is suspect, because the cost of living varies so widely across the US.
You stand out, you become a target.
But this does not lead to healthy social communities. We as a country are drunk on the idea that our friends are people who think and act like us, when this is only part -- IMO, a very small part -- of group chemistry that this outlook overlooks. Group interaction is so much more complicated and beautiful than that. At least in my case, my best friendships are with people very much unlike me.
If you look at the current political situation here we are all banding together along lines of common interests and beliefs, and not things like proximity, or economic need, or other factors. And one wonders why we are so divided, when nobody wants to find common ground...
I hate to use the word diversity but it's as important in life as water, now more than ever.
I believe you are reversing the cause and effect. It is never easy to find common ground. In the bad old days when people could not band together along lines of common interests and beliefs easily, common ground were found by the powerful suppressing the opinion of the powerless, and other times by resolution of war.
This is not so in other areas.
Just as he was passing I realize it was one of my professors. That surprised me and I turned my head as he went by to take it in. But what surprised me more was that I was the only person who gave a shit that a 50-year-old guy in dress pants and a sweater just road past on a skateboard. That's when I first realized people were much more open-minded.
It took me about 10 years after University to move back to California and I can't imagine I'll ever move away.
So to escape the uniformity of Canada you left and went to find a place were people think like you and value the things you do?
Isn't that what those Canadians are all about as well? Seeking the company of other similar thinking people?
The really open mind thing would be to recognize that some cultures like to experiment, others not, and both are fine.
I'll say that there's a huge difference in values between the big cities, the suburbs, and Alberta.
Alberta is much more socially conservative than most of the states (if you ever see a Canuck unironically call someone a "cuck", 9/10 times they're Albertan).
Montreal/QC are cool but still hosts an extremely ethnonationalist element that's all but crippled their local economy (remember that a little over a year ago, we had a terror attack where some altright guy shot up a mosque in QC).
Toronto is incredibly progressive (I'd argue it's the most diverse city on the planet), but is surrounded by some of the worst, overtly racist, politicians you'll ever meet. Because of a first-past-the-post voting system, even though they're in the minority, the vote among reasonable people is split among reasonable candidates, and hateful buffoons get a consistent voting bloc. (The late) Rob Ford was mayor, in spite of making violent rants, being repeatedly publicly drunk, using every racial epitaph in the book, smoking crack (sometimes on video), and smoking crack with his KKK-member sister. His brother, reported former drug dealer Doug Ford, now stands a real chance of being Ontario's next premier.
Vancouver is a great city, but somewhat isolated from the rest of Canada. Toronto's pretty expensive, but Vancouver is even worse. Unlike Toronto, though, there aren't a lot of options for anyone but the most wealthy who want to live there. While the Conservative party is very weak there (they didn't even have a location there hosting the federal leadership convention, when even people in PEI had one in driving distance), BC's influence federally is minimal. You could argue they're becoming something of an oligarchy due to the huge influence of corporate money. You either need to have a high-paying job, or be very old, to live there.
You're absolutely right that the culture of respecting changemakers is not as present in Canada. But the SFBA is the world leader here. There probably isn't any place on earth that's more optimistic about innovators.
I don't think this is a culture thing, exactly. It's just that everyone who became rich in the SFBA did so by exploiting trends or innovating – since like, the 1890s. And the USA plowed zillions of dollars into the tech ecosystem in the Bay Area since World War II. Once you have that tech investor class, culture bends a lot towards their way of thinking.
Investors in Canada just don't have that kind of money to play with. Or, they made their money in an old-school industry, like resource extraction, and they flip out at the risk levels in tech startups.
In terms of prevailing national norms, I'd say Canada is slightly more change-friendly than the USA. Think about all the ways that the USA tries to kill immigration, stifle innovation in favor of incumbents, and put regulatory barriers in the way for entrepreneurs.
In contrast, Canada has lots of official policies to support tech entrepreneurship and skilled immigration. Plus, socialized medicine really does make it easier to be an entrepreneur. Politically and culturally, Canada isn't that into retro stuff, or trying to revive earlier, more conservative eras. People think their best days are ahead of them.
It's true that the people in Canada are not super interested in overturning anyone's applecart, for its own sake or just to get rich. That's not as respected here. People are more likely to be interested in innovations that improve the general social welfare. But maybe that's not such a bad thing.
The ecosystem [1] that provides dollars to high-risk investments (like tech startups) just doesn't exist on the same scale in Canada. The only players with that kind of money are the federal and provincial governments, which are by nature very conservative.
[1] For example, one source of funding is large pensions and endowments, who take a tiny percentage of their overall portfolio and put it into "high-risk" investments. The funds are so large that the tiny percentage amounts to millions and millions of dollars.
It's having some issues getting off the ground though, it just kicked off a few months ago and I think they are way behind handing out funding. There's only been a handful of challenges and not many applicants (I submitted a proposal, which was serialized as a submission number just over 300). They are supposed to be distributing about $100M/yr, or 1% of the federal R&D budget.
The coastal cities embrace some kinds of individualism for sure.
That's also why when people do tend to leave the Bay Area, they go to other liberal areas like Seattle/Portland/Boulder/Asheville/Austin/Boston/NYC, even though those areas also have housing crises and the cost of living is rapidly approaching the Bay, rather than places like Mississippi, West Virginia, or Detroit, where their dollars would stretch a lot farther.
Wow, that's true for all those cities? I might have guessed it for Boston and NYC, maybe Seattle too, not so much about the others. But don't know a lot about this area.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/05/pf/oregon-unaffordable-calif...
https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2018/01/10/austin-ho...
The best solution to high demand is a land value tax. That applies not just to houses, but to offices, shops, parking lots, etc. This means that land owners have to use their land efficently. If parking triples in cost, so be it. If road tolling is required, c'est la vie.
The proceeds of those tax must then be pumped into the local economy - funding services and improvements, like new bridges, or metro lines, or higher wages for central services (like schools and police)
I think a better solution would be relaxing zoning/making new development easier in areas of high scarcity.
It's also a feature that it would have a larger impact in areas where land value is high and less impact in areas where land value isn't high (so "most of the US" doesn't really matter).
The money goes to the local administration, who then can spend it on truly public places like parks, offering tax breaks to businesses they want to attract, subsidising housing, etc, which everyone benefits from.
Its is also the loss of opportunity suffered by those excluded with left uncompensated leads to a net transfer of incomes, capitalised into rental incomes and selling prices, and a misallocation of resources. Housing issues are purely a symptom of this economic injustice.
A Land Value Tax ends that net transfer, which is why the selling price of land falls to zero.
If you can make an acre of land in SF generate $1m profit a year, even with a 10,000% LVT it would still be worth $10k. With a more realistic 2% LVT, it would be worth $980k.
However if your acre of land makes $15k a year in profit as a parking lot, a 2% LVT means that you'll sell it to someone who can utilise the space in a better way, rather than make a $5k loss.
That person may build a house, and pay $20k a year in tax, setting a rental value of $1700pcm. Or they may build a 5 home building and pay $4k a year in tax per home, setting a rental value on each home at $350pcm.
If they want a $36k a year profit, then those prices mean renting out a single home for $4700pcm, or 5 homes for $850pcm each.
Zoning laws vary the value of the land of course. Land zoned as 'a park' is pretty much worthless (but not valueless). Land zoned as 'single story house' is worth at least $8m an acre ($2.5m for a house on a 1/4 acre plot). Land zoned as 'multi story' may be worth say $20m an acre.
However at 2% LVT, the single story home will be paying $160k per acre per year. The multi story with 40 homes will pay $10k a year per acre per home. Far cheaper, thus able to attract more buyers.
On top of that, there's a large incentive for residents in single story homes to rezone their area to multi story -- land price increases 150%, they sell up their (current) $2.5m home for $5.5m, making a cool 3M in profit.
If you allow a 1% LVT to accrue as a charge on the value of the home, that's only paid on disposal, there's no affordability problem either. Own a $2m piece of land at age 18, each year 1% of the value gets added as a charge. Die age 108 and 80% of the land value is then taken to pay the back-charges, leaving 20% for the estate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_218_(19...
Proposing it as a sales tax might avoid Prop 13, but continues the problem where new buyers fund the state budget and homeowners/Baby Boomers get everything for free.
Also, schools and local services might not get funded every year, I assume the rate of sales isn't constant.
It was definitely a world of difference from where I grew up, even though it wasn't that far away. My experience in my hometown (Utica) was that it was a constant uphill battle fighting with idiots to try to get sensible policies in place to make the quality of life there better (context: It's a rust belt city with 0 industry or jobs, but a sizable amount of the population there actively makes things worse for themselves). For me, moving to a liberal area wasn't just a tolerance thing, it was a "I want to be around like-minded folks who actually care about improving their city and have the competence to do so". I don't want to come across the wrong way here- there were some people in Utica who really did try to make it a nice place to live, but I always felt like they were drowned out by fools.
If it's a majority, then I think it's safe enough characterize the individualistic attitude as American.
As a Canadian I'm a little shock by this description. Stifle innovation? The gov't ran the phone system in Alberta until the 1990's (or so). There was no innovation because it was determined "that's the job for the gov't, not private businesses" and they did it terribly.
Look at the cellular phone networks in Canada. Nothing changes unless the CRTC OKs it. Those companies would be eaten for lunch without the gov't backing them.
My own experience in the US is that things change much quicker when it comes to innovation. Are their stupid regulations? Sure, but they seem to change pretty quickly down here when people get pissed.
Not to defend the cellular oligopoly in Canada (because it's one of the worst in the world) but things aren't perfect in the US either.
T-Mobile and Sprint just agreed to merge, which means the US will have only 3 major wireless providers: AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint/T-Mobile.
> My own experience in the US is that things change much quicker when it comes to innovation. Are their stupid regulations? Sure, but they seem to change pretty quickly down here when people get pissed.
The US government just defacto banned (or outright, I can't recall) using ZTE/Huawei equipment in their mobile networks.
Say what you want about the Chinese, and I have no doubt they have ambitions of an NSA-like agency, but the rest of the world is fine to use their equipment and it smacks of protectionism for America to block their use.
I totally agree though that the Canadian government doesn't do nearly enough to encourage competition, and is usually quite content to let an oligopoly remain if it means avoiding foreign ownership.
Fuck, ain’t that the truth. Or their great-grandad made the money and each subsequent generations job is to not fuck up the gravy train.
My exposure is more western Canada than eastern Canada, but I find that your statements couldn't be further from the truth. People here are constantly trying new things and exploring and experimenting with new business ideas. I see great optimism and people who see potential.
And in terms of being constantly questioned, I just don't see that where I am, but I also don't view being questioned as a bad thing. When it comes to launching any new idea, it seems that being questioned is the very least of the difficulty you need to put up with.
Ambition toward innovation is not tightly coupled with remuneration here, but it does not mean that Canada is averse to innovation. America has loved that myth since the Avro Arrow and has sought to suppress it after that, or at least it can seem that way.
It's not just western Canada, though western Canada is no small contributor (after having lived in Alberta, and loving and longing for return to BC but originating from rural Ontario and now living in the "center of the universe"/Toronto).
I grew up with farmers, and they were/are consistently more liberal in all regards than what I hear in American news and forums. Those were the first places I saw solar panels and wind farms popping up to contribute to the larger energy grid as well as supplement extraneous local power consumption by isolating supplies to certain devices. They never seemed to care so much about asserting their opinions about how society should run except that people should generally treat each other with decency no matter who you are. I liked that. I could go on for hours. It's not to say conservative types (as expressed in this thread—against change) exist, nor other groups of social conservatives, but they don't occupy the majority. That's another subject altogether...
I also agree that being questioned isn't a problem. It can reach a severely challenging point, but most decent people will hear you out as well. It's a challenge— it challenges you to be better. Just as you've said.
Refining an idea isn't a problem, nor is it censorship, nor is it an aversion to innovation. It's fundamental to science.
I only wanted to speak up because of the majority comments opposing your own.
There is a lot of pros for moving fast and getting things done, jobwise. Weather also is amazing.
Now for personal life, the older you become, the more I realize that this place (the bay area) is really not the best quality of life you can get. People all think the same way, diversity is only visual, and there is not that much diversity of thought. Everything gravitates around work and tech. People are happy to work a crazy amount of hours and feel cool for doing so.
I loved it for a couple years then started to become bored.
The tech industry only makes up a small percentage of the bay area population.
I grew up in suburban Minnesota. It's not exactly ambition central, but it's miles ahead of small town America. You're talking about a country that elected Trump here. It's afraid of immigrants, "foreign" religions (as though American Christianity weren't a shambling syncretic nightmare), doesn't believe in evolution, and believes overwhelmingly in hell. We incarcerate more of our citizens per capita than any other developed country. We're not exactly free-wheeling dream seekers, at the median. We ridicule weird people, we spit on people who fail, and we hate anyone who is ugly, awkward, old, or otherwise socially disadvantaged.
Getting ahead is seen as fine - be ambitious! - but only because we think our friends are "winners" and won't be hurt by the risks they take, which is nonsense. We also don't prize reflectiveness as a culture, so when people gain sufficient experience to learn that this perspective is idiotic, they don't internalize it.
I'm not a giant fan of American culture, and I'm sad to see that anyone from Canada (I watch your Supreme Court proceedings for entertainment, full disclosure!) would idolize anything about they way Americans do things.
A move clearly demonstrating the willingness to take a risk.
That kind of boldness is not a thing in Canada.
> It's afraid of immigrants
And is that unreasonable? Why?
It's obvious immigration can do serious harm to the lower and middle classes.
What's surprising is how open they are to immigration despite the risk.
For example most of the western world enforces stricter skilled visa requirements.
> "foreign" religions
And again is that unreasonable? Why?
Even so the US is incredibly accomodating - just look at the Amish for a good example of tolerance.
> We incarcerate more of our citizens per capita than any other developed country.
Because Americans are more willing to take risks. Good and bad.
> and we hate anyone who is ugly, awkward, old, or otherwise socially disadvantaged.
Who is we? I certainly don't think that's true. Maybe you could argue indifference?
> I'm not a giant fan of American culture
You seem to only see the negatives. Why is that?
... or a condo to put on Airbnb.
You are definitely onto something when you say that there are some deep cultural issues within Canada; Look at RIM, the company believed that its central business customers cared more about security and efficient communication and that the iPhone presented no threat to them. The iPhone was just a crazy idea to them, who would want to use that clunker with a horrible battery life and browse the net on it?
Canada has talent, without a doubt, but it also keeps people subdued as you stated because they are constantly questioned by everyone else. Canadians are a lot like accountants, they want to buy that fancy Harley and take it out on the road and live a little, but only on the weekends. :)
Which is not to discount California's tremendous housing crunch. I am merely pointing out that its a much lower risk for a young single US citizen to just move to CA, try it out for a few months, if they can't get a job or make it, then just drive back. It is much harder for people from outside the country to do the same.
Bit pedantic but this really is a far cry from being the "vast majority" of Canada's population.
4/20/18 Bloomberg: Engineers Are Leaving Trump’s America for the Canadian Dream
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-04-20/h-1b-work...
Where does this perception come from? Canada has stricter immigration rules than the USA.
EDIT: Specifically what I'm talking about is that Canada only allows in immigrants who are economically desirable and speak English or French.
I don't think it was the difference between being a visitor (to the USA) vs a resident (in Canada), because the couple of times I went abroad while I was a resident in the USA were very similar.
That would be considered unacceptable and unprofessional at U.S. border control.
We had six people and a ton of luggage and they seemed to be seriously considering searching all our bags just because of Texas IDs. :|
Straightforward business trips for both countries for me, but Canada is a little more casual than average, but otherwise uninteresting. The officials smile, ask a straightforward question ("where are you staying?"), and stamp the passport ("enjoy your stay in Canada").
In the US, I feel like I'm being interrogated. "You don't look like a software developer" "who is paying for this trip?" and lots of scowling.
The only two times I've been aggressively grilled including accusations of smuggling and personal questions that were intrusive were coming back into Canada.
Even when I only had a green card, most of the time the US CBP just said "welcome home" and waved me on.
They were very nice when I activated my PR card though.
The one thing that is a little sticky is that you can't get across the border if you have had a DUI within so many years. An issue for some of my dad's hunting buddies.
The US side coming back was always a bigger pain in the neck. Part of that is because of the way Border Patrol rotates their agents. You could always tell the ones that had recently rotated from the Mexican border because they were twitchy and kept a hand on their holster at all times. I'm sure it's a hard habit to break, but not really appropriate at a backwater crossing in Northern Maine where 95% of the traffic is log trucks and local Canadians coming over to fill up their gas tanks or pick up things they've ordered online.
The USA on the other hand has a relatively open employer-backed system in addition to the wealth/education-agnostic quota system.
In that sense the USA seems more random, but not more open. But I guess we're just using different criteria.
Pretty sure you are missing some key details, you can get a Canadian permanent residency if you the required number of points which are based on your education, language, work experience etc.
For majority of the cases if you have the points you will get the PR visa. Once you get the visa you can move to Canada and look for jobs you cannot do that with the US.
As I said you are missing some details, people get a resident visa in 1 year even if they are outside Canada, so either you dont know the full story or your friend is probably misleading you.
There's also the cliche (spread by the internet and political groups) that conservative/Republicans/etc... are against all immigration. This is 90% incorrect.
I worked as support staff during a conference in Seattle of conservative business leaders around 2010. Their #1 topic of discussion was how to get more people into the country because they couldn't find enough workers with the right skills domestically. And no, it wasn't the tech sector that was hurting the most.
Apparently the problem the conservatives have isn't immigration as an umbrella policy. It's legal versus illegal methods (though some of the speakers advocated for both). Kind of eye-opening. I no longer believe the regurgitated talking points from either party.
I don't know what groupthink you are talking about, but there is a wife perception that the US has recently become hostile toward immigrants. Which is reflected not only in fuzzy attitudes, but concrete policy, and it does explain changes in immigration, both legal and otherwise.
> There's also the cliche (spread by the internet and political groups) that conservative/Republicans/etc... are against all immigration. This is 90% incorrect
It would be more accurate to say that there is a wide (and accurate) perception that conservatives are generally more negatively inclined to immigration, and that this is generally correct on balance (though obviously not a reliable guide to individual attitudes.)
> Apparently the problem the conservatives have isn't immigration as an umbrella policy. It's legal versus illegal methods
That's what they usually say, but they also usually oppose policy which would make legal immigration easier and relieve pressure that creates illegal immigration, and frequently support policies to restrict legal immigration. And it's not just 10% of conservatives supporting this kind of policy.
This reveals that the rhetoric that it it is only illegal immigration that is the concern is not reflective of the actual concerns.
Look, I'm a liberal but I will call out the Dems when I need to. Most of the reforms to legal immigration have always been a sort of addendum, or a two-part deal with relief for the illegal immigrants included in them. Democrats haven't proposed a bill which purely targets legal immigration. So its a little unfair to say that conservatives are opposed to all kinds of Immigration.
Perhaps, but conservatives have frequently put forward bills (or, when in the executive, instituted executive policy without Congressional action) that further restrict currently-legal immigration and non-immigrant entry and privileges, which is more significant sign of opposition to legal immigration than merely voting against expansions to legal immigration, whether pure or not.
Maybe it is just posturing and lies, but the conservative viewpoint has been to have a merit-based system for permitting immigrants into the country, as opposed to immigration based on familial relations. Every country gets to decide what kind of people that they want coming into their country and I think its perfectly fine for conservatives to feel that way (it is a different matter that I don't agree with that idea). My perception (again, which might be wrong) is that that is essentially what Republicans have been getting at for the past couple of decades (perhaps more).
Now, that being said: these are the same folks who were about Family Values, Fiscal Purity etc. So, like I said before, I don't think the arguments are being made in good faith. But the argument does have merit.
further restrict currently-legal immigration
This has nothing to do with debates over executive authority to choose how to prioritize enforcement and to make transparent commitments regarding that (which the executive clearly has in some cases, outside the obvious pardon power, since literally every grant of immunity from prosecution, or plea bargain to reduced charges, is an enforceable commitment by the executive not to enforce some law in some well-defined circumstance based on policy priorities.)
Go look up the stuff that Orin Hatch and Rubio sponsored with regards to H1B visas. The stuff that they sponsored would double the number of H1Bs and was majority sponsored by republicans.
Also, even if you get the H1B and apply for Permanent Residency, the wait time can be obscenely long depending on where you were born. If you were born in China, you'll have to wait for 6+ years. If you were born in India, you'll have to wait for 12+ years.
Ironically enough, if you're a not-very-qualified applicant, you'll likely have a easier time applying here in USA. The Canadian system might be more stringent, but rolls out the red carpet for those who are truly qualified, and in greater numbers too. The American system is the exact opposite.
1) Do a PhD and hope to produce original, well cited research that qualifies you for EB1.
2)Similar to above, but if you are in a research team and can get good papers out that qualify you for EB1.
3)Wait and hope for promotions that qualify you for EB1.
4)Move back to India after a couple of years.
5)Try to move to Europe or Canada. Everyone is kinda fuzzy on this since no one really has clear idea of immigration laws in other countries.
6)Get enough money from some IPO to pay for investment based green card and hope for the best.
This is if you currently qualify for EB2 i.e 5 or more years experience or a Masters from US. I don't even know what is the condition for people in EB3. As one of my friend put it memorably, there is a person whose parent's haven't even met, that will get a green card faster than me, if born anywhere but India, China, Mexico and Philippines.
I know, barring a recession, I'll be in US for the next couple of years, but after getting a family, I think my tolerance for having my residence in the country coupled with my job would drop and I'll look and see if one of the above option works for me. Plus ageism in tech is something I fear as well.
I would love to settle here, but barring a law change, it is right now impossible for me.
EDIT: Separate line numbers for the numbers points.
It's unclear whether you mean that FAANGs do or don't abuse the system. I've heard both sides of that.
There is some fixed number of employment based green cards that are awarded per category(EB1,2,3) with rollover between categories. The reason why there is a delay is that there is a country-wide cap on a percentage of total green cards awarded that year. So countries with higher number of people immigrating have a queue. If there were thousands of Australians immigrating, there can be a queue there too.
I am not sure about Canada though, as there maybe some other category for it.
The wait times referenced are the wait times for an immigrant visa, whether you are applying for it as an already-resident H-1B holder (as permitted by it's dual-intent nature) or as someone who is not yet resident in the US.
The wait times have nothing to do with the H-1B not being an immigrant visa.
difficult to plan for the future where this is a possibility
Maybe Trump's mistake is being vocal about it while Canada maintains plausible deniability.
The Obama admin did the same thing. Sure it was technically possible to get a visa but in reality it was impractical and deliberately so.
We can get a permenant residency Canada visa straight off the bat without a job offer (quicker with a job offer though granted).
We can’t work out how to get a US visa for love nor money and have basically given up thinking about it.
Canada certainly seems easier from where we are.
From what I can US the US still says no even if you meet the above criteria.
Start a US business with a partner so you own just 50% then petition for an H1B for yourself every year until you win.
E1 or E2?
You have a fair bit of options if you really want it and are willing to jump through hoops.
They tried that a few times. I know because I was an advisor to one of the biggest incubators in Canada. The government even gives cash grants to startups.
But as soon as the company gets big, they either 1) open an engineering office in the Bay Area or 2) Sell, and the move to the Bay Area because they were just acquired by a Bay Area company who is making them move (or they just want to move now that they can afford it).
The startup scene in Canada has huge demand from Canadian engineers who want to start startups there, but they have a really hard time attracting local capital. Most of their capital comes from SV VCs who like the fact that it is cheaper to start a company there because of the low salaries, and a lot of the successful exits leave.
FTA: 'A lack of successful “scale-up” tech firms in Canada has been cited as one of the reasons research development spending and productivity here have lagged other developed countries.'
> but they have a really hard time attracting local capital.
So is the problem, then, that "trying" has, so far, involved running incubators and grants and what's necessary, in addition, is incentivizing local capital to invest?
Other commenters have suggested tax breaks, which I personally believe is a state's greatest incentive "lever". Perhaps a lower (maybe even zero) capital gains tax rate on startup investments?
Otherwise, it doesn't seem like there's been any aggressive encouragement/funding/facilitation, as proposed by the parent comment.
This is news to me. I tried have tried talking to an incubator several times and every time they tell me to come back when I have $10k/mo in revenue. Sorry but I have a full time job and I can't grow a business to 10k/mo without some help. Seems to me like they didn't try very hard.
It's also very telling when you see American incubators/investors tie directly into universities to get people funded; They clearly see the talent and opportunities and want to get into it very early on while the Canadian incubators and governments want to be risk averse and then cry foul when people move south. Sadly I don't think this will change anytime soon.
Unfortunately, this is offset by very high housing prices relative to salaries, inadequate or absent freeways, and significantly higher fuel prices, making even a "drive 'til you qualify" strategy for housing unattractive.
Is there adequate apartment stock near public transit? That could make it attractive enough for workers of a certain age, but, at least in the US, suburbs are remarkably popular for raising kids.
I live in Portland, Oregon, which has weather that is essentially identical to Vancouver. It is amazing here. Winters are gray, which I have actually grown to enjoy, but not cold. And it snows a couple of times of year, which is the perfect amount of snow. But spring, summer, and autumn are so much better than what I grew up with in California.
Canada is importing talent from Hong Kong and Shanghai to work for American and Canadian companies, at salaries that are below market in US tech hubs, but appealing enough for those who wish to move to North America. At the same time, Canada is exporting talent to the US because of those same good-but-not-good-enough salaries.
This is an interesting point. I feel like Canada does do this, but it sort of backfires on itself. Something my wife once pointed out is that a lot of immigrant tech talent in Canada is inherently risk averse by virtue of being primarily chinese and indian tech workers, whose cultures are heavily conservative cultures that tend to celebrate social status over risk-taking innovativeness
Aren't a lot of immigrant tech talent in Silicon Valley Chinese and Indian too? Or maybe even the majority?
Besides, China has a very vibrant VC culture, second only to the US. Therefore being Chinese and being risk taking are definitely not in conflict.
As for Chinese taking risks, I think you have to look at the alternative safer investments that basically don’t exist, you have no choice but to take risks in China, or in most other developing econonies for that matter.
I think the author is pointing out that being a Chinese/Indian immigrant is in conflict with risk taking.
You don't have to look too hard for this. Most Chinese/Indian immigrants gravitate to low-risk jobs, specifically at larger companies, usually for visa/immigration related issues.
Seems to me that the risk-aversion is caused by their (not-yet-)immigrant status, not their cultural roots.
My chinese in-laws can comfortably live there without speaking a word of English because there's that much chinese cultural infrastructure - from church groups to supermarkets to gardeners, handymen, doctors and real estate agents whose _entire clientele_ is 1st-gen chinese. Chatting with the neighbor in chinese about so-and-so's grandson is a fairly normal thing.
In contrast, my wife would consider the chinese community in SF heavily "americanised" - Similar to how Sao Paulo has "nihongakkous" (immersion schools for 2nd/3rd gen japanese), some schools in SF have "immersion" programs. These basically indicate that the community as a whole doesn't have cultural momentum to imprint onto new generations. By contrast, at my kid's kindergarten in Toronto, the teacher would at times actively have to discourage kids from speaking chinese in class (when it would be disruptive/exclusionary to the minorities - caucasians - of the class)!
WRT VC culture, my understanding is that in China, there's a great deal of literal politics (IIRC, Didi and many other prominent startups were owned by family members of prominent politicians), but that culturally speaking, "success" tends to be narrowly defined as doing well in school and getting a socially desirable job after that. I'm told that indians have similar cultural pressure to raise to management positions. (Women have it even worse, with pressure to get married in their 20s, give their parents grandchildren, etc). I feel like in SF, tech workers are heavily immersed in liberal ideas (e.g. risk taking, individualism) and tend to "detach" from their birth culture to a much higher degree than in Toronto.
https://venturebeat.com/2012/10/15/how-indians-defied-gravit...
"Twenty five percent of the nation’s startups and 52% of those in Silicon Valley were founded by immigrants. Indian immigrants were the leading company founding group. They founded 13.4% of Silicon Valley’s startups and 6.5% of those nationwide."
Regardless of cultural differences, I recall reading that immigrants as a whole are far more entrepreneurial than similarly positioned natives. A lot of this is through self-selection: saying goodbye to all your friends and moving to a whole other country/continent is extremely "scary". Hence by definition, the average immigrant is far more comfortable heading off into the unknown and taking the plunge.
Lucrative perks sticks because of tax breaks like you mentioned.
I would be going all-out on #3. Having local businesses has benefits beyond just avoiding brain drain as well.
This is why it blows my mind at how little funding there is for early stage companies in Canada. I personally tried twice now already, as have several friends, and we didn't get anywhere because local investors here want you to already have a finished product with a validated business model and 10k/month in revenue. I'm sorry but the only way you stop a promising new grad from turning down a huge salary is by giving them the chance to work on their passion.
Expecting them to already have a 10k/mo business is just a big F-you. Might as well go to the states where I can at least make enough money to take some time off. And heck, while I'm there someone might even fund my idea anyways.
What really prevents braindrain on a large scale is stationary opportunity's.
Take Shenzhen for example, it is one ocean away from California and should be constantly bleeding out towards it. The contrary is the case, due to the relatively cheap and flexible factories of hardware- being opportunities for which California cant or wont any longer compete.
But shouldn't all these Chinese hardware founders create fab-less hw-design companies and mass-migrate? No, because connections and opportunities would not migrate with them.
Such opportunities are usually created by long-term protectionism and clever industrial policies.
I mean really, it creates about 10k high-paying tech jobs, okay... but Walmart employs 1 million. A lot of the support staff, e.g. in moderation, are distributed around the world.
Then it generates tons of revenues and profits for its shareholders, but FB is a public company, it could in theory be completely owned by non-Americans who profit off of the American company.
Then it provides a service to people around the world.
And then it has strategic value, but it appears it was misused by foreign powers to manipulate domestic elections, rather than furthering American interests.
FB does pay quite substantial federal taxes, far greater than it does in the rest of the world, you can't easily disregard that. The rest of the world is missing out on that, but that's also a question of the rest of the world not using its tax mandate fully.
It doesn't appear like Facebook is tremendously more important to the US than it is to the rest of the world. Of course brain drain is always an issue we should be concerned about, but one feature of publicly-owned digital companies is that their benefits aren't as restricted to their locality as traditional companies are.
What is canadian culture? What are canadian values? I've never heard anyone mention canadian culture or values before.
> would love to live in Canada one day.
You are one of the rare individuals. Most canadians I've met want to live in the US. Especially those with money or skills to make money. Better food, weather, culture, history, life, etc.
> - Aggressively encourage/fund/facilitate startups. Unlike salaried employees, startups aren't turned off by the low-engineering-wages. Once Canada can grow 5-10 startups into major established companies with Canadian HQs, that will really boost the local engineering ecosystem and job market.
But they can't compete because of scale. Canada isn't large enough and it certainly has too little internal talent to compete with the US. California by itself can out compete canada by itself. Thrown in the other 49 states.
Even if canada retained all its "brains", it wouldn't matter. We outnumber canada 10 to 1 and outrank canada in every economic facet from resources, ports, infrastructure and foreign talent.
Foreigners with skills, from china to india to the middle east to eastern europe, all want to come to the US to study and work.
It's almost impossible for canada to compete with the US. They have nothing going for them vis a vis the US and their internal market isn't large enough to compete with the US.
You either take below market rate (like myself) or you work in something like one of the 300 ad-tech or we'll-build-your-website/app dev mills (more often than not it's both).
There are a limited number of opportunities for truly interesting or innovative work if you don't want to work for "we're changing the world by creating the next uber/airbnb/cryptocurrency/coupon app!"
There are some seriously good and interesting companies here, but many exist out of the popular eye and/or usually located in the suburbs. (at least around Toronto)
But mainly I suspect it's the pay and career trajectory. Get a gig at FAANG? You can write your ticket after that. Work at a major Canadian company? You won't get a call back from other Canadian companies at a pay cut...
This is probably feeding the problem. You need good engineers to create high-value products in order to afford to pay high salaries for good engineers. Economies can't get ahead when they waste engineering talent developing trivial software that doesn't build long-term growth.
Canada should probably have a massive advanced military project that aims to produce state of the art technology. Pay qualified people great salaries and let them use their inventions in the private sector after some period of time.
But otherwise, I'm trying to figure out how I can possibly save or make some more money on the side without running myself ragged or ruining my relationship—and feel human all the while.
I don't want to exaggerate but something is definitely off. I've seen companies resist hiring engineers at almost all cost (except for at 35-60k) but will pay "Technology Procurement Managers" 300k+. Don't get me started on some of the outcome of those practices...
I am looking to move to the USA because of higher salaries, but I am not 22 years old anymore and moving a family (with 2 earners) is no easy task.
It falls on deaf ears though, 120k CAD is a good income, I can afford a house, cars, no debts etc so there is very little understanding from others how I could not be satisfied with pay.
So they just pay what it takes to fill the spot.
Of course they are also incredibly resistant to changing this, preferring to complain about how we need to fix brain drain and/or make immigration easier.
So it seems like they're not losing devs at a fast enough pace to warrant increasing dev salaries? Or perhaps there are just enough developers for the Canadian market, to not have to increase compensation to attract better talent?
From what I've seen, American based companies with offices in Canada do seem to pay very well, but Canadian companies are unabashedly poorly compensating. I talked with a few hiring managers at some Canadian startups and what they were offering would be less than what I made right out of college. It left me wondering how talented folks can continue to work for Canadian firms?
The reason engineers make so much money in the US is the public market giants like Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google, etc. The combined market cap of FAANG is fluctuating around $3 trillion right now. That's about 2X the entire GDP of Canada...in just 5 American companies.
No large-ish tech company in Canada is near that level of profitability or size. Combine that with currency fluctuations and with the greater tax/regulatory burden of having a full-time employee in Canada, and you will never have a Canadian company that can afford to pay engineers $250K+ en masse like FAANG can.
The reason engineers in the US make so much, is because four to five decades ago US tech companies combined with globalization and scaled out into the entire planet as a market. That premise has remained intact, while the global economy has gotten a lot larger and richer. That's something most other nations have failed to do at a large scale (S.Korea has Samsung but not many other companies that have gone hyper global for example).
Go all the way back to Fairchild, Intel, HP, IBM in the 1950-1980 era. Nobody has done globalized tech like the US, probably only Japan got close (and they've largely missed out on the huge margins in software).
Without the ability to tap into the rest of the planet, Netflix wouldn't be able to pay what it does. The rest of the planet is half their market now, and will be 2/3 or 3/4 of it in the near future.
Europe only has three or four major tech companies that managed to go substantially global (eg SAP, ARM, Spotify, or Booking.com which got swallowed by Priceline). ARM & Booking got taken out, Spotify will be acquired next. The same kind of problem Canada often faces with its tech companies (Shopify is very likely to end up in the belly of a US tech or retail company, especially once their valuation normalizes).
I live in Germany, which has similar wages for software engineers as Canada. And in a 2 hours train ride I can be in Poland, where software engineers earn 1/3 their German counterparts.
Apparently, only business and finance people are allowed to want money because they provide a useful service or just because they want money.
I personally believe that in a capitalistic society, it is imperative that everyone tries their best to extract as much of the value that they create. Otherwise we end up with massive inequality.
https://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/canada...
The housing prices are rising across the globe - one has to put somewhere all this money sloshing around. So, even to just stabilize the prices, one has to build faster than the money are printed - like Alice in Wonderland where you have to run fast just to stay at the same place.
Basically all that NIMBY vs. YIMBY fights is just 2 poor hobos fighting for a penny and completely distracted with that fight while a nice rich gentleman sells them both to slavery and makes away with the money and all the rest of their possessions.
It definitely won't be one or 2 developments; there has to be a systematic increase in the housing stock. Which is why the latest California plan (which was shot down in committee) to increase the density around mass transit by default was so amazing.
SF is NYC in the making. I know SF folks don't want to change the character of the city but something has to give; its attracting way too many people and we still need affordable housing for middle class folks.
I have only vague idea about Barcelona - quick check shows like it may be on the scale of E5K per square meter (it was $100K per 2-3 bdrm 20 years ago, so 3x-4x today seems reasonable) So you need to have like at least $60K salary - do they have that there?
Again, i'm not against high[er] density. I'm against it being suggested as the panacea for housing affordability crisis - as far as i see it looks like it may even worsen the crisis (at least for some less fortunate people - like relatively affordable low income communities being displaced by upscale new construction like we have happening everywhere in SV).
Please just show where higher density did help to alleviate the affordability crisis. I think even the massively empty apartments in all these massively constructed ghost towers in China aren't falling in prices.
However, if the prices in silicon valley were, say, 30% lower than they are now due to zoning which allowed more housing, would that constitute as evidence? You could still say that the "prices are high, higher density housing doesn't work!" - even if the higher density housing would've decreased prices by non-trivial amounts.
In any case, it's weird to see people objecting to basic supply and demand when it comes to housing.
You shouldn't go to the bay area because you will never be able to afford a 2 million dollar house on 300k a year.
Stay in Vancouver and just buy a 1 million dollar house on 90k instead.
To GP questions - there is a lot of info available around about FANG compensation. Wrt. other companies - several guys around have recently landed new jobs - between 250K by a junior guy with 12 years experience and 0.5M by the guy with 20+. Only one went to FANG, a junior with about 10years and he got close to 300K.
This may be true, but again these are outliers - most people here are not cranking down 400K. Netflix hires the best of the best so these people are the top 10% of engineers probably... Not the avg joe
It is certainly DOABLE, and within reach to get a job at google and stay there for 3 years. But thats the population we are talking about here.
A good reminder that nobody brags about being paid 100k in tech,
Sunnyvale (current ground zero of Apple)
And ... guess what... Bank uses Base (no bonus, no RSUs) to calculate your mortgage.
you have obviously never taken a mortgage in US. What bank typically uses is 2 last W-2s. In case if you don't know what W-2 is - it includes base + bonus + FMV of the vested RSUs as of the vest date.
The spot with the best balance seems to be Seattle. High salaries and housing relatively affordable when compared to Vancouver or SF.
If I want to sell my downtown townhouse and buy a detached home or upgrade in any way I'm looking at a 1.5 hour commute easily and still not getting much. And once you're outside downtown , entertainment etc rapidly drops off.
Alternatively in the bay area, where I may soon be moving, the suburbs have a strong drop off in cost from the hotspots while still maintaining a reasonable commute and quality of life.
The issue is, Vancouver's infrastructure drops off so dramatically as you get further from downtown.
I haven't enjoyed life as much as my peers perhaps, although I do have a good time and I love what I do. But I'll retire early in my fourties and spend the rest of my life working on whatever I find interesting, traveling, or whatever else catches my fancy.
Based on my own experience of finding remote work for US companies.
I usually get lowballed on the offers because I am based in Canada.
In other words, US companies pay average salaries calculated based on my local salary rates.
In fact I just had a phone interview with a SF startup for a remote position and they were shocked to hear that I was asking for an AVG salary rate in SF instead of Canada.
Not sure if this is the norm for everyone.
Have you calculated what salary you'd have to earn to afford an equivalent configuration of {house, cars, debt, schools, commute, sanity} in the BA?
That may be where the lack of understanding comes from.
I really do get tired of this "but the cost of living!" argument being tossed out. People get it. It's not complicated.
The health argument is completely invalid when it comes to Canadian salary comparisons because the Canadian employer doesn’t have to pay health insurance costs — so they should have more money available for salaries.
That companies think you're paid highly for your area is kind of this entire problem in a nutshell.
There's opportunities to make six (Canadian) figures in Victoria if you have enough buzzwords on your resume to convince a recruiter or HR person you're "full-stack" (I hate the term but you have to play the game if you want to get hired).
Vancouver, Toronto, Victoria - while not SF or NYC cost of living, they are still really expensive and their programming salaries appear to be 50% at best of comparable salaries in major US tech centers. Are other professions in Canada doing better? Are the only people who can afford the real estate people that just owned real estate previously and rich foreigners?
I make a Google employee salary + RSUs. It is really good. I have no complaints about my compensation at all. I live on a 6 acre hobby farm, own two vehicles, am doing really well.
But I bought 6 years ago. I could not afford to buy this now.
I hope you just mean that metaphorically, but if it's actually happening, please let us know so we can scold them. Putting others down that pettily is a breach of civility.
I see it all the time, but don't have any examples specifically bookmarked.
I was in Victoria last week. Arriving back here I immediately regretted coming back. :| Except for, of course, the need for the pay, and a few of my things. I love it out there.
When I left my pay raise was 133%. There is no word in the Canadian language to describe my salary level, it still beats every professor in every department, 20 years later ...
What kind of challenges did I leave behind when I left UBC? Research into forestry robotic Feller-Bunchers (giant tree snippers); Optical Systems for cutting Lumber in Sawmills. Computer architecture? No. VLSI? No. Compilers, Operating systems, CAD tools? No. Nothing core to these fields was ever done in Canada ....
We have to make do with Deep Learning.
My wife went to Berkeley and I am profoundly jealous of the quality of her education. UBC is fine but it has a local view and doesn’t deserve to be called world class imo. It doesn’t develop a worldly viewpoint in its students. And why would it? It’s mission is to educate British Columbians.
This is a hard topic for me because I was forced to move to Seattle in 2001 right after I graduated. Initially I was only semi willing, but the job market in Vancouver for new grads just didn’t exist then. It’s hard to find fellow Canadians who share similar viewpoints.
I’d love to chat more about this with you, somehow!
I can only speak to the University of Waterloo, but there was this idea that the only goal worth perusing was a cali job. 'Cali or Bust' was one of those sayings that was said jokingly, but you know, people were also kind of serious about it. Even really great paying jobs in Toronto or Waterloo are not as desirable as the exact same position out west.
Bay area best case scenario is top of the world. Founder of a world-wide renowned company.
Best case scenario for being in waterloo: Founder of a huge telcom handset manufacturer until shifting markets cause massive failure written about in economics textbooks as "what not to do"
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely not true. Not only did the company you're talking about pay out incredibly well for its founders, but Waterloo is dramatically different today.
Or go work for Google in SV and then transfer back here after a few years.
Now, London isn't exactly cheap, and my overall buying power here is probably only mildly superior to what it would be in Canada, but I get to live in a great city with all the amenities of a major European hub.
Canada is great and I love many things about it, and I do consider it my proper home, but there's not much to attract me back at this point in my life & career. It's just truly a bad place to be if you're in tech.
I've been encouraging my friends back home to go explore other options like the US or Europe, and so far 3 more people I know have left - and it doesn't take much convincing once they see what's abroad.
My point is more that as a Canadian you can go pretty much anywhere else and be better paid (even if only a little bit relative to cost of living), and sometimes there are substantial other advantages too, such as proximity to desirable locations, cultural stuff, and so on.
I guess it's partly what people value and partly a novelty effect of appreciating differences when you move overseas but I often see that Brits and other immigrants like Vancouver better than the people who grew up here (though there's an obvious selection effect there) and the same seems to be true in reverse for many Canadians who go to live in the UK.
As it is, there is little incentive to stay here. I know a new grad who was faced with the choice of staying in Canada to earn $40-50k CAD per year starting, or heading to the US where he had a job offer with one of the big five for $120k USD plus signing bonus. Guess which option he chose?
Canadian tech companies love to complain about lack of talent, but they're not willing to pay for it, and they seem oblivious to the fact that we have a professional worker mobility agreement with our southern neighbors that makes it very easy to get a visa.
Something's gotta change.
I agree about your main point though. It's time to put up (salaries in this case) or shut up.
The savings look like they will add up over time.
I think the individual value of most social services is pretty low to people in this demographic (recent graduates taking software jobs in the US).
Sure, universal healthcare is great, but US companies also provide health insurance.
Health insurance is much more expensive at 55 than at 25.
- I've met people that have had terminal cancer in their very early 30s (didn't leave a giant bill to their state as this happened in the UK)
- I've had a friend that needed an ambulance for his pregnant wife from an airport (>10K USD in out of pocket expenses)
- I've been stabbed in an attempted robbery (again, no expense as this was in Argentina)
- Young people with chronic illnesses exist
Also, $10K is a low figure for medical expenses compared to how much one can spend. End of life care for the elderly can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. My grandfather has been in and out of the hospital a lot this year with a broken hip, complications thereof, and fairly advanced dementia, and his covered medical expenses have been astronomical. He gets full-time care every waking moment, 7 days a week -- so that's several full-time salaries on top of medical expenses. $10K doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of how much it can cost to treat someone.
As an aside, the 10K figure was just he ambulance ride. I'm supplying that as a lower bound for the cost on an accident, which people in other countries would not believe.
Protip: "treble damages" is not a thing California invented in order to pay legal fees
My wife was hit by a driver while cycling. She was taken to an in-network hospital as it happened to be the closest one. A 10 block ride on an ambulance yielded bill for a few thousand dollars. On the day of the event, the only out of pocket expense was <100 USD, but since then we've incurred several thousand dollars in expenses to treat the consequences of that event.
You're right that as somebody with an engineer's salary who's been diligent in making sure we had savings for unforeseen events, we've been able to pay all of the required fees as they came, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken into account when talking about compensation across different countries, or that being young and healthy precludes needing health care.
> "treble damages" is not a thing California invented in order to pay legal fees
I prefaced with "at least in California" because it's the place where I've had to find this out. I'm more familiar with systems in other countries.
All lawyers that we had to contact (which was already a shocking thing to do for me) had the same payment structure and explained it the same way: there would be a settlement, to be divided equally by HC provider, lawyer's fees and victim. I mentioned this because I can assure you that most people that don't know the American system would be surprised about it.
In the end, though, I don't consider health insurance to be a cost an in-demand professional would factory into a decision to move from Canada to the US.
I don't think CA has many technical equivalents to Ohama or Columbus that combine high salaries from numerous F500 companies with Midwestern COL.
MIDI, the immigration department of Quebec which has fully autonomy for selecting immigrants to Quebec fails to attract or retain the foreign talents. A highly skilled worker is not given any kind of priority in their immigration application.
On the other hand, if you only have a school diploma, but can speak fluent French, you get the top priority in Quebec immigration.
If you are highly skilled, but do not know a word of French, it will take a minimum of 4 years to immigrate to Quebec [2]. Montreal is just riding on their old inertia. There is a huge shortage of talent in Quebec. The policies of immigration dept. of Quebec and Quebec's language policies will drive Quebec down the drain. Some politicians have even announced that if they get elected, they will deport all the non French speaking immigrants out of Quebec.
So any startups looking to start their business in Quebec, you have been warned. Montreal is a great tourist city, no contest. But not so great to live or work for tech. If you immigrate to Quebec, your kids should go to French school only.[4]
[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pastagate-reve...
[2] http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2018/02/27/des-travailleurs...
[3] https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/caq-s-new-immigration-policy-lea...
[4] http://unbelavenir.gouv.qc.ca/en/whychoosequebec-foreducatio...
Montreal is great. I'm here, and if my kids don't go into IT they will work in another sector and will be able to afford to live.
I'd consider SV a death sentence. Who wants to work when you will never achieve financial independence because you'll never own your own land? And if you have a huge mortgage you are your boss's bitch forever.
For one:
http://observer.com/2018/03/silicon-valley-housing-market-dr...
The Global Skills Strategy that the federal government here is running includes tech workers, and yes it includes Quebec. MIDI has facilitated processing for many of those. For kids of people here on temporary work permits, including that type, English schools are allowed.
For permanent immigration, MIDI currently gives more points for an applicant with a bachelor's degree in computer science from anywhere in the world - regardless of language knowledge - than it does for a high school-educated applicant who is fluent in French. There are lots of factors that affect the score. While they do value French ability more than English, it's not as overwhelming as that suggests.
Their autonomy in selecting temporary workers (including tech workers) is not full, btw - there are many cases where a Labour Market Impact Assessment is not needed, and then Quebec doesn't have veto power on those workers. Quebec will still give them a leg up based on that experience if they later apply for permanent residence - yes, even without French knowledge.
Last, KFC did rename themselves to PFK due to the language politics, but that was a business decision, not legally required. Subway, Banana Republic, Canadian Tire, and many other Anglo-named companies are still using their Anglo names as their brands here. It was similarly voluntary that Shopper's Drug Mart goes by Pharmaprix here.
As for taxes: it doesn't seem higher overall than NYC, a major US tech hub, and it includes a lot more for the money.
> more points for an applicant with a bachelor's degree in computer science from anywhere in the world
Quebec's immigration system is not point based as of now. Its FCFS. Though they say its points based, there is no indication from statistics that MIDI selects workers based on points. In fact, MIDI is a blackbox when it comes to revealing the strategy that they use to select workers while Federal Express Entry is fully transparent. Bachelor's degree holders in Comp. Sc are waiting for more than 5 years for a CSQ from Quebec, while they can immigrate to other provinces within months !
There are reports of systematic discrimination by MIDI regarding the selection of applicants based on their citizenship. As a US citizen, its no wonder you are given priority than applicants from third world countries. There are two class action suites against MIDI currently regarding systematic discrimination in selecting applicants. [2] [5] [7]
Ombudsman's Annual Report About MIDI says there are 31,378 applications pending as of March 31, 2017. [3]
> Quebec will still give them a leg up based on that experience if they later apply for permanent residence
That has been on hold with no explanation from MIDI since 2017. [4]
MIDI systematically discriminates applicants even in French priority category (PEQ) if they are from China or India [5]
A forum where applicants discuss about delays from MIDI [6]
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
[2] https://imk.ca/en/rahim-and-rhia-basnet-v-midi/
[3] http://publications.virtualpaper.com/protecteur-du-citoyen/e...
[4] http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2018/02/27/des-travailleurs...
[5] http://chalkimmigration.com/2018/04/29/update-peq-group-judi...
[6] https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-boa...
[7] http://oreopoulos.faculty.economics.utoronto.ca/wp-content/u...
But again, many of these statements rely on inaccurate assumptions, overlook important nuances or past/present/near-future changes on each system, are not supported by the linked cites, or are otherwise inaccurate or leave the wrong impression.
I have no reason to doubt that you're discussing in good faith with good motives. But if you're learning conclusions like those in these comments from media pundits or social network posts, you may want to prefer primary sources, pay close attention to details when examining or discussing any source, and give targeted cites corresponding precisely to each point you want to support.
Have a good weekend, and see you here Sunday night or Monday if this post's conversation activity is still going.
I feel for my colleagues in Quebec whose applications are on hold in Quebec with no explanation from MIDI for the past one year. If you start asking cites for all these from official source which is MIDI, I can't give you because MIDI don't have it either.
If MIDI publishes those numbers, it will reveal their discriminatory practices. Don't bother about replying. Have a great weekend.
* Processing delays as per MIDI's site for obtaining a CSQ:
Official Source: https://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/immigrate-settl...
* MIDI currently follows FCFS to issue CSQ, not point based merit system, which they are planning to implement soon.
" With the introduction of the new immigration system based on the declaration of interest, only candidates that meet the needs of Québec will be invited to submit an application for a selection certificate. This new system will make it possible to put an end to the principle of first come first serve, currently in effect for processing applications, and to considerably reduced average processing times. "
Official Source: https://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/informations/ne...
* Federal processing time delays(after obtaining a CSQ) for residency from Quebec: 15 months & counting.
Official Source: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/times/index.asp
( Select Economic Class > Skilled workers Quebec ,the processing times shows as 15 months.)
* For the year 2017, the processing time for applications for a selection certificate under the Regular Skilled Worker Program was 32 months.
Official Source: https://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/informations/ne...
* To summarize, an immigration application thru Regular Skilled worker stream will take 15 + 32 months to complete if it goes without any glitches, but MIDI is plagued with operational issues such as loss of applicant documents, huge technical problems with Mon Projet and the recent refugee situation.
Official Source: https://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/informations/ne...
Now if anyone applies in PEQ category, you will still be delayed by 15 months in Federal stage.
So which graduate or skilled worker worth their salt will try to immigrate or stay in Quebec after graduation ? They can easily get their permanent residency within months if they move to any other province other than Quebec through the Express Entry system and other provincial nomination programs.
Why do I say all this ? Because Quebec's immigration system is so obsolete that it doesn't give importance for merit. I was a victim of the broken H1B visa system and I immigrated to Canada thru Express Entry which gave importance to my skills. How I did it might be interesting too -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15452647
First, I actually agree with the other poster that the processing times for Quebec are too long and too slow. I didn't get any special priority as a US citizen, despite what he may have thought - it took me almost the same 32 months he found to get Quebec's approval and around the same 15 months for Canada's. This should get fixed.
However, the same was true for the federal system until 2015's switch to Express Entry. It was heavily slow and heavily backlogged. Quebec's similar switch is happening... this year. Quebec's block on most new regular skilled worker applications is to allow that. I say "most" since several types of applications are still allowed, especially from students and workers currently here temporarily.
Once that switch happens, I hope the Quebec and federal governments can work together to minimize processing time. The federal government will have to dedicate more resources if they want to reduce the 15 month part of the process - that's purely in their hands and not up to Quebec. They do the same admissibility checks much faster for federal Express Entry applicants.
Quebec's system generally lags behind the federal one. Right now, that's bad due to the slow processing times. It was however good during the time when Harper was restricting access to the older federal skilled worker system, since Quebec's was then more open. I think overall it's good to have these two different systems with different politicians making changes on different time scales, since it provides more ways into the country.
The main other important point: Quebec's system is only first-come-first-serve to decide whose applications to consider and when. The actual decision, once they've decided to consider you, is already points-based with the types of merit systems desired by the other poster. The Publications Quebec website has their legally binding regulations with the full points system, and the Immigration Quebec website has (in French) their internal administrative procedures guide which is far from a black box. Similarly, the federal government's Express Entry system is only used to decide who can apply when - a different system is used to make the actual decision on the merits, and their skilled worker program has a very similar points system to Quebec's (with different weightings).
The slowness of the current system, while it's very worth fixing, doesn't have quite the same impact as it does in the US because the options while waiting are better. Quebec graduates have the same access to post-graduate open work permits as other graduates in Canada, as do their spouses. As one pursues the permanent residence paperwork, there are ways to get work permits, temporary stay permits, and so forth without the same kind of crappy restrictions and lotteries that the US imposes on H-1B applicants and their families. The bureaucracy gets looser once you get Quebec's approval but is overall much more manageable.
Quebec's language is French and historically speaking it has every reason to attempt to protect it. Should immigration be more accommodating towards people willing to learn French? Probably. In my lifetime though I've mostly encountered anglophones who chose Quebec out of all provinces but then refused to speak the language, so shrug.
And yeah there are stupid politicians who say stupid things, just like in the States where some promise to throw out Mexicans and Muslims.
If I was a new-ish grad and wanted to stay in the PNW there's not a chance I'd pick Vancouver. Seattle has all the same electric cars, dog bakeries and yarn stores that you'll find in the lower mainland, and heading to Whistler for the weekend with more US greenbacks in your pocket would be a lot more fun...
When I turned 20 in 1997, Vancouver seemed like a personal version of heaven. Rents were more expensive than where I'm from, but that increase was easily offset by the ability to easily double my salary. Real estate was heavy, but not so heavy that it seemed unobtainable. Add in what I perceived to be real opportunity to work in an interesting field, a highly educated workforce and the natural beauty and I was completely sold.
Today, even if I were twenty again, I can't think of a single legitimate reason why I would choose Vancouver over Seattle.
For anything other than that I've had effectively zero wait time and excellent care. There are even free health lines you can call for basic info.
I've only ever lived in the GTA, though. It's my understanding that in many places away from major cities there can be a shortage of doctors.
Canadian living in US as well. The one thing I've noticed is the choice of healthcare in the US (for those with good insurance). Have cancer? Pick the best hospital you can find in the area. In Canada, you might live next to a world-class institute or it might just be a regular hospital. That's where you go.
But yes, healthcare in Canada is very good. The other thing I would call out is that experimental/cutting edge technology is often available in the US before Canada.
Definitely not my experience (Toronto -> SF). My rent for a 2-bed apartment in SF is twice as much as my mortgage for a 3-bed detached in Toronto (both with similar commute times)
With that said, signing bonuses are definitely something that you don't ever get in Canada, raises and yearly bonuses are also categorically lower, and housing prices have been outpacing salary increases significantly.
However, there are definitely very good reasons to be in Canada instead of the US/Bay area. Healthcare, for one thing, isn't an opaque insurance clusterfuck. It's also much safer (both macroscopically, in terms of things like shootings, and microscopically, in terms of side effects of widespread homelessness).
Another thing to consider is that work visas are far easier to get in Canada, and the path to citizenship is also much less draconian.
They most likely to a large extent can't. It's just a different model both as comapnies and country. In general you can rarely win by being a lesser version of something else. Canada can, hopefully, do a lot of things the US can't. Those are the things it should do to attract people.
Name one prominent Canadian VC firm - I can't think of any, and I'm Canadian. But ask me about US firms, and I can name firms like Sequioa, a16z, and BVP. We don't have that here.
In Silicon Valley its a, 'Oh that sucks, but the smart money stayed away, that should have been a tell for the other investors".
Then the bubble burst and Nortel collapsed. A lot of institutional investors swore off tech after that, and it hasn't really rebounded.
Flat out wrong. FAANG will absolutely give you similar salaries in metro areas like Seattle, NYC, Austin. Where are you getting your data?
It isn't in London compared to the Bay Area, nor was it in Chicago when I lived there, based on people I knew at some of those companies. This is the first time I've heard that starting salaries are identical regardless of location. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
This comes up in every thread about Canada, but it seems a lapse of logic to anthropomorphize a market like this. The market doesn't "will" anything, and people's willingness to offer/accept a salary is more a consequence of local conditions than a cause. Those conditions include the option of getting paid more if you're willing to leave the country, which some are. Presumably that affects the market for those who choose to remain, but it would be interesting to know by how much. It's not obvious.
Canadian companies complain about lack of talent about as much as their employees complain about lack of salary. Isn't it a sign of a market reaching its level when both sides complain about the price but nevertheless accept it?
(I edited it to say "their employees" instead of "Canadian employees". Hopefully that will help.)
TFA is about Canadian employees leaving for the US for better wages, as the other commenter pointed out.
The question is, what would change the situation? Not some change of heart by companies to finally do the right thing, or come to their senses about what their self-interest really is. Those aren't real things. To change it would require some change in the fundamentals, such as if the government made it harder for people to leave.
This is a horrible false dichotomy. It takes time for companies to decide on and implement changes. Do you think that companies magically always make optimal decisions at all times? You claim that other people are anthropomorphizing companies, but that’s precisely what you’re doing here, on top of a healthy dose of failure to make the is-ought distinction.
I‘m also not sure why you are misinterpreting “good wages.” I’m not talking about “deserved wages” or anything like that. Again, read TFA.
Lastly, your suggestion that the Canadian government make it harder for people to leave is horrific, inhumane, and quite frankly the most regressive possible “solution” to this problem. I’m astounded that anyone would even suggest it.
For example, I didn't suggest that the government should do such a thing. It's a hideous idea, besides being an obvious legal and political impossibility. What I said was that if they did, it might affect the software salary market in Canada, in contrast to other things people commonly bring up, which seem oddly imaginary.
Laws, including constitutions, can be changed. This works for both sides of the border. Killing NAFTA is an easy start. Canada can have a wall to keep people in without even building it: simply lobby US politicians to have one built.
Conversely I don’t see where I’ve attributed to you anything you haven’t said.
To conclude by returning to something of substance, calling the market “oddly imaginary” and companies trying to make rational decisions as “not a real thing” is incredibly naive. You seem to think that the only thing that can affect the “fundamentals” of the situation is government intervention. I’m far from a libertarian, and even to me that does not at all resemble this situation. This is a simple case of companies in an area paying too low wages, employees leaving, and companies having to catch up.
You seem to be misinterpreting everyone else’s arguments as anthropomorphizing companies, which is not at all what people are doing when they are talking about a market. I think this derived from your fundamental understanding of how a market economy might work in the real world.
Companies and workers both take time to adjust to changing situations, and more importantly, situations can change, and the government shouldn’t always intervene to bring things back to the way they were. Otherwise we would still be a nation of farmers.
I’m not sure what else to say, and I seriously don’t want to sound mean or trite (like “just read a book!”), but I really think you should try and learn a little about economics. I think this is where your misunderstanding about anthropomorphization stems from. I tried to find a good introductory article, but I haven’t had much luck; here is one: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/labor-market.asp
Except that behind the Great Toronto tech market there are real people, making decisions. At the government, at the investment, and at the management level.
And by and large those people have made decisions which see engineering talent here as a resource that they have to push the cost down on even if it means losing domestic talent to the US.
Part of this is accomplished by importing talent from abroad or exporting the work abroad, or underpaying when they can get away with it. It's not a surprise that locally developed talent leaves after graduation, when the industry is actively recruiting from abroad.
And part of this is relying on the percentage of talent hat simply will not or cannot consider moving abroad (people like myself).
Amazon Toronto starts new grads at like $80-100k last I heard. It's not as good as you can get in Silicon Valley, but rent in Toronto (while still high) is much lower than in the Valley.
The same situation exists across the US. For example I can get a mortgage on a nice place in the Midwest that is half my current rent in SV. That amounts to about $24k/year. However I'd have take a pay cut of about $40k gross (or more) for a job with identical responsibilities and to live in a region with far fewer opportunities. It's a net loss.
The "near downtown San Mateo" listing is a 5-minute bike ride from Caltrain, 600sq ft and US$1785. So about CAD$600 more than your rent.
A friend has a one bedroom in San Mateo in the sub $3000 range. The building is very old, no amenities or views to speak of, and not even in-suite laundry.
So glad I made the decision to move from Toronto to Atlantic Canada this past year. I'm actually making more money in New Brunswick than I did in Toronto and can afford to own a 4 bedroom house instead of renting a 600 square foot condo.
I know that Regina->NB is dramatically different from Toronto->NB, but is there anything you wish you would have known??
One word of caution about real estate in the Fredericton area; don't buy any property too close to the river. There's usually flooding in the spring from the snow melt up stream and this year was especially bad. I was lucky enough not to be affected, but there's lots of homes taking flood damage right now.
I'm very glad you weren't affected by the flooding, and thanks for being kind, despite my gaffe!
It finally feels to me like things are on the cusp of getting interesting in Regina. Saskatoon's recent acquisitions (Solido bought by Mentor/Siemens, SkipTheDishes) seems to have raised a lot of eyebrows in Regina and there's at least some momentum building to get investors/business folks/tech folks together to start building things. Co-Labs in Saskatoon seems to have been a huge inspiration/wake-up call for parts of the Regina business community.
That being said... I've always had a bit of a longing for Atlantic Canada, and if the jobs are out there... that's pretty interesting!
Canadians getting a raw deal by comparison. Cost of living in Toronto is not half of that of the Bay Area. Most like 2/3rds.
I'm not willing to lose a quarter of my household income because my wife cannot work.
I might move on a TN visa with the understanding that my employer converts to H1-B after 12 months.
Have an offer at a FAANG company that when converted to CAD is the same as what my wife and I make combined.
Unfortunately we'd still lose a big chunk of our household income till she can find work there. Fortunately she's American but still in a relatively niche field so might take some time.
I might be able to get better in the States, even after cost-of-living increases, but what quality of life gain would there be? Would it be worthwhile to have to deal with all the crazy shit with the education and healthcare systems and the politics down there?
So I'm sticking here in Canada. I just don't see the point in moving south.
I don't know, 325M other people seem to be living with it and are not leaving in droves.
I'm not opposed to immigration at all. But prior to coming to Google Canada most of the people I worked with in Toronto were not holders of Canadian degrees. They were recent immigrants, permanent residents and not citizens and therefore themselves unable to go to the US. Many of these people were underpaid significantly, and a lot of them mistreated, in my opinion.
The homegrown talent from Waterloo, etc. had mostly left for the U.S.
Some come back after a few years, but many never do.
Add to that the dynamic of many American companies opening offices here as a 'nearshore' lower cost shop, where all the important and interesting decisions are made in the US and the Canadian shop's job is to just execute it.... crappy.
I believe that the SFBay has nearly 500K Canadians. That's crazy.
LA county has more by itself at 29,200 Canadians. California as a whole has only 132,000 Canadians.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-...
Games workshop set up in Nottingham years ago there is now large number of spin off companies in the metal and plastic moulding - its even called the lead belt.
If you're a student graduating out of a Canadian college/university and are looking for ways to advance your career (while making a lot more money on the side), what's not to love about moving or working remote?
I'm not spending 4K a month on food!
As a self-employed contractor, my costs are lower (working from home), I get myriad tax breaks, and my salary is not even comparable to what I could expect locally, even with having to pay for my own health and dental. I can't see myself ever going back to working locally. Hell, I have been thinking about moving into the mountains recently, just for the scenery.
Since I've been here, I've learned how to drive stick shift, sky dived, and been on way more adventure than what I could have if I stayed at home. It's about adventure and taking a risk. Not necessarily about the money, but being paid more doesn't hurt ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Average rent in SV ~$3500 Average rent in TO ~$2000
Rent 1yr TO ~$24000
Take home after income tax before other deductions and expenses at $55000/yr is ~ $44000. Count on another couple grand in standard deductions before medical insurance.
Then add gov. or bank student loans payments (if you have them), groceries, transit, etc. Let me just say that you won't be buying a car. Maybe a dog if you're lucky— but if you work full time from an office and commute 30 mins to 1 hr each way that probably means ~$450/mo in dog-walker payments. So maybe not.
You won't end up on the street and you can save if you don't really do anything but go sit in a park, but it does make saving difficult.
To purchase a house here it's estimated that you'll need to be making at least $100,000/yr before the bank will even look at you. So there's that.
More than once here, on a rainy winter day, I've gotten in my car and driven east until I hit the hills, found a park, and enjoyed a sunny afternoon.
I bet that's part of it, but probably also tied to the general population shift south and to the coasts where the weather is nicer.
It's a well known fact that the amazing opportunity of learning to drive stick shift is something you can't do in Canada. Luckily the US are there for that!
And I've changed gears with my right hand my whole life. Changing gears with the left just "feels" right.
I moved to Calgary, AB in 2002 and a lot of people I'd meet grew up somewhere else and where economic migrants. It's a big deal to leave home, even for a good job, and lots cant/won't do it. It seems the further east you come from the stronger the pull of tradition/family/regionalism.
So, yes you can do any of the things mentioned pretty much anywhere, but the sentiment of more adventurous people => more willing to relocate for work seems to ring true.
At the same time, it’s a sure-fire recipe for a brain drain, as undoubtedly some very smart people will emigrate for 2x-3x higher wages (based on your numbers), and just as importantly very few people will want to immigrate and accept lower wages. On the time scale of decades this definitely creates a big issue.
But otherwise I love Montreal. My salary today is definitely peanuts compared to SV but I live comfortably here and I saved way more than 12k during school thanks to internships and the low tuition costs you mentioned. The city is very culturally rich and I just really enjoy it here.
Let's face it, today we are hard pressed to find almost any organization where IT/IS is not a critical part of the organization.
I think as organizations change to more modern, organic, less hierarchical structures, the importance of IT is changing. It is going from being a "separate concern" to an "integrated concern". New students are being taught technology at younger and younger ages, which means they can combine it with other fields of study, and thus "business" and "IT" are finally closer to being the same exact thing.
Right now, people are flocking to Silicon Valley with the currently somewhat true but somewhat misguided belief (IMHO) that "that is where all the smart people and opportunities are". It is not the ONLY place the smart people and opportunities are.
There are smart people and opportunities everywhere. Sure, if they cluster in one place, that's entirely possible and makes that place valuable. However, when the cost of living exceeds some natural limit, I suspect that it will be infeasible to continue to grow Silicon Valley further - and when that happens, the desire to save money and shave off expenses will naturally drive businesses, organizations and people to other areas.
I can confirm this trend for several reasons:
1) The pay gap is real. Many get about a 40% pay increase by moving 3 hours down south. It's significant.
2) Taxes are aprox 10% lower in Seattle. Makes a difference too.
3) Rent-net-pay-ratio is about the same for Vancouver/Seattle
4) For a tech worker the health care is both places privately insured and the same.
Personally, I miss Vancouver. The city is awesome, and life quality is better, but financially it's simply not attractive enough.
Doesn't that mean that Seattle is the same as Vancouver financially? If so, why not stay in Vancouver?
This math mistake is the key to the fallacy that a cost-of-living increase zeroes out an increase in salary.
If you are finding your experience in the bay area is a monoculture, then it's only your own fault.
That's what's competitive in the Bay Area or Seattle for senior talent. While there are benefits to Canada as you mentioned, for a lot of people they don't make up a 50% pay cut.
How many jobs are actually paying that? The salaries posted on the "Who Is Hiring?" threads don't corroborate that, nor does my experience in NYC (which is supposed to be on par with those areas).
With that said, 200k wouldn't be that unreasonable as an expectaction at a senior level or above at a household name tech company.
The brain drain has been going on for decades now... But lately, the general Canadian media has claimed there is a reversal. One case in point is Montreal being proclaimed an "AI Hub". It's considered an "AI hub" mainly because of one of the fathers of AI is from there (and one his students coming up with the concept of Adversial networks) and a few companies opening satellite AI branches such as Google and Microsoft. Nonetheless, that likely amounts to a few hundred jobs at best, involved in cutting-hedge AI/ML/DL. Toronto also has a few well-known AI research centers. And these centers haven't seemed to have produced noticeable concrete results. But only time will tell if these pan out, and more importantly produce enough jobs to keep local talent, which in my mind is still very doubtful.
When you view this ostensible sense of fairness as entitlement to rewards for having merely complied with social norms, in addition to a general suspicion of deal making, it becomes clear why they will work for less.
There is also a structural problem in Canadian tech where much of the real money is made by "consulting," companies who exist as the result of it being difficult to fire and lay off employees, and the delta of high marginal income vs. corporate tax rates. These companies take a %50 or more cut of a contractor's pay to insulate employers from the regulatory and tax risks of keeping and firing real employees. That is, to maintain public entitlements instead of private ones. Companies still pay top dollar for talent, just not to the talent.
So long as you aren't a busybody about what the Jones's are up to, Canada has a great quality of life. Unfortunately for Globe writers, that temptation appears to be too great.
Salary for an experienced engineer (employed) is $80k.
Salary for a consultant (employed) is $80k. This consultant is hired out to a company that wants his services for $230k usd per year, but the company can now terminate this contract at will.
The consulting company has to pay the employee's salary regardless of whether they have a contract or not. The consulting company sets aside a portion of the $150k/year/employee profit to pay their employees if it's hard to get a new contract, but of course they will lay off their surplus workforce if there is ever an economic crisis. It' a super profitable business when talent is in demand. If demand is unusually high, the consulting companies compete to provide slightly higher salaries, so they do push the median wages up. So at least that's good.
The consulting companies love hiring new grads, because then they get away with paying a $50k salary, but earn the same profit. The clients can't tell the difference!
If you're smart, senior and well-connected, you'll get your own consulting contracts without the middleman, and make $230k/year directly. You do take some more risk; if the market tanks, you'll be laid off immediately instead of with 3-12 months notice. You'll also be the first to go.
As a freelancer, it can be hard to get contracts with the best clients, because they don't want to spend effort hiring recruiters that recognize talent, and hence pick exclusively from the top 10 consulting companies.
So to answer your question: If this setup looks suspiciously like a shady wage fixing scheme, it's because countries with a predomimantly Protestant work ethic like Norway and Canada don't think that's such a big deal. People were born equal, they're supposed to make equal money. (Company owners notwithstanding, now as during the Industrial Revolution). Market efficiencies don't factor into it at all, and you're a right-wing conservative if you suggest otherwise.
I am not joking.
Above else, thought, in SV I just feel like I belong. On the train here, an old man snapped at me for reading a maths text with some anti-intellectual line.
I worked in MTV for 4 months, 4 months in Seattle, and I'm leaving on Monday to SV again for the summer.
I know Canadians like to think of themselves as "different", but I could see more difference between the three cities I'd visited in the previous couple of weeks - NY, DC and LA than I could between Toronto and anywhere else in the US
Perhaps I didn't stay long enough, but if I compare with other cities, like Berlin, Rome, Lisbon, London, Singapore, Nairobi, Sydney, Delhi, Tokyo, etc, Toronto just felt like a typical North American city.
Costs across Canada are getting pretty absurd. Air travel, mobile data, wages, shipping, consumer goods, housing, insurance https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/8gui6r/are_canadian...
But I have spent a lot of time in silicon valley and it has recently felt a lot worse, dangerous and gross. I hope my next trip brightens my spirits but it's getting harder for me to love the bay area.
But SV will still pay almost double.
I had one guy pushing a cart trying to sell me drugs, a bunch of school kids leering at everyone and making a nuisance of themselves and just a general feeling that everyone with any sort of reasonable level of income was not using public transit.
I’m from London, where you’ll be on the tube train with everyone from cleaners to financiers. It’s pretty democratic. Not so in San Jose at all. Very depressing in fact.
There are two major train systems going through the area. There's Caltrain, which will be full of professionals if you ride it close to working hours.
Then there's VTA Light Rail, which is effectively "the bus on rails." Later in the evening it will be full of the type you describe.
The South Bay is just really suburban and car-friendly, and the VTA was a failure as a result because most people in the South Bay are happy travelling by car don't need to use the VTA. In contrast, Caltrain is used to travel to SF, which isn't car friendly, so a lot more professionals use it.
See, that's the difference with much of Europe, including London.
Those financiers probably don't use the bus that often, as they have a home just a couple of minutes walk from the station. But they won't have a prejudice against using the bus.
Problem with Vancouver is it's kind of dull entertainment-wise. Lacks vibrancy of some US cities. It's more or less as expensive to live as SF is, and obviously has less of a startup culture.
But overall I'd agree Canada is not all that appealing to people who have choices. Had I been able to choose when I was younger I'd have not ended up in Vancouver, but it sure beats out (IMO) London, UK which was my alternative.
I am effectively priced out of the local dev market at this point.
I was just in Montreal - the difference in prices with the US was staggering. You forget how wealthy we are, sometimes, even compared to the rest of the developed world. (Had an incredible French meal with 2 bottles of wine over 3 hours and it came out to ~$90 a head American)
Canada is more "courageous" in some senses, but very conservative in others. I'd describe its adoption curve as flat in the beginning and then bending upwards.
what? You'd expect a VC to be more knowledgeable.
( Hacker News discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16887739 )
Canadians (via NAFTA) are in a much different visa situation. Access to the same jobs, but the TN-1 status costs $50USD, is adjudicated at the border with no caps or quotas, and is valid for 3 years, indefinitely renewable (so long as you promise not to renew it indefinitely).
It makes sense to me that people tired of the total lack of security and reason in the H-1 line head to Canada after a few years job experience in the bay to make them extra desirable. And Express Entry [1] means they can have permanent residency in 6 months or less. Whereas Canadians in the NAFTA line go south for the 3X pay. I'm really curious how many of us (I'm in that boat) end up coming home after lining their pockets.
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
Smart computer scientists go to silicon valley unless they're tied down with commitments they can't move.
Doesn't bode well for the future of all other countries.
Is it really that easy though for the rest of the world? As an european developer AFIAK there a basically two visas
* H-1B: Hard to get the quota as some big companies abuse it for cheap work
* L-1: Requires 1 year of working at the european branch of the company
H-1B seems really difficult to get, is the L1 easier? At the end of my studies at the moment and considered Silicon Valley, but dismissed the idea due to visa issues and the high cost of living.
* Your spouse will not be able to work on your visa (TN / H1B)
* "Full insurance coverage" does not mean for your spouse. Be prepared to pay for a delivery if you want to have children
* Your child will have much higher post-secondary student loans
* Crime, Firearms et al.
IMO coming to SV is a young/single person's game (hence braindrain from grads). But a bad idea for established people or people who want a family / social safety.
Where does the year and a half come from? Green card processing delay? That can be 10+ years for approximately 50% of the world population (Indians + Chinese)
By far this not the case. Most will be around 1/3rd that (according to the salary reports i've read) .
The dollar numbers are almost on par with the top SV salaries, albeit not with the current exchange rate. That fluctuates though.
Amazon opening up a new HQ in Vancouver will just strengthen this. The downside is that right now it is just a half dozen or so companies paying in this top range.
there's a pretty simple fix for that: have the government bill/charge you the subsidy when you're in university. it's not a student loan, and it doesn't appear on your credit report. you pay it back when you start working (every dollar you pay in taxes pays back $x that debt. you don't get charged intrest or are obligated to pay it as long as you stay in canada, but if you move to the US (or any other country), you start accumulating intrest and have to work out a payment plan.
The new government has introduced a Canadian equivalent to SBIR, called Innovative Solutions Canada [1], which seems very promising. It's basically a carbon copy of the American SBIR program, which had had a remarkable impact in the US for bootstrapping small high tech firms that are too risky for VCs to the point where they can seek investment.
The other piece of the puzzle is the VC environment. Canada simply does not have a cadre of experienced venture capitalists with access to funds and willingness to take risks. Until that changes, Canadian tech companies will continue to hop the border after reaching a certain size, because it's in their best interest to leave for the US where funding is better.
Firstly, many Waterloo STEM students already do this based on the school's curriculum of interweaving work and study terms. Fortunately and unfortunately, these are exactly the students being lured away into the US.
Secondly the Ontario Government (i.e. Wynne Government and potentially NDPs), has lowered tuition costs for families making under 160k by 30% with the intention of further lowering the costs to (eventually) free in the future. In other words, they fully intend to increase government debt to fund tuition costs for all Ontario students (except if you're middle class and higher). But guess what? Will this really have an impact on Waterloo STEM grads? Unlikely. Increasing payback doesn't affect the students who CAN afford it.
https://www.glassdoor.ca/Salary/Amazon-Vancouver-Salaries-EI... https://www.glassdoor.ca/Salary/Amazon-Seattle-Salaries-EI_I...
Man, you are right, at home 1CAD buys 13% less than 1USD does at home, if I am reading that correctly.
I don't know how much fresh-grad got in the USA.
1. Low salary compared to US 2. High Tax 3. Cant afford a house in Toronto 4. TN Visa makes easy to get a job in US.
I've seen a lot of my friends and coworkers returning home to their respective countries in the last couple of years -- especially under the Trump administration. Repatriating the experience gained from working at some of the most successful businesses worldwide could be a huge benefit to Canada.
The question for me is, is it happening?
Average world-wide statutory corporate tax rate: ~22%
National statutory rates: Netherlands 25%; Italy 24%; Norway 23%; Sweden 22%; Portugal 21%; Russia 20%; Estonia 20%; Finland 20%; UK 19%; Czech 19%; Poland 19%; Belarus 18%; Lithuania 15%; Bulgaria 10%; Hungary 9%
Europe statutory average: ~19%
The effective rates are that much lower. I'll be sure to hold my breath until Russia's 20% statutory rate starts producing vast tech giants.
Effective tax rates for 2016 (pre-tax changes):
Amazon 36%; Intuit 33%; Netflix 28%; TI 27%; Apple 25%; Oracle 22%; Priceline 21%; Intel 20%; Google 19%; VMWare 19%; Adobe 18%; Facebook 18%; Cisco 17%; Qualcomm 16%; Microsoft 15%
So your premise is that the tech giants having effective rates comparable to Europe, is what produced their extraordinary successes. Be sure to let Europe in on the secret.
Does anyone know what factors (cultural, political or other) contribute to Canadian companies paying so much less than the American ones? You'd think competitive businesses would notice this affect and adjust?
Canada is a cold country. It must incentivize the best more than the states to move to here. Let's assume that's not a factor!
Canada admits anyone as an immigrant. It is not a merit-based system. It is a point-based system.
Lets consider ad-hoc tech jobs first: The Canadian companies have access to a large pool of people with 10 years of experience in SQL from a new immigrant, willing to accept low-pay because he is just starting out. So the entry level jobs don't exist for new grads. The brilliant new grads never make it up the ad hoc ladder. The move away at a young age.
High-tech jobs require a community willing to hold foot in Toronto geographically. The VC's appear to not be interested. Why do they think they can't compete with the States? Because the VC must trust the high-tech community first. Those in spotlight are not the types of people I trust. Not the UofT researchers, at least not all of them. But why would they lie? The universities in Ontario is a place of business first, then whatever research means, then science and facts. We researchers notice it. Those who are capable, and have clear conscious move. They never move up the spotlight ladder here.
Why is it a place of business? Let's assume all north american universities are. To the rest of the world, are led to believe that Canada is effectively United States. So a degree from a Canadian University is worth a lot in the far east, for example. They will also learn English. They pay less, and you know, Canada has successfully marketed itseld as the friendly country as opposed to United states. So they come here to study. For a master's degree from top ten American schools, you have to apply and get in. You can walk into a master's in Canadian school if paying out of pocket. Now their homeland psychology replaces Canada with America on their degree. The universities here are filled with incapable students, and professors who have to deal with them. Still, this doesn't explain why we can't trust the researchers.
The Universities need grad student TAs to be able to keep their international students. The university will not pay the TAs properly, because it is a business. The TAs went on strike three years ago. The university of Toronto blinks its public relation powers to make it look like TAs are being paid 50$/hour, because that's how they worded their contract. All gimmicks, facts are that it is common for international grad students to make the bare minimum. See if you can find the actual number of their website. I'm not willing go browse it. At some point it was less than 14000$/year, from all sources of income combined.
Now here's the stupidity? part. The question mark is not there by accident. The grad students are not allowed legally to work other jobs. If they do, they can be fired. This law is set by the ontario university presidents, sitting in a room deciding it together back in 80s or 90s, and it has been in effect since. Here's the next stupid part. No one can setup an part-time job/internship system that works for graduate students, because it is illegal. They actually allow grad students to work 10hours per week in other jobs. You'd say that's great, but TA counts as a part of it. So let's say the grads go to the media to create a public outcry. The university can respond with facts that they can work 10hours per week. The grads have to explain a whole complicated thing to the media. But why would the public really care? These are international grad students, from third world countries, making a lot of money, living in downtown Toronto. For all the public cares, they think the grad students have it good. The companies interested in these talent pools cannot hire them.
Onto why the researchers can not be trusted: Canadian grad students who have it much better and have access to better funding, view these international grad students as friends. These students didn't come here for money, they came to study, to do research, to hopefully meet other same-minded individuals. But they are being mistreated. What's the cultural problem here? Many major american companies grew out of universities. You need trust and a community to do that. I never saw that here, particularly among internationals. Another major factor is that networking requires money, very little money, exposable, maybe 10$? and of all the random networking incidents, 1 in 60 has a chance of great success? That's 600$. Why would they get on the subway and go to a meeting they don't know who is there, to just pay for a drink? Or worst! Dinner. Money is a major barrier between the poor and the affluent. Our society is designed to be that way. And when international grads have no money to network, they must amp up their work to be heard.
So the quality of their work falls. The student accidentally writes up what he's done, or maybe makes up data because he isn't paying attention, or because he is mistreated and doesn't care, etc etc etc. He just wants to finish the degree requirements. The professor has no way to know. Specially where theory falls short, or even worse, where the professor gradually gets more misled about what is going on in their lab. So now the professor fails to get new funding, because nothing really works in their lab. But they need funding, and the new child is on the way. One last paper for tenure.
So the VC's learn via their own ways to be much more skeptic of what the researchers say. The Ontario system makes its education money. The grad students never get together to create the next Apple, they never remain here and never truely feel at home. They will move somewhere else if they intend to start a company. Those who remain and build a tech company, can identify other good tech people, it is mt expectation that they keep their companies out of spotlight. That is why there is no high-tech well paying jobs in Canada. If there is, it is rare, or it is not advertised. If if is advertised, it is even more rare, imagine how many apply. There is no system that allows for a tech career here. Either you are a bright person who can make your own flow, or you are an outsider. There is zero shortage of talent here, despite the poor pay. The problem is stupidity?.
The point-based immigration, the fact that Canadians are portrayed as friendly Americans, is the problem. I sometimes have this possibly wrong impression that Canadians remained conservative because of the immigration laws. Some immigrants learn that people in toronto are nice, but it is only the surface, even with each other. Perhaps it's just me? I have not experience this level of distance with any other culture I've come in contact with.
I don't think Germany has higher tech salaries.
I make half that, live in Vancouver, own a car, and still invest $1,000 a month. I already have more money saved than 99% of Canadians and I'm only 27.
I imagine you Americans with six figure salaries are saving 3-5K per month? Crazy.
I was offered three jobs at the same time. One, local, paid half of my current job. Another, remote for a company in Vancouver, paid 71.5% of my current job.
It's a good thing to attempt!
And what about startups like Shopify. Do they pay competitive wages? If not, how do they prevent their whole workforce leaving?
I don't think that's accurate. I was just in Vancouver last week and took a peek at the real estate listings. I could sell my 1734 sq ft house here in the Bay Area, get one twice as big in Vancouver, and still have quite a lot left over.
Anywhere else in Canada (Alberta, Ontario), detached houses tend to be smaller.
In Burnaby (not Vancouver proper)
For CAD$1.7m, you'll get a new-ish duplex (4BR, 3BA).
For CAD $1m, you'll get a townhouse (3BR, 2.5BA).
Vancouver prices tend to hover around 10-30% more than the numbers I listed above.
1BR Apartment in Vancouver probably cost $650-700k.
I think it's tricky to compare Apple to Apple (house X sqft vs same house Y sqft) because it won't be. The comparison has to be generalized a little bit with "Detached House vs Detached House in Desirable Location 'Y' ".
I think most Canadians (mostly Toronto and Vancouver) that are having hard times when it comes to housing price are the ones who didn't jump to the market before 2009, which is hard to do even back then because there aren't many hi-tech companies paying high salary.
Salesforce hadn't opened an office until 2010. Amazon didn't explode the compensation scene until 2016.
Making mid 80s (CAN) not in a big city.
Where I live, this is a great salary and quality of life is very high. Life is great for the family too. Hard to complain about any of that.
The tech scene, however is lacking. Opportunities lack. I wonder if I am doing my career a disservice at times.
I'm considering looking for remote work with a U.S. company expand options, but remote work is harder to come by for sure and that also limits options.
Not sure what they can do to change that, I'm seeing a lot of interesting ideas in these comments. But, harsh truth, if you're paying that far below market rates in the states, I would expect almost all of Canada's talented software devs to look abroad, it's just not nearly enough money.
I really wish canadian companies would pay more, but its like game theory. Why pay more when you dont “have to”?
And anytime I see news about Canada it seems Waterloo is mentioned making amazing things, quantum radar was the last story I read about.
Twenty years ago jobs here would have been food service or blue collar jobs like farming, fishing, welding. Now there are people coming here to work many are not locals which is also great they bring a new perspective on the world.
There wasn't even an official computer science program at the local University until roughly the mid 90s. I made an attempt at a CS degree in the early 2000s and the assistant prof (my age!) said he had to leave to get his CS degree at another Uni.
American investors and founders are always stunned to learn that a Canadian small business can get about 60% of each engineer’s salary back in the form of a refundable tax credit. This amounts to a silent partner in every Canadian tech startup - a partner who is non dilutive and (crucially) who doesn’t care at all whether the venture makes money.
Sounds great, but here's the catch: SRED allows companies that should have died long ago to keep on living, draining the talent pool for projects that are commercially “meh” at best.
And it doesn’t take an economist to figure out that if a country rewards non performing companies through government incentives, investment will be crowded out. And that’s exactly what we see in Canada. In essence, we don’t have great venture capital because we “don’t need it”. SRED is the big game in town, and it doesn’t reward companies that succeed commercially. It rewards far too many losers.
We should get rid of SRED, let the bad companies perish, and then allow private investment to fund risk.
In Canada it's closer to $50k.
To put that salary into perspective, the median Web developer salary in the US is nearly $70,000 according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can go live in a small'ish third tier US city in states like Iowa or Wisconsin and earn $75,000 per year as an ok Web developer, where houses cost $150-$200k. Or remote from those locations and do even better.
The top 10% of programmers in the US earn over $135k. The median is around $83-$85k. It's likely that the US median programmer pay is at least 2x that of Canada's median.
There are many other schools in Canada offering STEM programs.
Because of data protection laws?
How? Are you saying Canadian graduates that go south are more likely to have a LinkedIn profile?
Pessimism aside, there's not much education about the whole concept of being an entrepreneur. Most people wouldn't even know where to start. Everyone is being pushed to either college or a trade school right after high school. Not once in high school has anyone told us that it was even possible to start your own company or startup. I think the concept is simply out of everyone mind.
- "At-will" employment isn't a thing. Unless you get fired for gross negligence or criminal reasons, you're going to get severence pay, which will help bridge the gap while you look for a new job. Anecdotally, I've seen people get fired for going on swearing rants at the owner, and the Labour Board required the owner to pay severence.
- Continuing with that, employers also understand the labour board's interpretation of what it takes to let someone go for being bad at their job. If you're past your probation period (nominally 3 months), you're probably going to have a good idea that you're going to get fired. There's going to be written documentation, Performance Improvement Plans, etc. You get a hint that the writing's on the wall and you should start looking elsewhere.
- Maternity/Paternity leave is federally mandated, and for a long time (35 weeks? 50 weeks? I'm not entirely sure, haven't gone through it). Having a kid isn't going to result in you losing your job, unless your employer really likes to live dangerously. The pay while on leave comes from the gov't, not the employer.
- If you're legitimately laid off (e.g. didn't quit), Employment Insurance benefits are apparently reasonably straightforward to get (I've never used this myself). They're capped and probably won't cover extravagant housing, but you'll be able to get by, especially if you've saved a bit of money.
- No real concern about healthcare costs bankrupting you.
Going back to the parent comment and projecting my current city (Regina, SK) onto it... if you go ahead and get an IT/Software job in the provincial gov't or one of the large employers here, there's a pretty good chance that you could carry on there for 20-30 years. There's occasionally layoffs and things, but as a whole there's a decent amount of stable ok-paying employment around if you want it. Projecting my own take on it: it'll probably be uninspiring and mind-numbing, but if you're looking for a 9-5 salary that can pay the bills and contribute to an RRSP... go for it.
Canada has lots of entrepreneurs: 15% of the general population, 20% of immigrants. That's higher than almost anywhere else in the world.
http://canadianentrepreneurtraining.com/six-statistics-about...
Maybe the market is saturated, but there's something about them being oblivious to what happens outside of Canada (or even their city).
The job postings that indicate visa assistance are the exception, rather than the rule.
Right?
They pay 73k, who wouldn't want to earn 40% more?
If the startup failed I planned to go back to school elsewhere. The startup was a success though and 6 years later I found myself looking for a job. I searched in Canada but given a choice between moving 5400km and 2 timezones to Ottawa where I knew no-one to work for Corel and moving 2200km and 1 timezone to the bay area where I knew a couple of other expats and colleagues. I chose silicon valley and the bay area.
I haven't regretted this choice though I have looked casually every couple of years for opportunities in my then current field. It has never been fruitful; the opportunities just aren't there. Before I left Canada I interviewed a guy who had been on the software verification team at Intel for the 486. He was desperate to move back and was willing to take almost anything to do so. I assumed that one day I would be in the same position. I am now probably less than a decade away from retirement so my main focus now is getting over the finish line in the most efficient way possible. That probably means staying put in the bay area.
I do know that sure as fuck that I won't be retiring in the bay area though; I'd have to work 5-7 additional years to afford it. This place isn't worth that. At all. I have considered Vancouver but honestly the expense of moving to the most expensive market in Canada from one of the most expensive places in the US just to try it out is also not worth it to me. I don't know where I will end up living. Maybe Hawaii.
I do think it is essential that Canada do more to develop the domestic technology and software industry and more than just international offices for Google, Amazon, etc. Canadian universities are offering much better programs (which is part of the problem!) Entrepreneurship and access to capital has come a long way in Canada in the last 30 years and it is a lot easier to attract international talent to Canada than it was. Provincial government incentives for hiring and market development would help a lot. The federal science and technology R&D tax credits helped our startup significantly. The tax credits for export market development were inaccessible to startups and/or companies which sold intellectual property which hurt.
I follow with interest the C100 and other efforts to advance Canadian technology though I wish there was more focus on funding these efforts domestically rather than coming hat-in-hand to SV for venture capital.
Which means, not only does Canada lose out to USA - so do other IT giants such as UK, China, India, etc.
I have visited San Francisco a number of times, I have good friends who live there and my job is connected to the San Francisco tech scene. San Francisco is a very attractive place for young ambitious folks who want to dive head first into the tech world and work with very talented people, get compensated well, and further their career. It makes perfect sense to me that so many young folks with software engineering backgrounds would flock to Northern California to be a part of this. Frankly, my own decision to switch from marketing into software development was motivated by a vacation to San Francisco seven years ago (I'm now 34). At that time, if I had the means to move to San Francisco and work for a tech startup I would have done it in a heartbeat. San Francisco is the best place in the world to start a tech company with global ambitions. Getting to be a part of something like that is a wonderful experience.
All of that being said, I do not think that the ethos of completely immersing yourself in your work and being singularly driven towards professional success that is prominent in Silicon Valley is necessarily for everyone, or satisfying throughout all phases of an individual's life. I think in Canada (specifically in Toronto), in the tech industry people tend to work less hours than in San Francisco, giving themselves more time for other things in their life: non-work friends, family, non-work activities etc. In addition to this, the tech community within Toronto (much like New York) is situated within a larger city with a diverse set of industries. Friends of mine work in film, media companies, not for profits, finance, etc. Amongst the people I know in the San Francisco tech world it seems to be quite common for people's social lives to revolve around their jobs and to have a significant portion of their friends be either from their work or work at venture backed tech companies like they do. I personally think there is a lot of value to be gained from social connection with people who are different from you or who at least work on very different types of challenges to the ones you work on.
All of this to say, I think Toronto can learn a ton from the SF tech community, but places like Toronto have some things going for it that SF doesn't necessarily excel at.
Why not move to Canada for a few years, get citizenship and go back to the USA?
Foreigners in the US (H1B applicants) are heading up to Canada because the immigration policies are more lax.
Canadian citizens from Canada are heading down to the US because the salaries are higher, and under NAFTA Canadian engineers qualify for an easy-to-get instant visa (TN status).
We backfill with people from elsewhere who can't get US visas.
and another study that demonstrates the silliness of lumping all of STEM together. overall, 1 in 4. In CS, 6 in 10.
Roughly doubling pay would help. Even then if I really want to work on cool stuff I'm probably heading south.
http://www.jfgagne.ai/canadian-ai-ecosystem-2018-en
I'm a sucker for California weather but other than that I'd much rather work in a lower-cost country with universal healthcare and without the stigma associated with the United States when traveling abroad.
I came to Canada as software professional from the middle east. At one point, Canada had a glimmer of hope in attracting tech talent. However, on the ground, tech professionals are 'forced' to start up their consulting companies, get hunted down by taxes, threatened daily with outsourcing initiatives (extremely low caliber), and have no prospect of career advancement. Either this or accept a meager pay.
Why wouldn't they look elsewhere?
In 2001, Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested. When I was choosing where to immigrate in 2006, this arrest was a factor in ruling out the USA (I was in a position I could choose).
In 2017, Marcus Hutchins was arrested. Since then I have not even entered the USA and will not unless badly pressed for business. This costs me hundreds of dollars when travelling to Europe but the risk is unacceptably high now.
I do not want to second guess everything I do. I do not want a simtel like misunderstanding to become a federal felony and possibly jail time.
I live in Vancouver BC, in safety and freedom. And I can't imagine how a freeminded tinkerer of software (deliberately not using "hacker" here to avoid a misunderstanding) could possibly choose to leave this for the danger the US is because of the DMCA and CFAA.