Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tangurena2 | Hacker News Reader

There is a simple solution to this: cover relocation expenses for new hires. As wacky as this sounds, it was standard practice to pay for relocating engineers. That's how my family moved so much when I was growing up. During the 80s, companies started cutting back, so that by the 90s, only managers & executives were getting paid relocation.

I've been approached by recruiters trying to hire developers in smaller communities. I know it is hard for them when this is the only employer (outside of retail or fast food) in that "city" because if things don't turn out, you have to move. Moving is expensive. When you're in your early 20s, everything fits in the back of a pickup truck. If you have family, then things get complicated enough that relocation becomes a large project.

View on HN

Everyone I know that has relocated (~10 people, largely SWEs) has gotten a stipend to relocate, including myself.

To me, that's not the big barrier. The social/emotional cost of relocation, along with the risk of job loss, is the main driver.

As others have stated, that stipend would not cover doubling of mortgage (due to high interest rates). That stipend also gets clawed back if they pay you off within 1-2 years.

If I sold my house right now, I’d realize a $150k loss + have to pay double the mortgage rate. I’ve never had a relo package above $50k ($37k after tax)

Sure. Was responding to the claim that no one was getting a relocation stipend

Social connections being lost is not something easy to compensate for. Those often take a _long_ time to grow organically as well.

Or never come back.

If you can ever compensate for them at all. It’s basically impossible to make lifelong friends after 35-ish. Maybe that’s why all the seniors I know are inflexible about relocation, among the many other reasons. Too much damage for a job you might not even like (who knows, it can go either way despite best attempts).

During COVID, I made friends who are 10/25/40ish years older than me. I firmly believe we will be lifelong friends, i.e. til death do us apart.

Lasting friendships form in mysterious ways. You need only be open to the possibility.

This is not a solution in a system where your position can be cut after you've sold your house but before you start your first day. What you describe is that a main way to get a promotion used to be to move. I doubt that is really the case for most people anymore. Additionally, if you move to the wrong place you will be moving again when the CEO runs the company into the ground doing buybacks instead of growing the company.

I think this is just part of the equation.

Begin crazy tinfoil hat rant...

Companies have been driven by short term returns for so long that they've completely eroded the trust of everyone.

For the last 40 years companies have been renaming compensation as "benefits" and then reducing those "benefits" under the guise of tightening the belt so they can survive the endless wave of recessions. They have gradually whittled down and eliminated almost all forms of compensation at all levels. Pensions became matching retirement plans, then matching up to 10%, 8%, 6%, and 4%. Healthcare use to be free to employees, now it's paid and the cost goes up significantly every year. Companies sold their offices and moved into leased properties where employees pay for parking but got a stipend until a subsequent recession eliminated that stipend.

These cuts have all been gradual over the decades and new people entering the work force are unaware and assume this is how it's always been and don't question it. At the same time older employees are forced to accept the concessions because they're minor and it's easier to take a minor cut in compensation than find a new job.

We have reached the point where most employees are no longer fairly compensated for their work and have no sense of job security or loyalty. The pandemic amplified this because it forced businesses to enact policies they claimed would be damaging AND then miraculously reported record productivity and profits. Now they're trying to roll back those policies. Employees see long commutes and increased expenses for not real benefit and are rejecting it.

So why the rollback? Most of this rollback is being driven by Private Equity firms who are heavily invested in commercial rel-estate and without staff in offices that rel-estate is tanking. These firms have been purchasing private companies and then steering them to lease properties they own for decades. This is also why Private Equity started investing in residential rel-estate, they're double dipping. If employees have to go into the office then they need to live near that office.

Post pandemic, these companies reported record profits but those gains are dwindling. To maintain these gains they've driven inflation to the breaking point. But inflation isn't sustainable so it's back to cutting costs. What's the biggest cost? Employees and with record low unemployment you have high wages. So now we have layoffs as a way to sabotage the labor market and drive down costs.

This is just part of the cycle the rich use to extract wealth from us.

>So why the rollback? Most of this rollback is being driven by Private Equity firms who are heavily invested in commercial rel-estate and without staff in offices that rel-estate is tanking.

I agree that a lot of the pressure for the return to office is coming from investment firms that risk losing their shirt in commercial real estate if it doesn't happen. These firms have a lot of influence at the top of major companies. There seems to be a battle underway between the working class and the investment/management class over remote work long term. It is interesting to watch.

It's gotten to the point where they're making up stories about day drinking and drug use.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-13/remote-wo...

If that's the case, drug tests and breathalyzers are cheaper than office space.

>Begin crazy tinfoil hat rant...

And then you proceed to describe the exact situation that has been unfolding. Capital always seeks to achieve the highest returns possible by any means necessary. All of these things are just the logical steps a party interested in profit above everything else would take. No conspiracies needed, just cold brutal profit seeking behavior.

> So why the rollback? Most of this rollback is being driven by Private Equity firms who are heavily invested in commercial rel-estate and without staff in offices that rel-estate is tanking. These firms have been purchasing private companies and then steering them to lease properties they own for decades. This is also why Private Equity started investing in residential rel-estate, they're double dipping. If employees have to go into the office then they need to live near that office.

Not only that, but also to maximise control over employees. Companies want powerless employees, even if that means a bit (not a lot) less profits now.

But relocation expenses are covered in a lot of jobs, yet people don’t relocate. Beyond the early career moves, it is extremely hard for people to move. It goes beyond just financial hurdles. It’s not easy for example to move your kids to a new city and new schools.

But relocation expenses are covered in a lot of jobs

Citation? Maybe for lots of jobs that require unique skills, but the average office drone isn't getting relocation expenses.

IME sometimes you have to ask for it. Last time I moved I was working for a big soulless F500 type company.

When I applied to the job there was a note saying that they would not offer relocation expenses. I was one of two people hired into the team at the time for similar roles, and the other guy told me he managed to get relocation money just by asking

More families have two incomes and relocating requires finding two jobs.

If I sold my house right now, I’d have to realize $150k loss.

If I were to buy a new comparable house, I would pay double the mortgage rate.

The highest relo package post tax I’ve received is $32k ($50k pretax, but in California)

Or just make a law that says "if you fire a recently relocated employee, you owe him 2 years salary".

That way firms that aren't sure about relocating someone will not do it. Firms with some confidence in their business will not have a problem.

The unintended consequences of this are pretty large. I just wouldn’t hire anyone who fit that law because of how onerous it is.

A possible solution might be a remote probation period, then if you still need relocation, you will be subject to the law.

You get to hire and fire if the relationship doesn’t work, but if you’re still adamant on forcing a relocation then the risk is shared.

It costs nothing amortized over the hundred hires you wouldn't fire in the first month. If you fire often, this law is good to stop you from doing that.

And that's fine. You'd hire locally, you'd move the company, or you'd allow remote work. But you definitely wouldn't fire someone you just hired and forced to move.

This kind of thing is why we have such long interview cycles and strong bias against false positives

...because a false negative is so much worse than a false positive.

I'll take less opportunities for more stability. Many people would. That's what this article is all about. Better for most to have less that you can rely on than more one year and less the other and no sense of calm.

You may be willing to make the tradeoff, but you should acknowledge the downsides.

The most extreme example is in academia where they get a lot of stability in exchange for an excruciating job hunt and interview process. And if they don't like the job, they are stuck.

I would rather have a world where we can take a chance on someone, then not. If you have all your ducks in a polished row, and look and act the right way, maybe you prefer protection against that.

The consequence is firms won’t hire relocated employees. Which is strictly worse

Good. They will hire remote or go the way of the dinosaurs they are.

Or instead of this law, we make stock buybacks illegal again. Then, companies flush with profit, have to take better care of the employees they bring on.

I don't support that. Stock buybacks are a great thing; they allow companies to return excess cash to investors, helping ensure that capital is allocated efficiency across the whole economy.

Otherwise companies are pressured to spend money just because they happen to have money, even if they don't have anything productive to spend it on. That's not a good thing.

> ... nothing productive to spend it on.

Employees. Spend it on them. Fully pay benefits (actually no, we need to decouple HC from employment, but that's another rant), pensions, raises. etc.

If the new hire has a spouse that can't work remote, the moving costs are nothing compared to the spouse's loss of income.

Plenty of companies do cover relocation expenses. In fact defense contractors who spent decades dodging taxes by moving facilities to bumfuck nowhere rural areas are so desperate they've been ponying up large signing bonuses on top. The problem is many of the companies complaining nobody wants to relocate is because they are located somewhere that's a career deadend. They may be the only employer in the area or there's barely more. The cost of living may also be lower but the quality of life may not be so great too.

Boomers put up with this shit. Every other generation is actually prioritizing quality of life long term.

Constantly relocating generally isn't fun, even if it's paid for.

> defense contractors who spent decades dodging taxes by moving facilities to bumfuck nowhere rural areas

This isn’t why they do it. Getting the vote of that bumfuck district’s Congressperson, who is safely gerrymandered and thus tenured and on powerful committees, is.

Sort of. Most common relocation packages vest over two years and cover some costs. Only the very best packages compensate you for the loss of money on your house in the market and I’ve yet to see any packages that compensate for inflation-adjusted loss. Most of the time if you get fired 6 months after relocating you owe the company 75-100% of your relocation package depending on the vesting terms.

Or more simply, hire remotely.

I have laughed off more than few recruiters, all who have tried and failed to hire for a somewhat niche IT job an hour north of Grand Rapids, MI over the last year

Grand Rapids, MI has a surprisingly strong tech startup scene

Reply on news.ycombinator.com