| ▲ | sugarpimpdorsey 4 days ago |
| > I care about wasting time commuting, paying insane rents for tiny small apartments in the city Easily solvable by not locating your company HQ in overpriced trendy coastal cities. This is usually met with "but people WANT to live there!" If this was true, walking to work wouldn't be an issue. |
|
| ▲ | const_cast 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Easily solvable by not locating your company HQ in overpriced trendy coastal cities. The trouble is that if you require in-person work, you're already artificially limiting your talent pool by 1000x. You just can't risk adding on another 1000x limiter onto that. Ultimately yes, you could HQ in Ponder, Texas and pay people 100K and say that's the same as san fran. But then you're gathering talent in Ponder, Texas. Good luck! |
| |
| ▲ | UltraSane 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Epic the EMR company requires very nearly all employees to work in Verona, Wisconsin and they somehow get people to move there. | | |
| ▲ | Starman_Jones 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Madison has a well-earned reputation as a great city to live in. Epic is able leverage their location in the Madison metropolitan area to attract talent that they couldn't attract in a more rural or less well-known city. |
| |
| ▲ | fwip 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you reinvest the money you save on office buildings into employee salary, you might find that people are willing to move to Ponder for the combination of low-CoL and high salary. Probably not enough to entirely offset the fewer local workers, but it's not nothing. | | |
| ▲ | slyall 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem is that then you have to make sure workers feel secure about moving to work for you. So good pay, good local environment and most importantly a secure job because if they get laid off they'll have to move their whole family somewhere else. Some companies do it (Walmart I believe) but most tech companies tend to base themselves in relatively large cities with other tech firms. I remember a couple of years ago that people were saying Amazon had trouble hiring because even in tech-hubs they had run out of qualified people who would want to work for them. | |
| ▲ | AlotOfReading 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The problem is that the venn diagram of executives willing to cut office costs and executives willing to stomach paying "above market rate" is two completely distinct circles. There's many ways companies could make it work, but the number of ways they're willing to consider is dramatically smaller. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | brendoelfrendo 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Easily solvable for whom? It's not easily solvable for the worker. Perhaps it is easily solvable: imagine a distributed network of office locations, such that each employee is able to work a reasonable distance from where I want to live. We could even hyperscale this concept, to the point where every employee has an office within their own home. I call it "edge officing." |
| |
