It's funny how people insist that companies should offer a gazillion dollars to persuade developers to relocate to their shitty town, when it makes much more sense for companies to avoid hiring people who think it's a shitty town in the first place. There's no point in importing people who hate living in Austin and will jump at the first opportunity to go back "home" to the Bay Area. If you think you're owed a premium for living anywhere but San Francisco, then economically speaking, that's where you ought to be.
Not to mention nobody in Austin wants to work with you if you're just going to badmouth the town and brag about how much you're paid to put up with it. Sorry to break it to you, darling, but getting stuck somewhere you hate because you're underwater on your house and have "wedding debt" is no reason for anybody to pay you more. If you're miserable here, that's your business. Austin companies are, quite sensibly, looking for people who will enjoy living and working in Austin.
> when it makes much more sense for companies to avoid hiring people who think it's a shitty town in the first place
So your advice to tech businesses in Austin is to further reduce the pool of people they can hire from? Interesting, considering this wasn't an "I Hate Austin" post but rather a reply to a story about the fact that Austin businesses currently can't find talent.
Also, just because you don't want to up and move to Austin for half as much money doesn't mean you think it's a shit town. You can want to live here and want to be paid well. For the time being the only way I've found to do both is to work remotely for bay area companies. That sucks for Austin.
Money isn't necessarily the reason why Austin businesses can't find talent, and if there is a reason, money won't necessarily fix it. If someone really dislikes a place, it's a bad idea to hire them at any salary. They'll just leave at their first opportunity. The argument that developers are highly mobile is actually an argument against luring them to a place where they'll be unhappy, because they can and will leave.
The fundamental mistake behind the idea that Austin should pay a premium to attract talent is the assumption that money and happiness are fungible. The author lists a bunch of things she doesn't like about Austin and suggests that the solution is to pay developers more, that people who dislike Austin will come here for the right price. Some will, sure, but will they do good work for you when they're unhappy? Can you expect them to still be around in five years as a guru and leader if they dislike where they live? People don't work that way. They don't want to put down roots in a place they don't like. It's no fun to make friends and fall in love while in the back of your mind you're thinking, "Three more years of paying off my debt and I'm outta here." Not liking a place creates a sense of detachment about everyone and everything that you can't take with you, which is very chic, but not very healthy, and in a good job market, there's no reason for anyone to live that way.
Developers are motivated by a lot of things that aren't interchangeable, and employers should be very, very wary of trying to substitute one kind of satisfaction for another even when they have the upper hand. There's a limit to how much people can trade off respect for money, interesting work for status, or lifestyle for job security. That's why it makes sense for salaries to vary by cost of living. Money is 100% fungible with money, but not with much else. Austin companies have to hire employees who want to live in Austin, and paying them more won't make them like Austin more.
That isn't the end of the world. It's true that developers have more of a taste for ramen and public transit than the population as a whole, and it's true that a lot of developers prefer more urban places such as San Francisco and New York, but some people prefer Denver or Austin. When someone who loves San Francisco compares your city to "the damned Yukon" and "middle-of-nowhere fucking Montana all River Runs Through It," money is not going to make that better, and that's okay, because she's not the only person in the world who can do her job. When someone says, "If I’d been single, more confident in my skills, and sans wedding debt I would have moved to San Francisco or New York," well, personal regrets are not fungible with money and anyone would be crazy to suggest otherwise.
As for her complaints, here are some comments for anyone considering a move to Austin:
commuting to some isolated office park that was cheaper to rent than something on a goddamned bus route
There are actually a lot of tech companies located downtown, and they're hiring. When the folks on the Austin big data mailing list organized a new meetup a few weeks ago, it was felt that a downtown meeting location would be best since that's where most of the potential attendees work. Since developers have such the upper hand these days, there's no reason to work anywhere else, unless you prefer the suburbs. (And if you do, Austin is apparently pretty nice. All of my insanely smart coworkers who have kids also have yards and houses. Most of them believe in religions that terrify me. Austin is the kind of place where nobody is surprised that the creator of Linux and git wears polo shirts and blogs about his kids, because what does the one thing have to do with the other? Squares and non-squares have a pretty relaxed relationship around here, to the point that nobody bothers keeping track of the difference.)
don’t believe that spending two hours on the freeway every day is a healthy lifestyle
Again, there are tech companies downtown, right next to our hike and bike trail around Lady Bird Lake, on which you can run, walk, or bike less than a mile to a spring-fed three-acre swimming pool where you'll often see triathletes practicing in their wet suits.
Austin’s lovely, but I like being able to get a decent bowl of ramen. And take public transit.
I can't help you with the ramen (and I'm very sad about that) but who needs to take public transit when you can live, work, shop, run, kayak, swim, and drink, all within a couple of miles? I won't lie: you'll need a car a few times a week, if only because everybody expects you to have one, and if you ride a bike, you'll need more courage (and have more white hairs) than you would in Portland. Plenty of people get around on bikes, though. Also, there's a Car2Go car-sharing service, even here in the middle of Texas, and some people rely on it quite happily.
tacos tacos tacos!
The Mexican food here really is much better than in California ;-)
> The fundamental mistake behind the idea that Austin should pay a premium to attract talent is the assumption that money and happiness are fungible. The author lists a bunch of things she doesn't like about Austin and suggests that the solution is to pay developers more, that people who dislike Austin will come here for the right price.
THIS. Spot on. The title of the blog post itself tells you the error: paying people more money will get them to do stuff, but they won't be happy about it.
And regarding ramen, Komé on Airport Blvd makes a passable bowl (although it's not as good as what you'll find in NYC, and it's only available at lunch).
It's all well and good if you can find good candidates who already live where you are located, but the article that Garann is responding to here is about how there are no such candidates in Austin without a job. The only choices left to companies there are now (1) relocate candidates who most likely don't want to live in Austin, or (2) relocate the entire company, likely losing the employees that you already have because they are the ones who do want to live in Austin.
It seems to me that, unless you're a two-man startup, relocating the entire company is clearly going to be more expensive.
Although, that really just pushes the same decision down to the talent's former employers. After enough poaching, I'd expect that the price of local talent would increase until it became more cost-effective to relocate candidates.
After proclaiming that she deserves extra money to compensate her for the displeasure of working in Austin, she shouldn't expect to feel welcome here. She made her bed, and she can lie in it. The hostility and disrespect I communicated were intentional, not motivated by her sex, and, in my opinion, a modest and proportional response to what she wrote.
@a3camero, I admit that as someone from the south, I should know better than to say "darling." I reached for a patronizing term and used it without ism-checking it. Serves me right for being nasty. It's hard to be offensive to one person without inflicting unintentional and regrettable collateral damage. I apologize.
I meant the "darling" thing, but I'm from Ontario where that would be an unusual thing to say and probably sexist.
Maybe it isn't in Texas, in which case, my apologies. Texas is on my list of places to visit and if darling is actually used in a way that isn't sexist, well you just bumped it up a bit more on my travel list!
well don't set the only non sucky town in a shitty red neck state then - I have no problem with working in the less salubrious areas of the world but I would expect an decent increment and for the company to sort out security and a PPW and an allowance for ammo got to practice at least once a week.
Btw when I worked for a big civil engineer the bonus was up to 200%
Comments
It's funny how people insist that companies should offer a gazillion dollars to persuade developers to relocate to their shitty town, when it makes much more sense for companies to avoid hiring people who think it's a shitty town in the first place. There's no point in importing people who hate living in Austin and will jump at the first opportunity to go back "home" to the Bay Area. If you think you're owed a premium for living anywhere but San Francisco, then economically speaking, that's where you ought to be.
Not to mention nobody in Austin wants to work with you if you're just going to badmouth the town and brag about how much you're paid to put up with it. Sorry to break it to you, darling, but getting stuck somewhere you hate because you're underwater on your house and have "wedding debt" is no reason for anybody to pay you more. If you're miserable here, that's your business. Austin companies are, quite sensibly, looking for people who will enjoy living and working in Austin.
> when it makes much more sense for companies to avoid hiring people who think it's a shitty town in the first place
So your advice to tech businesses in Austin is to further reduce the pool of people they can hire from? Interesting, considering this wasn't an "I Hate Austin" post but rather a reply to a story about the fact that Austin businesses currently can't find talent.
Also, just because you don't want to up and move to Austin for half as much money doesn't mean you think it's a shit town. You can want to live here and want to be paid well. For the time being the only way I've found to do both is to work remotely for bay area companies. That sucks for Austin.
Money isn't necessarily the reason why Austin businesses can't find talent, and if there is a reason, money won't necessarily fix it. If someone really dislikes a place, it's a bad idea to hire them at any salary. They'll just leave at their first opportunity. The argument that developers are highly mobile is actually an argument against luring them to a place where they'll be unhappy, because they can and will leave.
The fundamental mistake behind the idea that Austin should pay a premium to attract talent is the assumption that money and happiness are fungible. The author lists a bunch of things she doesn't like about Austin and suggests that the solution is to pay developers more, that people who dislike Austin will come here for the right price. Some will, sure, but will they do good work for you when they're unhappy? Can you expect them to still be around in five years as a guru and leader if they dislike where they live? People don't work that way. They don't want to put down roots in a place they don't like. It's no fun to make friends and fall in love while in the back of your mind you're thinking, "Three more years of paying off my debt and I'm outta here." Not liking a place creates a sense of detachment about everyone and everything that you can't take with you, which is very chic, but not very healthy, and in a good job market, there's no reason for anyone to live that way.
Developers are motivated by a lot of things that aren't interchangeable, and employers should be very, very wary of trying to substitute one kind of satisfaction for another even when they have the upper hand. There's a limit to how much people can trade off respect for money, interesting work for status, or lifestyle for job security. That's why it makes sense for salaries to vary by cost of living. Money is 100% fungible with money, but not with much else. Austin companies have to hire employees who want to live in Austin, and paying them more won't make them like Austin more.
That isn't the end of the world. It's true that developers have more of a taste for ramen and public transit than the population as a whole, and it's true that a lot of developers prefer more urban places such as San Francisco and New York, but some people prefer Denver or Austin. When someone who loves San Francisco compares your city to "the damned Yukon" and "middle-of-nowhere fucking Montana all River Runs Through It," money is not going to make that better, and that's okay, because she's not the only person in the world who can do her job. When someone says, "If I’d been single, more confident in my skills, and sans wedding debt I would have moved to San Francisco or New York," well, personal regrets are not fungible with money and anyone would be crazy to suggest otherwise.
As for her complaints, here are some comments for anyone considering a move to Austin:
commuting to some isolated office park that was cheaper to rent than something on a goddamned bus route
There are actually a lot of tech companies located downtown, and they're hiring. When the folks on the Austin big data mailing list organized a new meetup a few weeks ago, it was felt that a downtown meeting location would be best since that's where most of the potential attendees work. Since developers have such the upper hand these days, there's no reason to work anywhere else, unless you prefer the suburbs. (And if you do, Austin is apparently pretty nice. All of my insanely smart coworkers who have kids also have yards and houses. Most of them believe in religions that terrify me. Austin is the kind of place where nobody is surprised that the creator of Linux and git wears polo shirts and blogs about his kids, because what does the one thing have to do with the other? Squares and non-squares have a pretty relaxed relationship around here, to the point that nobody bothers keeping track of the difference.)
don’t believe that spending two hours on the freeway every day is a healthy lifestyle
Again, there are tech companies downtown, right next to our hike and bike trail around Lady Bird Lake, on which you can run, walk, or bike less than a mile to a spring-fed three-acre swimming pool where you'll often see triathletes practicing in their wet suits.
Austin’s lovely, but I like being able to get a decent bowl of ramen. And take public transit.
I can't help you with the ramen (and I'm very sad about that) but who needs to take public transit when you can live, work, shop, run, kayak, swim, and drink, all within a couple of miles? I won't lie: you'll need a car a few times a week, if only because everybody expects you to have one, and if you ride a bike, you'll need more courage (and have more white hairs) than you would in Portland. Plenty of people get around on bikes, though. Also, there's a Car2Go car-sharing service, even here in the middle of Texas, and some people rely on it quite happily.
tacos tacos tacos!
The Mexican food here really is much better than in California ;-)
> The fundamental mistake behind the idea that Austin should pay a premium to attract talent is the assumption that money and happiness are fungible. The author lists a bunch of things she doesn't like about Austin and suggests that the solution is to pay developers more, that people who dislike Austin will come here for the right price.
THIS. Spot on. The title of the blog post itself tells you the error: paying people more money will get them to do stuff, but they won't be happy about it.
Taco bell isn't Mexican food, it's Mexican food-product.
And regarding ramen, Komé on Airport Blvd makes a passable bowl (although it's not as good as what you'll find in NYC, and it's only available at lunch).
It's all well and good if you can find good candidates who already live where you are located, but the article that Garann is responding to here is about how there are no such candidates in Austin without a job. The only choices left to companies there are now (1) relocate candidates who most likely don't want to live in Austin, or (2) relocate the entire company, likely losing the employees that you already have because they are the ones who do want to live in Austin.
It seems to me that, unless you're a two-man startup, relocating the entire company is clearly going to be more expensive.
3) Pay that already-employed local talent more than their current gigs will.
'doh
Although, that really just pushes the same decision down to the talent's former employers. After enough poaching, I'd expect that the price of local talent would increase until it became more cost-effective to relocate candidates.
Do women prefer "darling" over "sugar tits" now?
I'm still trying to figure out why there aren't more women in tech.
Although you may have just figured out why there aren't more women in tech in Austin.
After proclaiming that she deserves extra money to compensate her for the displeasure of working in Austin, she shouldn't expect to feel welcome here. She made her bed, and she can lie in it. The hostility and disrespect I communicated were intentional, not motivated by her sex, and, in my opinion, a modest and proportional response to what she wrote.
@a3camero, I admit that as someone from the south, I should know better than to say "darling." I reached for a patronizing term and used it without ism-checking it. Serves me right for being nasty. It's hard to be offensive to one person without inflicting unintentional and regrettable collateral damage. I apologize.
Lolwat. No one proclaimed any such thing. Sorry to break it to you, darling, but your reading comprehension skills need work.
I meant the "darling" thing, but I'm from Ontario where that would be an unusual thing to say and probably sexist.
Maybe it isn't in Texas, in which case, my apologies. Texas is on my list of places to visit and if darling is actually used in a way that isn't sexist, well you just bumped it up a bit more on my travel list!
No, it's sexist in Austin too. For sure.
And in Texas it's "darl'n".
Communicating hostility and disrespect and patronizing your opponent is not the best way to participate in a rational discussion.
well don't set the only non sucky town in a shitty red neck state then - I have no problem with working in the less salubrious areas of the world but I would expect an decent increment and for the company to sort out security and a PPW and an allowance for ammo got to practice at least once a week.
Btw when I worked for a big civil engineer the bonus was up to 200%