If my company announces WFH for the rest of the year, I'll be moving out of San Francisco in a heart beat. The office has been the only thing keeping me here for a long time now.
I imagine SF natives might say, "Good riddance, don't let the door hit you on the way out," and I completely agree. I don't have issues with the city itself, but the value you get for your money here is completely abysmal if you're a renter or potential home buyer.
There are satellite offices for many of the major tech companies (some of them not so "satellite" at 200ish engineers).
The cost of living is cheap, it's not cold in the summer, and there's so much culture. Atlanta is in a forest, so if you like outdoors stuff, you'd be in the right place.
The reason why the cost of living is sane in Republican states is because they don't place undue restrictions on housing supply. You might acknowledge that each political party has significant trade-offs with the policies they support, and move to a red state with that in mind.
Factually inaccurate. The reason the cost of living is lower in red states is simply due to location. People desire to live in coastal cities like NY, SF, LA, Seattle, etc.
Supply and demand drive prices. Do you think real estate is expensive on the upper east side in Manhattan because of an undue restriction on housing supply? Or is it just because many people want to live and work in NYC?
I don't know much about Manhattan, but SF is not allowing supply to meet the demand being signaled by absurd prices. Density in the neighborhoods is very low and construction that would increase it is almost never approved.
The SF bay area is an outlier, and yes, I agree about the restriction of supply problems we face (I live here). But to simply paint all blue states as similar to SF is inaccurate.
The fastest growing region in the United States is the South. Of the top 10 fastest growing states in 2019...only 2 of them voted blue in 2016. California is growing at its slowest rate in history:
Yes, supply and demand drive prices, but if you artificially constrict supply like California does with absurdly restrictive zoning laws and inflexible housing policies that only act to protect inflationary ponzi scheme, then you get the present-day California real estate market bubble.
Careful, some of my teammates and I are trying to do that and we have to get it cleared by management first as it changes what state taxes they will have to pay.
Huh? People move states all the time. There are IRS rules about which state you should be deemed a resident, and you'll need to file state tax return in both states for the year in which you move. But there's no magic about needing a lease. I'm sure there are thousands of people living in their cars still paying taxes.
Unemployment insurance (and family/medical leave), workers compensation, and health insurance are the biggest issues. Adding a new state for one employee can be a lot of overhead.
This is common in places like New York City, so it's well understood for companies on how to make it work. It's not very common in San Francisco to have commuters from out of state.
I work for a remote company headquartered in California with employees all over the US. Every state, even states with no state income tax, have different codes and expectations when it comes to taxes. Adding a new state to our payroll system takes a significant amount of time and effort to get right.
I think the bigger worry isn't that they'll fuck up filing with the IRS, but that in order for them to be compliant you'll have to notify them you moved, at which point they'll be onto your clever scheme and demand you take a cost of living pay cut.
For the employer's taxes, are there incentives for hiring in-state? Or would it impact where they are considered to have a presence, for sales tax purposes?
>considered to have a presence, for sales tax purposes
Mostly irrelevant these days post-Wayfair.
>For the employer's taxes, are there incentives for hiring in-state?
I am not an accountant but there is some overhead with adding employees in different states and, especially, countries. And things like payments into unemployment pools may differ by state.
Imagine living in Manhattan right now. (1) All the culture and lifestyle you're paying a high premium for is unavailable, and (2) the apartment you're trapped in is tiny. (Compared to what you'd have elsewhere for that money.)
So I agree, relocation makes sense for some people.
A lot of companies in the Bay Area will cut your pay if you move to another state which has a lower cost of living. At some companies it is an official HR policy -- compensation is adjusted for cost of living.
Don't expect to continue making Bay Area money after moving to another state unless you get an official guarantee from HR that your compensation won't change. If you stay in California you will probably be fine but you should still make sure.
will you move to the outskirts or somewhere else entirely?
I am trying to decide where I want to be if I have a choice. Currently I am in Seattle, dont like the city much. No offense to the city, its just not for me as I like 75+ degree days. I thought about trying California, but I'd loose so much of my income to rent and taxes. Still trying to decide
Actually, in the high 90's for much of the year unfortunately with obnoxious humidity, and very chilly in the wintertime. It's a bit extreme sometimes, but it definitely is better than Seattle IMO.
Or, don’t get lured in by a company offering you huge compensation that you can’t actually touch (without realizing it’s a gamble).
To be fair, even the cash compensation at Airbnb was supposedly pretty high. But I’m not sure whether that’s much consolation now, after they’ve been dangling a golden carrot in front of employees for years.
IMO, this is a matter of public health and should be treated as such (as much as some politicians want to cast this as a partisan issue for political gain).
The feeling can feel similar which is probably why a lot of people think they are just lazy. But ADHD is more of a reduced / lack of self-drive combined with a self-regulation + internal prioritization problem. Maybe a bit like laziness but the feeling is multiplied.
I of course have moments when I feel lazy and just don't want to do anything, but then there are the other moments when I want to do something, work on a project, practice a hobby but just don't. There is this disconnect, it's hard to explain
Best to look at other key ADHD symptoms as well like emotional regulation, rejection sensitve dysphoria, focus, (mental) hyperactivity (= your brain can't just chill), the need to constantly do something, impulsiveness (like with money), etc etc etc.
It's of course a spectrum and some people are worse in x while other people suffer more on y.
Best to talk to a doc if it affects your life. Could be ADHD, could be something else. It's very common though so admitting that there might be a problem is the first step to getting better
apathy can be part of dysexecutive syndromes, such as ADHD.
To be pedantic, apathy is lack of emotion and interest.
Often that is not the case in ADHD. The hallmark of that syndrome is the inability to follow through/self-regulate behavior/plan actions to achieve the objective they are interested in.
The fact that a company is allowed to amass so much of your digital life but then lock you out with no recourse should cause outrage. It's no different than if your landlord, your bank, or the post office decided one day to lock you out and not even bother to give you an explanation, let alone to give you back your money and property.
We live in a world where services like the ones Google provides aren't just optional, they're critical for so many people. Some have less money in the bank or home than the value of their emails, contacts, media, and whatever else may be stored in Google's systems. Some of those things are priceless.
I agree that it's Google's right to refuse to have/keep you as a user/customer but they should be legally forced to give you back all of your data or at the very least give a generous notice period.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. Having your data confiscated like this is definitely outrageous and should be illegal. Right now we rely on this being bad PR for the company doing it but that's not enough especially for the giants. The user pays for the service by allowing the provider to monetize their data not by forfeiting the right to even get a copy.
I'm actually hoping that some regulation will be put in place to protect users and ensure that they never lose their data.
It's because most people in my country (US) are brainwashed, supporting and voting for things against their own self-interests like groveling at the feet of entities like Google. They think the end user, like employees, should have no rights, and are lucky to have what they're given. There's no fight, because it requires less fortitude to craft a story in your mind that the dominant force and apparent way forward (corporate domination) is somehow good, to avoid having to do any real work in fighting the system. It's laziness, intellectual and physical that pervades our society. Yet many of the same people will call the French, "lazy". It's the other way around.
Prudent regulation is necessary, but a strong lobbyist group for programmers such as a union or professional association would hurry that along much faster. Developers are end users too, and would be the most likely source of such a push in today's system. Unfortunately unlike lawyers, dentists and doctors, programmers think they're too smart to get organized.
If Epstein was in fact blackmailing the rich and famous, or running a sex trafficking operation for profit, how does he benefit from supplying donations (and whatever else he allegedly supplied) to a quantum computing professor?
So your accusation is that Epstein blackmailed Seth Lloyd or converted him into an Israeli spy/consultant on quantum computing?
Many engineering professors consult with private companies for a fee. So it seems odd that a country would need to take a roundabout and scandalous approach like this to pick a professor's brain, when they could just work though a legitimate-seeming company as an intermediary.
We don't know what Epstein and his backers were after. Maybe Seth Lloyd had influence over someone or some other leverage they wanted. It definitely warrants further investigation though.
I imagine SF natives might say, "Good riddance, don't let the door hit you on the way out," and I completely agree. I don't have issues with the city itself, but the value you get for your money here is completely abysmal if you're a renter or potential home buyer.