[udba]

As an engineering student at UWaterloo it's pretty depressing to watch most of the best upper year engineers finish their studies and then abandon Canada for SV. There's logic in it for them: American companies are offering huge sums of money by Canadian standards, the weather is nicer, and the opportunities seem better. If I didn't have serious reservations about living in the US, I would probably do the same.

However, I find it particularly reprehensible when companies make the move. For them, it's counter-intuitive: they have access to a huge pool of talent, both experienced devs and the vast armies of grads from UofT, UW and others. Furthermore, they're getting this talent at dirt cheap rates, since the Canadian peso is awful at the moment and salaries are significantly lower here than those in SV and the wider US.

Their expenses go up because they have to pay in USD (instant 25% hit in purchasing power), and they get thrown into the rat race of competing for talent in SV. I really wonder what goes through the mind of some of these moronic execs when they make moves like this.

[pj_mukh]

Blanket statements are silly, "SF is better", "Toronto/Wloo is better". Silly blanket statements.

If you are a company that NEEDS high growth to be sustainable in the long term (Uber, Google's ML products for example), then SF is your place. Capital to fund your growth flows like the Niagara. If you are a company that is serving other startups, SF is also great for that.

However, if your company is solving an interesting technical/scientific problem or is a niche industry product or if you are not affected by high/low growth or easy capital, then the "value" engineering talent in Toronto/Waterloo is perfect (see: Geoffrey Hinton's NN group at UToronto). Keep grinding, you'll win in the long run.

Joist probably should've made this call earlier on. No idea why they waited this long.

P.S: Most smart advice in Waterloo and Toronto will tell you this exact same thing.

[spullara]

If "most of the best upper year engineers finish their studies and then abandon Canada for SV" then "companies make the move". You've laid out in your comment exactly why a company would rationally choose to move from Toronto to SF.

[udba]

Most of the students that do leave for the US would be more than willing to stay in Canada, even if they were not paid as much. It's a familiar culture, the cost of living is cheaper, and in many ways Toronto is a better place to live than SF[0]. When they do go to the US, it's because they're getting huge sums of money mainly from SV giants like Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple and so on. While many grads are willing to stay here, even for a pay cut, the scale is tipping in SV's favor. Companies like Joist are what used to be turning the tide, they offered pretty good compensation, a decent job, and you got to stay in a sweet city.

Regardless, I don't believe these moves are rational. If you're the CEO, you're giving up close proximity to a lot of cheap talent, cheaper offices, cheaper cost of living etc. Sure, you can hire new engineers but you're gonna be paying a whole lot more money + 25% for the exchange rate to make them do so. Joist was paying engineers up to 130k CAD in Toronto[1], which ends up being around 100k USD. You're not gonna be attracting the best and brightest talent with 100k USD when Google is around the corner giving them 130k USD + 25k signing bonus and stock options. You're gonna have to pay at least 130k USD (=165k CAD) plus the signing bonuses and equity that are necessary to attract talent in SV. We're still not talking about how much more an office costs in SV, how much more of your employee's salary is going towards comically overpriced housing etc.

Let's dispense with the idea that moving to SV is some sort of rational or genius executive decision: does it really make sense to fire 2/3 of your staff, move everything to SV, and rehire 60 people in an expensive city for far higher rates?

[0] - http://pages.eiu.com/rs/eiu2/images/EIU_BestCities.pdf [1] - https://angel.co/joist/jobs/112984-data-warehouse-engineer?u...

[spullara]

Generally for a tech startup, I do think it can make sense to move. Plus, necessity is the mother of invention, Airbnb and Uber were both started because of how painful it can be to live in SF. What if the founders had been somewhere affordable with great public transportation?

[st3v3r]

They would have worked on something else, and someone else, preferably someone who doesn't believe in just snubbing labor laws, would have come up with the idea. Remember, Uber isn't a unique idea. There were at least 3 companies that came up with it around the same time.

[DanHulton]

As I hear it, it all comes down to financing. Talent's easy to find, sure, but raising money anywhere in Canada vs. SF is no contest.

It's still a shitty way to treat people, but I can see why companies still want to be in the valley. I just wish we could attract more investors to Toronto. There are a lot of super-psyched tech and design folk in this city.

[ska]

It's not quite that simple - for example Canada has a number of advantages and good programs for early stage startups. What is true is there isn't much access to SV style VC funds, so if your model is dependent on that, you have a problem. Other sources can be pretty good though.

[Apocryphon]

What all of these tech hubs need is to popularize their own style of growth that can contrast favorably with SV's '80s Wall Street-esque brand of maniac growth chasing. Once a city figures out how to do that, then the "must be in SV" meme will weaken.

[nasalgoat]

Yes, my current startup is finding it very, very difficult to raise the Series A financing here in Toronto. Canadian VC firms are few and far between, and concentrate on the oil/gas sector mostly, and find tech scary and unpredictable.

On the flip side, the SF VCs don't like investing outside their local sandbox.

[grandalf]

In spite of the language, cultural and historic similarities between the two nations, the US and Canada do not enjoy free economic relations across borders.

This is the fault of both nations. The frictions are imposed by elected officials that limit the freedom of people to cross the border to work, dictate how taxes are paid, etc.

This also applies to investors, as investors must deal with the regulatory regime in the company's location.

I'd say things like this reflect a big failure of both the US and Canadian governments to make the borders transparent for business. All the moving expenses, severance packages, wasted training, visa fees, etc. etc. is all a total economic loss.

The people who suffer are those on the margin who get laid off or who can't afford lawyers to do immigration paperwork, or who don't quite meet the standards that bureaucrats outlined for a work visa.

Economic freedom is just as important, just as relevant to people's lives and futures as the other freedoms we value.

[more_corn]

As someone working in tech in San Francisco I was thinking the same thing. Sounds like they left a lot of engineering talent twisting in the wind. Good luck replacing them in the Bay Area. Especially after this news gets out. In other news the phrase: "Canadian Peso" deserves a golf clap.

[likpok]

> most of the best upper year engineers finish their studies and then abandon Canada for SV.

That might have something to do with it. If none of the good people are willing to stay for reasonable rates, companies may have trouble finding people regardless. That can reduce the costs of moving to SV.

For example: if the people you'd want to hire are comparing your offer against a SV salary, you may need to pay SV salaries anyway. But you'll still lose out on people who also like the job density of SV, or the weather, or that their friends have moved.

[kevindeasis]

Out of curiosity, how does the process of job hunting work in the Ontario area if they get a job in SV? Does the SV company offer a visa permit or does the student apply for work permit in advance?

[potatolicious]

In almost all cases a work permit must be tied to a job offer, so it's not possible to apply for a work permit in advance.

You interview, you get the offer, and the lawyers at the company apply for the visa for you.

There are some exception cases where an open-ended visa is possible, but this is uncommon - but if you're famous in the industry you may qualify.

[kevindeasis]

Thank you, Jerry that was very helpful!

[kspaans]

I'm a Canadian who recently relocated to SV from London, UK. Before that I was at RIM/BBRY in Waterloo. After receiving my job offer and an invitation letter from the company I flew to the US and, at the border, applied for a "TN Status". Cost me $50 and about an hour and a half. It gives me a 3 year work permit at my employer, which is renewable.

[kevindeasis]

Very fascinating, thanks Kyle!

[ska]

Particularly for Canadians <-> Americans going across the border int tech, this is made quite easy by the TN "visa" program (it isn't really a visa, but part of the NAFTA agreement).

In other cases, the work status conversation is an important part of hiring and negotiation.

[kevindeasis]

Thanks for this Ska! It's clearer for me now

[Waterluvian]

Clearpath isn't going anywhere. ;)

[udba]

Thankfully so, I've been eyeing a co-op with them.

[Waterluvian]

Apply! We love our co-ops.

[wyager]

Canada is a country, not a dear friend. Workers and companies owe nothing to it. If it makes more sense for someone to leave, then more power to them. Canada can either try to make itself more appealing or deal with people leaving.

[jgw]

Re: "owe nothing to it", I respectfully disagree.

Canadians at Waterloo enjoy a heavily subsidized world-class education, at the tax-payer's expense, then leave to contribute nothing to the economy that produced them.

Interestingly, some also come back later in life to enjoy subsidized health care to which they've also never contributed.

I wonder if there's a way to structure post-secondary education subsidies as a sort of debt that you can pay off by either remaining employed in Canada, or in cash if you decide to leave.

Disclosure: UW Comp Eng '98 grad, still in Canada.

[kogepathic]

> Canadians at Waterloo enjoy a heavily subsidized world-class education, at the tax-payer's expense, then leave to contribute nothing to the economy that produced them.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Even foreign students who have no intention of remaining in Canada after university are still adding value.

Why? Because when they go abroad and do good work, they maintain and improve the image of UW. There's a reason it became a world class school, and you can think of former students doing work abroad as sort of like advertising.

Besides, foreign students pay more. Their tuition is not nearly as cheap as that of domestic students.

> Interestingly, some also come back later in life to enjoy subsidized health care to which they've also never contributed.

This is the case in many countries on earth which engage in socialism.

> I wonder if there's a way to structure post-secondary education subsidies as a sort of debt that you can pay off by either remaining employed in Canada, or in cash if you decide to leave.

That would suck, quite frankly. I'm a Canadian who moved abroad after university because I wanted to gain some perspective and see more of the world.

I'm not a resident of Canada currently, so you're saying I should be saddled with additional debt because I left Canada without contributing to the economy?

Why shouldn't education be a right? I had to pay for my education, as I assume you did. Yes, it was subsidized by tax payer money, but in the end I spent ~$35,000 CAD (total) on tuition for my B.Eng.

I had to work summers and internships to pay for my tuition, and housing expenses when I was in university.

Will I return to Canada? I don't know, maybe. I'm still having a blast working abroad, and I'm still in my 20s, so who knows what will happen.

What I can say though, is I'm really glad that Canada didn't charge me an additional tax for going abroad after my education. If I had any kind of significant debt, I wouldn't have been able to afford to move to Europe and look for work.

(I am not a UW grad)

[pj_mukh]

This is silly protectionism. UWaterloo students abroad has arguably what's built its reputation. So goes for everywhere else you hear "Keep all my <local resources> in my <local area>"

Disclosure: UW Tron Eng 2010, still in Waterloo.

[kedean]

If you require students to spend X years working in Y, then it's not a subsidy anymore, it sounds a lot more like a scholarship. What you're suggesting would have to somehow be structured to let students choose not to accept the agreement, and at that point its not "for everyone" anymore.

This sort of agreement definitely does exist, though. My sister in law went to med school under one requiring her to work a number of years in rural parts of the state after residency.

[wyager]

This would all be conveniently solved if Canada didn't take so much of people's money to pay for so much other people's things.

> structure post-secondary education subsidies as a sort of debt

That's called a student loan.

The US government does exactly this in the form of "scholarships" where you're essentially indentured to the government for X years after graduating.

[aardvarkk]

UW Sys Des '07 grad, still in Canada. 100% agree with you.

[st3v3r]

See, this is why everyone hates businesses and businesspeople. They say they "owe nothing to the city/state/province/country", yet still expect all these places to bend over backwards for them at the expense of the people living there.

Maybe your business should give reason for why it should exist, and why anyone should care about it first.