[djakjxnanjak]

No way, no how is Google or any other decent employer going to uproot all their knowledge workers and make them unproductive for the foreseeable future by forcing them to move to another region.

The diaspora from the Bay Area will keep happening the way it has been: at the economic margins. Over time, people outside of tech who aren’t subsidized by prop 13 or rent control will get priced out. There will be a perpetual underclass living in trailers and garages, and the landed aristocracy will be further entrenched.

[ProAm]

You dont have to uproot, just stop hiring in CA, and start hiring at other newer locations. They already have offices all over the world.

[caymanjim]

Google doesn't need to move. They just need to expand elsewhere. Amazon is opening HQ2 because Seattle is "full", and there are lots of smart people elsewhere that they could employ. All the FAANGs should spread out more.

[novok]

Very NIMBY of you. They just have to be not in my back yard and go away somewhere else. "No more immigrants in mountain view!"

As far as expand elsewhere goes, google has many staff in many countries and cities all over the world.

[caymanjim]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you'll scroll to the top of the comments on this page, you'll see where I stated the case that NIMBYism is the problem with housing there, and specifically that Mountain View's resistance to denser housing is part of it. I also think that Google and other large companies can expand elsewhere to alleviate some of the housing pressure, as Amazon has already started doing. Google has offices everywhere, but they are tiny compared to HQ.

[BubRoss]

That's not at all what he said. He was talking about the company confronting high cost of living near their headquarters.

[PaulHoule]

It's an interesting question.

How much less productive would these workers be if they were moved to Salt Lake City or Henderson, NV or Syracuse, NY?

If you lost 20% of the productivity but could pay 30% less that would be OK, wouldn't it?

[ghaff]

For starters, lots of them just wouldn't move. When companies move headquarters or other large facilities they usually expect to lose lots of people even if they cover relocation and actively try to hold onto people. (Which may, of course, not be the case if the company actually wants to lay off people.)

None of this is to argue that big tech companies shouldn't be more distributed. They probably should and it's happening to some degree naturally as they grow. But trying to move already employed people wholesale to a new city, especially one that many will see as relatively unattractive, will cost you a significant percentage of your workforce.

[TulliusCicero]

It's moot because they'd lose so many employees immediately that it'd be economic suicide. Google can't instantly conjure 5,000 more high quality engineers out of nowhere in SLC.

The most you'll see is something like what Amazon (sort of) tried with creating a "second HQ".

[rhinoceraptor]

In the long run they'd be as productive (or more, since the commute would likely be better). The problem is it would take months or years to move, and a lot of people don't want to or can't move, so they'd quit and find a new job almost instantly.

[erik_seaberg]

The fact that they can find a new job almost instantly is why they came here in the first place. It would take many competing employers showing up to make another labor market similarly appealing. You'd have to pay me a lot to move to the middle of nowhere, because not only am I not excited about living there, I'm still better off moving back here for the next job.

[malnourish]

In addition to what others have said, you have to consider what your competitors might do while you're spinning up. They could capitalize on your downtime.

[jonas21]

And to top it all off, those competitors would have the pick of your (former) employees who didn't want to move.

[s3r3nity]

I want to agree that the labor market will correct at some point, but to your point, it's only at the margins for now, and is way too slow to adjust.

There are too many people who feel like they _have_ to live there (or NYC / insert overly populated city here) to have a career, that any sort of correction will take decades.

[epistasis]

If more people want to live in an area, why should we stop them? What good comes from denying people that opportunity?

I'm asking this to find out your definition of overpopulation. Because the people that want to move here don't think that's the case, and I certainly don't think that's the case given how low population density is throughout the Bay Area.

And since high density walkable neighborhoods are healthier for people and the environment than car dependent sprawl, I think that we are actually underpopulated.

[scarface74]

Why would “knowledge workers” be unproductive in another region?

[djakjxnanjak]

It’s not being in another region that’s the problem, it’s moving. People tend to find forced moves traumatic and will go to great lengths to avoid them.