Google pays their engineers a lot and they’d need to recruit a lot more of them if they were going to keep running everything they ever killed. That, or stop launching so many new products.
I know it's beside the point, but you stepped on one of my peeves. Google doesn't have to pay their engineers "a lot". They don't have to keep sucking more and more wealthy people into a concentrated corner of California. They could open a modest office in Nebraska and pay some 5-figure salaries.
They could hire some run-of-the-mill college grads to work on a "dead" project. They could cut their teeth on low-profile stuff within Google and perhaps demonstrate abilities that move them up the ladder.
I'm not saying that Google should do this to keep everything they've ever touched alive. But spreading the talent around geographically would solve a lot of problems for Google and for California and for the world. Same for all FAANGs.
Quit earmarking $billions to solve the housing crisis in SF. Spend $1M in St. Louis and move 100 employees out of SF. Then spend $1M in Amarillo, and $1M in Sioux Falls. Shucks, maybe splurge and spend $20M here and there. $250M to build up 10 offices around the continent will do more to solve the housing crisis in CA than $1B spent in CA. And it would cut FAANG costs in half at the same time.
> Spend $1M in St. Louis and move 100 employees out of SF.
~100/100 SF Google engineers would change teams if they received a mandate that their team was relocating to St. Louis (or basically anywhere). Anyone who couldn't arrange to change teams would quit.
The fact that Google has 70 locations around the world, including 26 around the US, indicates that some Google employees are happy to work outside of SF.
Yes, but not a significant number of the ones living in SF. The parent comment was suggesting to "move 100 employees out of SF", which is clearly not happening. There are 70 locations around the world that these people could theoretically work and they have chosen SF. I'm sure pretty much every person working at each of those 70 locations was hired to work at that location. I'm am a bit appalled by the shittiness of the viewpoint expressed by the original comment, that the solution to lots of people wanting to live and work in high-demand areas is to force them out by moving their jobs somewhere they don't want to live. There are a lot of great reasons to want to live in a global hub city and work at a centralized office instead of working at a satellite office in Amarillo or Sioux Falls.
Recently Google has actually been low balling a lot of candidates and is nowhere near top of market. In many cases they are refusing to match competing offers, and are even offering people less money than what they are currently making
Exactly what happened to me. I had offers from Google, Airbnb, Lyft and Uber. In terms of numbers,
Lyft > Airbnb > Google > Uber.
Google tried to lowball me all the way through, and asked me to share screenshots of actual emails from other companies to prove my other numbers. They increased the numbers but frankly, they weren't anywhere close to Airbnb/Lyft. They did not act like a company that would beat other offers for talent. My offer was in the AI Assistant team under Google Search, so it wasn't an orphaned arbitrary product team either. Broke my heart coz I was so keen on joining Google from the start.
They could hire some run-of-the-mill college grads to work on a "dead" project. They could cut their teeth on low-profile stuff within Google and perhaps demonstrate abilities that move them up the ladder.
I'm not saying that Google should do this to keep everything they've ever touched alive. But spreading the talent around geographically would solve a lot of problems for Google and for California and for the world. Same for all FAANGs.
Quit earmarking $billions to solve the housing crisis in SF. Spend $1M in St. Louis and move 100 employees out of SF. Then spend $1M in Amarillo, and $1M in Sioux Falls. Shucks, maybe splurge and spend $20M here and there. $250M to build up 10 offices around the continent will do more to solve the housing crisis in CA than $1B spent in CA. And it would cut FAANG costs in half at the same time.