
Google Plans Large New York City Expansion - dcgudeman
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-large-new-york-city-expansion-1541636579
======
taurath
This coupled with the Amazon news is starting to get distressing. With the
amount of companies that copycat them it’s like the rich are getting richer
and the economic benefits are still going to be concentrated only in the most
affluent cities. The rest of the country desperately needs real industry and
good paying jobs - and will go to huge lengths to try to get them but it
appears nobody can come up with a business plan. We’re truly heading for
Elysium.

~~~
TulliusCicero
> The rest of the country desperately needs real industry and good paying jobs
> - and will go to huge lengths to try to get them

No they don't. Tax breaks aren't enough. One of the big reasons a lot of
people really like NYC is that it's one of the few cities in the US that
actually feels like a city. NYC is urbanist in a way that relatively few
American cities are (and most of the other cities in this category are also
big economic winners, like SF and Boston).

How many of those more conservative/cheaper US cities actually take
walking/biking/transit over driving as a serious issue? Virtually none of them
that I've seen, they put in token efforts at best; an unprotected bike lane
here, a "technically counts as transit" bus stop there, but very little that
really moves the needle or challenges the status quo.

Name one of these cities, and I'll show you how they're failing miserably on
at least this front just by a quick look at Google Maps.

~~~
bsbechtel
Define economic winner....you mean top line income and area GDP? These places
are the most expensive places in the country to live, and quality of living is
considerably lower. Incomes may be lower in many areas of the country, but
when you consider you can pay $2k/mo on a 5,000 sq ft mortgage instead of
renting a 900 sq ft apartment, I don't view these places as economically
successful as many perceive them to be.

~~~
TulliusCicero
Yes, I mean by having lots of high-paying jobs. Speaking in the abstract, that
means economic success. You're not wrong that high cost of living can often
cancel much of that out at the individual level though.

> quality of living is considerably lower.

See my other nearby comment for why this is a "it depends" thing. A lot of
people would consider living in Kansas City to have lower "quality of life"
than NYC even if it's less crowded and it's much easier to afford a house.

Your comment itself illustrates the disconnect here: we have one side arguing
that the other side is wrong in what they want, ala

"Why don't more techies want to come here?? This is ridiculous!"

"Well, because they want to live in places with X Y Z even if they're
expensive and crowded."

"Well, they should care more about A B C instead (because I do)."

~~~
dionidium
> _" Well, they should care more about A B C instead (because I do)."_

I'm guilty of this, but I think your formulation is a straw man. All I want to
tell people is that they shouldn't reflexively rule out the middle of the
country, because a lot of people _really would be_ happier there. Not
everybody, but _some people_.

And the way (some people on) the coasts talk about the Midwest and the South
is as though they're a complete and total non-starter that's out of
consideration entirely. "Yeah, New York's expensive, but what am I going to
do? Live in _Cleveland_? Obviously I can't do that!"

I think that kind of talk convinces a lot of people who would be happier
somewhere else that they shouldn't even bother looking into those places. And
that's a tragedy of human flourishing.

Edit to respond to one comment below:

> _I think you 're dismissing people's issues too easily._

On the contrary, I think you're inordinately focused on your own particular
(and somewhat eccentric) issues. Most Americans _prefer_ car ownership. You
might think they're wrong to prefer this. I do, too! But, "I don't want to
live somewhere where I have to own a car" isn't a mainstream American opinion.

~~~
del82
I grew up in Michigan and moved to greater NYC after grad school, and I want
to push back a bit against the idea that nobody on the coasts even considers
the middle of the country.

My spouse and I would love to move somewhere less expensive than NYC, but we
just can't make it work. We're both in fairly specialized tech fields, and
prioritize walkability, diversity, great schools and career growth
opportunity. Outside of say Chicago, it's hard to come up with a place that
checks those boxes.

~~~
dionidium
It would be pointless to try to speak to your particular situation, but I
think a lot of people who think they can't get this or that thing out of, say,
Nashville or Minneapolis, or whatever, are _wrong_. I don't mean to say their
opinion is wrong. Live wherever you want! I mean to say that they have
objectively false impressions about quantifiable aspects of those cities.

~~~
TulliusCicero
> I think a lot of people who think they can't get this or that thing out of,
> say, Nashville or Minneapolis, or whatever, are wrong.

If a person values a thing, saying, "well [thing] exists in these other cities
too, there's just a whole lot less of it there" is maybe not a super effective
counterpoint.

Like, I realize that basically every major city in the US does have public
transit...technically. But pointing out that out is not useful when for most
of those cities, said transit is slow, unreliable, sparse, and infrequent.

I don't just want transit. I want _good_ transit. I don't just want
walkability in a few isolated neighborhoods. I want _widespread_ walkability.

------
ArtWomb
It's exciting. Google has been talking about expanding its presence forever.
At least since purchasing the Chelsea Market complex. The Youtube studio is an
amazing space. As is the AWS Loft downtown. Cornell Tech will have a new
campus on Roosevelt Island. And Brooklyn has its New Lab / Navy Yards that is
almost a tech city unto itself. It feels like there's community. And a
multitude of events every day and night. With rents stabilizing, and
burgeoning FinTech and AI momentum, I just think everyone at some point in
their lives should consider a stint in the city ;)

~~~
CydeWeys
The nice thing about NYC in comparison to the Bay Area is that we're not
afraid of building more housing here, so supply increases every year and has a
dampening effect on rent increases. Also, mass transit is much better, so if
you live even 30 minutes away on a subway line the rents will be much lower.
If you're willing to commute an hour each way (which is still less than a lot
of people who drive every day on I-101 put up with) then rents are a fraction
of what they are in nice areas of Manhattan, or the Bay Area for that matter.

Though personally I don't like relying on the subway (which increasingly has
problems these days), hence I live in biking distance.

~~~
tokyodude
> and has a dampening effect on rent increase

Is that really true? I don't know if this data is accurate but googling
"average rent new york city" vs "average rent san francisco" brings up these 2
results as the first hits. They look almost identical. The site claims average
rent for NYC is $3634 vs SF at $3735. It also claims prices increased in NYC
by 9.46% over last year vs SF at 0.62%

[https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-san-francisco-
ren...](https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-san-francisco-rent-trends/)

[https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-new-york-rent-
tre...](https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-new-york-rent-trends/)

~~~
ramraj07
I'm a tech worker in NYC and none of my firends (except one idiot) pays more
than 2500 for their studio apartment within Manhattan. I share a super fancy
apartment in a hirise in Brooklyn and pay less than 2K. If you're okay living
in Queens you can get a 2BR with less than 1h commute. And this is not even
talking about distant Brooklyn, Bronx or jersey (also less tax)

~~~
thaumasiotes
You can also get a 2BR less than one hour's commute away from San Francisco
for under $2000 / month.

~~~
graeme
A transit commute?

~~~
thaumasiotes
Yes, my commute from South Hayward to Embarcadero station in SF was 45
minutes, I used BART (obviously), and rent was under $2000.

------
ttobbaybbob
I wonder if the banks, who are increasingly branding themselves as "tech
companies"[1], are worried about Google and Amazon encroaching on their
territory.

My understanding is that at least part of the appeal of NY to Google and
Amazon is the quality and quantity of systems engineers at banks and hedge
funds.

[1]
[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-15/lloyd-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-15/lloyd-
blankfein-wants-goldman-sachs-to-push-technology) (among many other such
articles)

~~~
kevstev
They definitely are. I left the finance industry in late 2013 after getting an
offer in tech for 50% more. My bosses demanded to see the offer letter- they
didn't believe me. I eventually acquiesced- and showed the entire team- to
make them realize that they can't just keep screwing people out of bonuses,
forcing them to work late nights and weekends and expect people to put up with
it.

About 6 months later, two others also left for tech. I talked with a friend
still at GS, and banks are at least making token moves now to be more
attractive- "casual fridays", ping pong table on the floor, etc. Not real
change, but it at least shows they are somewhat concerned.

------
dblock
New York, especially Manhattan and nice parts of Brooklyn also have a great
public school system. It’s very, very big with dozens of schools. This is
critical for any parent obviously.

My kids go to PS11, which is excellent, just a few blocks from Google HQ (I
don’t work at Goog) with some real diversity in the classroom, literally kids
of all possible colors from around the world. Interestingly, none of the other
parents I know work at Google. I wouldn’t mind if that number ... doubled.

Right now we’re looking at middle schools and I am pleased to say the options
in district 2 are fantastic, again.

~~~
netheril96
> I wouldn’t mind if that number ... doubled.

Pardon me if I misunderstand, but isn't double "none" still none?

~~~
redblacktree
I wondered the same thing and assumed it was a joke. Then I wondered why they
didn't say "halved." Oh well. I probably thought about this too much already.

------
choot
One of the reason is that, people who are incharge of these decisions are
invested in these cities. They've real estate in these cities.

So, using public money of the company to invest in these cities increase the
value of their personal investments :)

It won't be changing anytime sooner.

Shareholders aren't bothered. I wouldn't be surprized if majority of
shareholders by value live in these cities too.

~~~
oblio
I don't remember the actual source, so it might just be a funny anecdote.

But I remember reading that after WW2 a lot of US companies were expanding and
looking for new headquarters. They'd commission huge research teams to find
the best location for the new headquarters, spend a lot of time and effort to
find a good place.

A book written about 10 or 15 years after many of these companies found that
almost invariably the result of the research placed the best location within a
short distance of where the CEO was from/currently lived.

So what you're saying doesn't really surprise me :)

~~~
mooreds
I was curious so I hunted the anecdote down.

Via
[https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/03/28/20030328/](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/03/28/20030328/)

I found this HBR article: [https://hbr.org/1989/03/corporate-architecture-
from-the-outs...](https://hbr.org/1989/03/corporate-architecture-from-the-
outside-in)

Which has this quote:

> A dozen years ago, William Whyte, author of the classic book The
> Organization Man, tried to do just that. The sociologist took his map and
> phone book and set out to chart which corporate headquarters had gone where
> and why. Contrary to official rationales, which emphasized corporate
> enhancement or a disinterested pursuit of the great outdoors, Whyte found
> that most of the new campus compounds were sited within eight or nine miles
> of the CEO’s home—a chilling and widely broadcast statistic that jarred with
> corporate claims about humane treatment for those uprooted in the move.

------
kyrieeschaton
Meanwhile, the executive team openly laughed at the idea of investing in
offices any distance from the coast.

~~~
kyrra
They bought their new building in Boulder for $131 million, which about
doubled the available seating. They also expanded their Pittsburgh office in
the last few years.

[http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-
business/ci_31319589/goog...](http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-
business/ci_31319589/google-buys-land-buildings-at-boulder-campus-131m)

[https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2014/02/03/googl...](https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2014/02/03/google-
confirms-expansion-to-bakery.html)

------
Bucephalus355
I wonder how much goodwill Google could have generated by locating this hub in
say Orlando or Des Moines.

Even if they spent 150k per engineer in relocation costs (1 time fee), it’s
hard to imagine they wouldn’t make that up in terms of cheaper real estate and
lower salaries.

There were obviously some benefits in choosing New York City (and I realize
it’s an expansion technically), but still, it’s so......unimaginative.

Would have been a great contrast to Amazon’s bait and switch yesterday.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Even if they spent 150k per engineer in relocation costs (1 time fee), it’s
> hard to imagine they wouldn’t make that up in terms of cheaper real estate
> and lower salaries.

Are you suggest that elite talent wants lower salaries in the Midwest or
Florida as long as they can get a one time relocation payout?

Google might save support staff salaries, but I don't think they'll save
engineer salaries with your plan, they might even have to boost them.

~~~
fossuser
That’s how it works in medicine - salaries are higher in less desirable areas.

~~~
eloff
I think you're missing the point. It's a tough sell to relocate someone and
give them a lower salary. Who'd take that deal?

~~~
ndnxhs
People who understand the lower salary is easily made up for by lower living
costs.

~~~
tokyodude
I'm not sure I'm convinced. To give an example a recruiter once tried to get
me to move to some place in India (2002). He told me I'd be making $30k a year
which was 10x what locals made so I'd be living like a king. Even if that was
true that I could live like a king for that salary in India all I could think
about is how I'd be stuck there because I'd have no money to leave to a more
expensive place in the future.

~~~
fossuser
Yep - this is an extreme example, but the main reason it's a bad idea.

If you live in a high cost of living area, but are okay living with roommates
you can save a ton of money. More than enough to make up the difference
compared to living in a low cost of living area.

You also get better quality of life and a lot more opportunities - meeting
people for work/friends/dating. It's also better to have a high salary in
order to more easily keep a high salary.

I think you also learn more faster from increased exposure to talented people.
I grew up in Buffalo which is a nice and very cheap place, but there was
nobody to learn from.

------
mathattack
This should be good for engineering salaries in general in NYC.

~~~
vonmoltke
Given Google's penchant for lowballing people without FANG experience or
competing offers, probably not.

~~~
saganus
Do you have any references for this?

It definitely seems plausible and matches my (very limited) experience with a
few friends that have joined Google, but I was wondering if you have any
links.

I guess you would have to accept joining with a lower salary, and then try to
switch to another FANG company to get a fair salary?

~~~
vonmoltke
Well, there's me. I passed their interview gauntlet, but their initial offer
was well under what I currently make, and their second barely matched it. They
also badly down-leveled me (which is partially my fault for not insisting on
an L5 interview loop).

From my direct experience, and talking to other people who have negotiated
with Google, the only ways to get a good offer out of them is to either come
from a FAANG or get a competing offer from one.

~~~
trhway
in SV, got an L5 offer couple years back, barely matching my relatively low
for SV total with the base lower. They pretty much refused to negotiate. The
same experience as couple acquaintances - one even took such an offer and not
surprisingly ran away a year later. On the other hand - some other
acquaintances make $400K-$500K as L5/L6 there.

~~~
vonmoltke
> one even took such an offer and not surprisingly ran away a year later

I thought about that, but I'd rather not put myself through the job change
gauntlet so often, and the role was such a step down in responsibility that I
would be better off with a year in my current role.

------
vikinghckr
If it's going to make NYC a major engineering hub, on a similar scale as
Mountain View, then it's a huge deal. If it's going to be mainly non-technical
roles, then meh.

~~~
yesforwhat
If NYC becomes a monoculture like SV than it truly is a big deal.

~~~
CydeWeys
NYC is the largest city in the nation and is the main hub of many industries
including finance, fashion, network TV, publishing, and advertising. The
population of the overall NYC metropolitan area is 24 million.

The only way to change it into as much of a monoculture as Silicon Valley
would be to add _tens of millions_ of tech workers, without adding any
attendant employees to service industries. Not gonna happen.

------
dfxm12
Every time I see a company setting up shop in the Mid-Atlantic, I just assume
it's to set up shop a quick Amtrak ride to DC.

------
tgb29
Google doesn’t want AWS to take over NYC

------
claydavisss
Counterpoint: these jobs are increasingly meh and will not be impactful on the
local economy.

Lifetime comp (salary + retirement benefits) for Amazonians in Crystal City
will probably be less than for comparable Federal workers.

Google is like any other white collar business now - a small cadre of well
paid execs surrounded by an army of people just doing ok.

80% of Googlers in NYC will probably have lower lifetime earnings than
firefighters or cops once you factor in pensions

These companies are just factories with desks

~~~
vikinghckr
> 80% of Googlers in NYC will probably have lower lifetime earnings than
> firefighters or cops once you factor in pensions

No way. How much do you think Google entry level fresh graduate engineers earn
in total compensation?

~~~
claydavisss
You will probably be retired for thirty years. Public employees are getting
paid for those years, techies aren't.

I have a relative who is retired CHP. $200k a year total retirement benefits.
Show me a rank and file Googler who has that lined up.

Typical techie trajectory will be maximum salary around age forty and then
increasing irrelevance

As I tell everyone in tech now - imagine 64. It's coming.

~~~
cjhopman
Very, very few retired CHP are getting $200k/year. The average CHP pension is
<$100k/year and is worth $2.6 million. Only about 1000 retired CHP are getting
more than $100k/year.

The average Googler should be making 300-400k+/yr after 5 years. If that
Googler is willing to live on a CHP salary for 30 years, it should be trivial
to have saved well over $2.6million. They should, in fact, be able to save
well over double that over 30yrs giving you the equivalent of that $200k a
year in benefits.

~~~
claydavisss
bullshit that the "average" googler is making $400k after just five years,
come on, thats just fantasy football.

remember Google employs people like HR and Accounts Receivable and lots of
rank-and-file tech

there's really nothing more to do than come back here in twenty years and
comment on what will be a flood of stories with titles like:

"Ask HN: was once a staff engineer at Google but since I turned fifty no one
will hire me and all new jobs require fluent Mandarin. I'm running out of
money, advice?"

The typical HN reader at this point hasn't even experienced a downturn.

