Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dubBAU5 t1_itvl8b3 wrote

The interesting thing to me is that google (and apple) have been buying up so much property in Silicon Valley over the last 5-10 years. Not residential so much as commercial. They have been building so much office space it is ridiculous. You would think they are expanding their work force as fast as they can hire. I wonder if they are planning on shifting business from advertising to property management.

149

[deleted] t1_itvszwi wrote

Here in Seattle, Google recently bought their office building from the developer (Paul Allen's Vulcan.) Trying to understand the strategy chews on my brain a bit.

63

appreciatethecandor t1_itvv9b7 wrote

It’s not that complicated… there is still a shortage of talented tech workers. Google isn’t looking for your typical college grad, they’re looking for the best of the best to work on very large scale and complex issues.

The engineers they need already work in big tech. The easiest way to steal them is to open an office right next to their current office, so they opened a location in Seattle since Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and others are there.

It’s similar to when Burger King wants to open a new location, they’ll just find the nearest McDonalds and put it across the street.

86

sweetmorty t1_itvwz08 wrote

Top tech talent mostly prefer working remote though.

28

appreciatethecandor t1_itvzelv wrote

I think what top tech workers actually prefer is a culture where they can decide to come in when they please, rather than being mandated to come in 3 days a week.

I’ve worked in several big tech companies, not many people are leaving to go to a remote place because you’ll lose a ton of leverage and pay with COL adjustments.

84

certainlyforgetful t1_itwv5m8 wrote

exactly this. I love remote work, but I would love an office in my city so I could come in every now and then.

I’m jealous of the cities we have offices in, but I’m not about to pack up my family and move across the country.

11

Dornith t1_itvxxfa wrote

Work in tech. This is not as much the case as people think it is.

Tech definitely has more remote workers than any other industry, but it's not the majority. Most top tech talent are still going into the office to work, either because they don't mind it, actively enjoy it, or don't think it's a big enough deal to switch jobs over it.

My old roommate recently moved across country, from CA to NY, to work at a tech startup making mid-6 figures. He's in his early 20s and is excited to move to a new part of the country and try a new way of life.

27

MoreHairMoreFun t1_itwpa4z wrote

He’s making 500k?

1

Dornith t1_itwpfgg wrote

I don't have his exact numbers (obviously) but he makes a few hundred k in base salary, plus large bonuses and benefits.

4

coffeesippingbastard t1_itwzp78 wrote

mid is 300-600k so in NYC- plausible. For top top- I've seen some really absurd numbers from the algorithmic trading companies.

4

MoreHairMoreFun t1_itwzsz4 wrote

I just wondered if he meant 150k. Good for anyone making that.

1

dukeofpenisland t1_ity6jzn wrote

150 is entry level software engineering at big tech in a high COL area

3

Dornith t1_iu0o4jy wrote

Funnily enough, that's the industry he's in now.

1

doubletagged t1_ityk0yx wrote

Been in the “top tech” companies mentioned here. My experience has been that the offices are consistently < 50% full. From that seems most prefer working remote.

1

movingtobay2019 t1_itycpls wrote

Don't think so. They like having choice. I don't know anyone who actually prefers 5 days a week at home. They also don't like being mandated to come in specific days either. More of a "Come in 2 days a week when you feel like it".

Humans are social creatures and work is one of the ways for people to socialize.

1

DankousKhan t1_ityfpeb wrote

I have worked from home for about 9 years with one "hybrid" job in-between. I never want to go to the office again. It's not for everyone but...

3

[deleted] t1_itwivnv wrote

My comment was about the strategy behind the purchase of a building, not mass agglomeration, though I do think your simplistic description does not align with the complex reality of what actually happened, and why, in tech hubs over the last decade.

8

appreciatethecandor t1_itwoxfv wrote

>My comment was about the strategy behind the purchase of a building, not mass agglomeration,

One way Google attracts talent by building nice offices and providing perks that their competitors don't, such as an office with a fully operating kitchen providing free meals, daycare, meditation areas, arcades, etc. They're not going to invest this much into a rental, because that would move all the leverage to the landlord to jack up the rent come renewal.

Would you spend $50,000 renovating the backyard of a house you rent? probably not.

>though I do think your simplistic description does not align with the complex reality of what actually happened, and why, in tech hubs over the last decade.

It's easy to be critical, but you haven't offered any insight as to what actually happened.

If what I said wasn't true, why would Google buy a building in Seattle and not in Alabama? If there is a cluster of talent, it's easier for them to open a building there rather than expecting people to move to you. That is why Amazon is also expanding in Bellevue to poach Microsoft talent, because Microsoft employees refuse to drive over the bridge.

1

doubletagged t1_ityk3zj wrote

Eh it’s primarily because Amazon has major beef with Seattle city council

1

appreciatethecandor t1_iu1cvyn wrote

Definitely true, but Amazon has bigger issues asides from beef with city council that forced HQ2 and expansion outside of Seattle.

I would say most of it was ability to continue to recruit tech talent, their reputation is essentially a "bottom of the barrel" tech company, a great place to join if you can't get into a better shop.

Amazon has completely saturated the Seattle market, due to the fact that everyone here has worked there once (and used them as a stepping stone to a better company) or would prefer not to touch them with a 10 ft pole, so they kind of had their hand forced and had to expand elsewhere.

1

[deleted] t1_iu0c1p5 wrote

I think we're still talking about different things. Maybe I poorly explained, perhaps you'd have to understand the local context of SLU.

1

thornwilder t1_itwp110 wrote

Google’s top tech talent doesn’t seem to be working on anything usable. I think the are just being used to devise more ways to get advertising revenue.

2

josefx t1_itylxo0 wrote

> they’re looking for the best of the best to work on very large scale and complex issues.

Weren't they caught in a wage dumping and non compete scheme with about half of silicon valley? Aren't they just looking for the cheapest, most gullible fools they can find?

2

Aplejax04 t1_itw73zn wrote

In Boston google just built a big new building in Cambridge. Word on the street is that it’s mostly empty.

6

tvtb t1_ity99qu wrote

Oh did they leave the building with the MIT COOP and subway entrance? Are they still in Tech Square?

2

lucun t1_itw1gfb wrote

If you're there long term, I imagine it saves costs to own outright than renting. Also cutting out a landlord gives you more control on any changes you want done to the property.

5

mrcobra92 t1_ity46ea wrote

They just bought the Thompson center in Chicago too. They want to move/add 5000 employees to the building.

2

menemenetekelufarsin t1_itw17pk wrote

This is what all tech money has been doing - converting from "fake money" (esp. highly overvalued stocks, etc) to real money. Same same with crypto. They are all following the McDonald's strategy. They can offset the leveraged-purchases on their balance sheet for tax reductions, and then end up owning all assets. This is kind of how we got where we are.

10

searchresults t1_itwwkft wrote

For Google it’s partly because their original campus is not well designed or located.

The new San Jose office complex is actually intelligently designed for transit, worker enjoyment, proximity to housing, etc.

3

quikfrozt t1_itwp4g7 wrote

That’s as good a business case for WeWork had they been run by a grown up before the IPO - and in fact they were moving forward with owning their own properties and providing property management services to companies that want to outsource.

2