Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow! First I can't believe this turned into a 3 page discussion already. Second, it's become a completely different discussion than I intended. When I started this thread, I was really trying to say "is the economy this good that employers are taking on added expense in order to accommodate the whims of employees?" From what I read and see on TV about the economy, I'm surprised to see that in such various industries that the employee is the one steering the ship. I would have assumed most would be happy to have a job and suck up the commute. I guess I was wrong.
Instead, this has turned into a very interesting discussion about millennials and their preferences. A preference for urban living amongst younger people is not news. It's been the preference for quite some time. Millennials did not invent this. What has been changing is that people are getting married later and later (if at all) and people are having kids later and later (if at all). For some, marriage and children are the driving force that sends them out to the suburbs seeking green lawns, white picket fences, more space, and better regarded public schools. Others (of many generations), love urban living and never leave no matter what.
Millennials (sometimes also called "echo boomers") are one of the largest segments of our population. As they age and become consumers and employers/employees, no doubt their preferences will drive the market. I also have no doubt that as they age their preferences will change. Urban living sounds great, but even my friends who cling to it admit that stuffing 4 or 5 people in a small space especially when 2 to 3 of those people are very small, very active children can create very challenging living situations which a short commute and easy access to shops/restaurants doesn't necessarily offset.
While the trends have revered over the years (more people are choosing to live in the city and ditch their vehicles), the numbers headed for the suburbs still far exceed them. Areas like Marlborough are booming with new job growth, with no small part being the workforce is increasingly living out by 495 and beyond. The mainstream media zones in over certain (significant) subgroups of the population, but while ignoring the mainstream majority. I guess the latter is too boring to take note of, or they are trying to push some sort of political agenda.
Speaking as someone in the 25-35 age group working in software, an urban work location is a big plus for many peers. We are talking about a highly educated and desirable small subgroup within the overall Millennials. I previously worked for GE and visited the corporate headquarters in Fairfield multiple times. I saw first-hand the trouble GE had in retaining talented younger employees in favor of NYC.
Companies like Reebok and GE are sophisticated, and you can bet they did analysis before committing to major moves that cost millions or billions. It seems that some other posts reflect the poster's personal preferences rather than the reality of the job market. America's workforce, for better or worse, is experiencing a divergence where the highly talented have an increasingly large share of growth and opportunity with a stagnant middle and lower class. It's this highly talented segment that top companies are playing towards.
As other posters have noted, I believe a major factor is that this cohort is choosing to start families later and prefers the dense connections that urban living provides. This is just what i've observed; add this to other information and draw your own conclusions.
Speaking as someone in the 25-35 age group working in software, an urban work location is a big plus for many peers. We are talking about a highly educated and desirable small subgroup within the overall Millennials. I previously worked for GE and visited the corporate headquarters in Fairfield multiple times. I saw first-hand the trouble GE had in retaining talented younger employees in favor of NYC.
Companies like Reebok and GE are sophisticated, and you can bet they did analysis before committing to major moves that cost millions or billions. It seems that some other posts reflect the poster's personal preferences rather than the reality of the job market. America's workforce, for better or worse, is experiencing a divergence where the highly talented have an increasingly large share of growth and opportunity with a stagnant middle and lower class. It's this highly talented segment that top companies are playing towards.
As other posters have noted, I believe a major factor is that this cohort is choosing to start families later and prefers the dense connections that urban living provides. This is just what i've observed; add this to other information and draw your own conclusions.
I guess that was my question. Do companies like Reebok and and Converse fit into this subset/culture? And does their current workforce reflect this, or is it more who they are aspiring to represent/or hire in the future?
As for the stagnant middle and lower class, well it depends on the field as well. Some more traditional occupations are having just as hard a time filling positions as software development, etc.
I guess that was my question. Do companies like Reebok and and Converse fit into this subset/culture? And does their current workforce reflect this, or is it more who they are aspiring to represent/or hire in the future?
As for the stagnant middle and lower class, well it depends on the field as well. Some more traditional occupations are having just as hard a time filling positions as software development, etc.
Oh of course. These companies sell an image. There is a reason why Yves saint laurent would want a presence in a major metro over a bass pro shop which is perfect in Foxboro. People know where their market is.
When I started this thread, I was really trying to say "is the economy this good that employers are taking on added expense in order to accommodate the whims of employees?" From what I read and see on TV about the economy, I'm surprised to see that in such various industries that the employee is the one steering the ship. I would have assumed most would be happy to have a job and suck up the commute. I guess I was wrong.
Short answer, yes, current job market is very tight for employers and the best employees can pick and choose.... and quality of life is very high on the list. We looked recently at moving our office and recruiters told us how difficult it would be to attract top talent if we moved further out.
Is it sustainable?....who knows, but I also remember '08, '09 when we had 100's of overqualified applicants for one mediocre position in a pretty grim job market. Easy to be choosy when the sun is shining - hope they are saving something to weather the next dip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePRU
Millennials did not invent this. What has been changing is that people are getting married later and later (if at all) and people are having kids later and later (if at all). For some, marriage and children are the driving force that sends them out to the suburbs seeking green lawns, white picket fences, more space, and better regarded public schools. Others (of many generations), love urban living and never leave no matter what.
Bingo! We, and the majority of our friends did this long before it was a thing.....stayed in the city in condos with kids until we wanted to and/or needed to move. We all essentially skipped the starter suburb house and went straight to the trade-up house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePRU
Urban living sounds great, but even my friends who cling to it admit that stuffing 4 or 5 people in a small space especially when 2 to 3 of those people are very small, very active children can create very challenging living situations which a short commute and easy access to shops/restaurants doesn't necessarily offset.
Yup, spent 15+ yrs in back bay/south end/beacon hill .... many of those years with kids. We took full advantage of all the city had to offer but have no regrets whatsoever about our move to 'burbia, although admittedly we are not really in the boonies now. However, had we not spent the time that we did in the city we might be looking at it wistfully now.
On the other hand we have friends who left in their 20s and are very happy and avoid the big city at all costs ....different strokes and all that.
I guess that was my question. Do companies like Reebok and and Converse fit into this subset/culture? And does their current workforce reflect this, or is it more who they are aspiring to represent/or hire in the future?
Knowing a bit about the employees and culture at each company, I can say they stand to benefit from an urban location more so than other companies/industries. Their employees, specifically on the dev side, trend towards young because, frankly, it's a trend driven market and a few knowledgeable employees in upper management can drive a young team to success. Young employees demand an urban environment, so if your recruiting trends toward younger talent, an urban office is highly beneficial.
I work in medical development and the staff is, generally speaking, much older than the development teams in footwear/apparel. The reality is we're working on complex problems in highly regulated markets - the type of work which requires not only skill and intelligence, but also a great deal of experience. If you're targeting talent with 8+ years of experience, location inside urban cores is less critical ... in my case, it's a deal breaker.
Sitting in traffic for 30 min+ vs being on a bus or orange line 30+, no freaking contest, T all day. Oh no, problem on the T, I have to wait 4 minutes for the next train or switch to the bus that takes me within a block of the same place. Damn!
This. I loved it when I could take the bus and subway to work. Throw my headphones on and read a book, a magazine, scroll through emails and respond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
Unemployment rates are low. In this region, very low.
And if you look at college educated (even just undergrad), its really full employment.
Finding good talent is the problem. Location is a big recruiting point.
Very good point. There's a reason GE was looking at a place like Boston to move their HQ to and not Miami or Orlando. Boston simply offers a more educated workforce than Miami or Orlando for example.
There's a reason GE was looking at a place like Boston to move their HQ to and not Miami or Orlando. Boston simply offers a more educated workforce than Miami or Orlando for example.
It's also significantly easier on the company, employees, contractors, vendors and visitors to move so close within the same region.
Not to mention how Walsh and Baker essentially paid them in tax breaks and GE-specific infrastructure upgrades to come here.
I don't think it's just employee preferences that are driving this. Why are financial, law, media, etc entities congregate together in a small region - like central business districts? Cities have long been places where knowledge gets disseminated and distributed. Corporations moving their headquarters to center of cities are trying to take advantage of this. That is the reason GE gave as the primary reason for moving to Boston - be close to the people who have specialized skills in technology and science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
