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.
That's hilarious. I would consider a job in the city center to reflect a lower quality of life. Not only are you getting paid less - it also costs more to commute there
I would consider a job in the city center to reflect a lower quality of life.
Perhaps you should choose not to work there, then?
Quote:
Not only are you getting paid less
I'm not being paid less, and I don't know that it's true that those who work in the city consistently make less than their suburban counterparts. I was describing a hypothetical situation.
Quote:
- it also costs more to commute there
What nei said.
Last edited by JR_C; 01-21-2015 at 05:07 PM..
Reason: Clarification
Now that the economy is, if not healthy, at least out of intensive care, employers have to work at attracting talent. Walkable downtown location is a plus. With commuter rail for some of the older ones who still want or need to live in suburbs, even better.
For much of the new generation of workers (Gens X and Y), the idea of working in a dreary, architecturally vapid box in a soulless corporate "park" in some far-flung suburb would be considered an absolute living hell.
TIMES TEN for creative types who are gay, "ethnic", or who otherwise would never fit the Stepford Wife mold of upper middle class white suburban life.
Last edited by NYCTelevisionWriter; 01-22-2015 at 06:11 AM..
Now that the economy is, if not healthy, at least out of intensive care, employers have to work at attracting talent. Walkable downtown location is a plus. With commuter rail for some of the older ones who still want or need to live in suburbs, even better.
A fresh out of college Millennial doesn't have a lot of bargaining chips.
A fresh out of college Millennial doesn't have a lot of bargaining chips.
A company's HR and/or PR departments are responsible for making a company attractive to work for. Many companies rely on "fresh out of college" employees that they will want to hang on to as an investment to becoming more senior workers that are familiar with their business model, product and operations. And entry-level wages are just one of those attractions. Benefits, location, work environment, learning environment, etc. are a big part of it.
That's hilarious. I would consider a job in the city center to reflect a lower quality of life. Not only are you getting paid less - it also costs more to commute there
I don't think the bottom line is the actual place you sit to do your job 8-10 hours a day. I think what matters is being able to live where you want, and commute easily to work (ideally without a car.) So if a person wants to live in the city, then a city job would be the less expensive commute, not the more expensive one. And that also solves the quality of life question. Obviously there are lots of luxury lofts and condos in urban areas, and many other non-luxury high-quality options. So it comes down to a question of style of life, not a question of quality of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel
A fresh out of college Millennial doesn't have a lot of bargaining chips.
I love that many corporations actually think this way. "They're just damn kids. They'll work wherever we tell them to work." The funny part is that they're kind of right.
But if you take millennial culture into account when recruiting, you're far more likely to earn their loyalty, trust and high morale. If, on the other hand, you think like FallsAngel, sure you can recruit some talented kids. But you'll have to do it again and again, due to the inevitable low productivity and high turnover.
A fresh out of college Millennial doesn't have a lot of bargaining chips.
That isn't universally true, what anyone can ask for varies widely from industry to industry.
A decent programmer with a little experience and good code samples holds most of the chips. That's why tech is one of the main industries moving to downtown areas. Even companies outside of tech frequently have needs for some programming and IT staff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
That's hilarious. I would consider a job in the city center to reflect a lower quality of life. Not only are you getting paid less - it also costs more to commute there
That's not true at all. Some jobs pay may less and some more, but in many industries the top jobs only exist in cities. It might be more expensive to commute from a suburb to a city, but if you're in the city already it is much less expensive to live without a car and use public transit.
Real estate is local, true. However, corporate recruiting is not. A company that wants to be truly competitive in attracting talent is probably going to look all over. And when they do, they're likely to run into a lot of millenials who are very drawn to places like Portland, Austin, and other cities with lively urban environments.
My theory is that fewer and fewer universities, all over the country, are turning out graduates who are interested in commuting 30-minutes each way by car to a big-box office building in the middle of a 10-acre parking lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
I think when you're Microsoft you can locate wherever you want. You said it yourself "they are able to offer amenities and sufficient compensation". In other words, they can be a city unto themselves. And even if they couldn't, people would make the sacrifice anyway for the prestige and the paycheck of working for Microsoft.
That depends on whether or not there is sufficient compensation to live near the corporate headquarters. If rent is $1,000/month for a studio and the job pays $36K a year, then its a moot point.
I'm not a millennial, and I know it's a different economy now, but when I was entering the workforce, back in 2000, I nearly had two job offers. I interviewed with a coupe different companies within days of each other. One company offered me a job after the first interview. But just a couple days later, I got a call from a second company asking if I could come in for a second interview. (And, I would definitely not consider myself "top talent")
I'm not sure that pay is as big of a consideration as it once was, within reason. If someone is offered $50k/year for the suburban job, but $45k/year for the job in the city center, it may be worth it--for some people--to take the lower paying job for the higher quality of life. But, that's obviously going to be less true as the difference in pay increases.
I definitely agree with you about job description, though. I think having an ideal job in a less-than-ideal location is seen by most as better than a less-than-ideal job in an ideal location.
It often costs more to live in the urban core than some suburbs. Rents in the nicer parts of Indianapolis are generally more than rents in the suburbs, all other things equal. You can live in the hood for cheap, but then you're nowhere near as safe as the suburbs.
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.
