Zuckerberg announces 3 new Facebook tech hubs - Atlanta, Dallas Denver (to buy, income)

[NC2ATL60]

Originally Posted by ATLfromJAX

Wow! Double Wow!!

So are you saying that the executives and board members of some of the largest, most successful companies in the world, who employ some of the smartest and most accomplished people in the US, and have to daily make complex decisions involving literally billions of dollars were SOMEHOW FOOLED by the scenery????

Man..come on. You must have some agenda against Atlanta and trying to come up with logic to fit your narrative.

And BTW, Porsche USA HQ has been in Atlanta for about a decade and a half. They liked it so much, they moved from their Perimeter office and built a flashy new one at the Airport and relocated more jobs to ATL. It was Mercedes that relocated from NJ in 2015...

Yeah, that poster has a history of being very anti anything Atlanta. It's quite comical and sad to say the least.

[markjames68]

The biggest driver for these hubs are the ability to get large quantities of high quality, entry level, cheaper talent. In areas that are likely to retain these people for at least a few years.

If it was just about cost you could do it all in India.

If it was just about entry level you could do it in Kansas or Iowa.

But if it wasn’t about cost or retention they could just hire in SF and Silicon Valley.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by markjames68

The biggest driver for these hubs are the ability to get large quantities of high quality, entry level, cheaper talent. In areas that are likely to retain these people for at least a few years.

If it was just about cost you could do it all in India.

If it was just about entry level you could do it in Kansas or Iowa.

But if it wasn’t about cost or retention they could just hire in SF and Silicon Valley.

True. India however isnt exactly as easy to get into as one might think. They seem to be owned by their own slew of corporations who have the ability to control who comes and who stays. TATA Consulting Services for example seems to be one of them and Google has a (painfully enduring) contract with them in effort to get their foot into the door there. They do carry operations there but for the most part it is entry level as you say.

[brown_dog_us]

Originally Posted by markjames68

The biggest driver for these hubs are the ability to get large quantities of high quality, entry level, cheaper talent. In areas that are likely to retain these people for at least a few years.

If it was just about cost you could do it all in India.

If it was just about entry level you could do it in Kansas or Iowa.

But if it wasn’t about cost or retention they could just hire in SF and Silicon Valley.

Here are the drivers:

Cheaper than Bay Area
Spread over time zones
Big airport

The city that lost out was Chicago and my guess it was because of high taxes / cost of living.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

True. India however isnt exactly as easy to get into as one might think. They seem to be owned by their own slew of corporations who have the ability to control who comes and who stays. TATA Consulting Services for example seems to be one of them and Google has a (painfully enduring) contract with them in effort to get their foot into the door there. They do carry operations there but for the most part it is entry level as you say.

Depends. As I’ve been involved in and with India since the late 90’s (including time doing business with Infosys, Wipro and others) the talent pool has increased but also become diluted. I’ve built and ran development and product teams for 20+ years in India.

Prior to Y2K you could get good people at a cheap price and they were all IIT graduates largely on par with MIT/Caltech/Georgia Tech.

As the demand exploded so did 2nd and 3rd tier universities pumping out lesser talent. So there are more people but they are of varying quality. Also, as Bangalore got built up centers shifted to Chennai, Hyderabad, etc. similar to the US situation.

For the FAANGS and Microsoft, they could expand in India no problem and get good talent. It’s the smaller/less desirable companies that struggle to get and keep them.

[bellhead]

Originally Posted by markjames68

The biggest driver for these hubs are the ability to get large quantities of high quality, entry level, cheaper talent. In areas that are likely to retain these people for at least a few years.

If it was just about cost you could do it all in India.

If it was just about entry level you could do it in Kansas or Iowa.

But if it wasn’t about cost or retention they could just hire in SF and Silicon Valley.

Which is why I advocated earlier for the state & city to come in to develop programs thru grants & funding at existing schools in the area. For ex. a bachelors in computer science with a focus on software development with a co-op program. Work with the tech companies & tailor the programs to what they want to see in a graduate. Having the infrastructure to develop Software developers for these tech companies is crucial, build the infrastructure & we will see a lot more companies choose to locate here for the talent.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by bellhead

Which is why I advocated earlier for the state & city to come in to develop programs thru grants & funding at existing schools in the area. For ex. a bachelors in computer science with a focus on software development with a co-op program. Work with the tech companies & tailor the programs to what they want to see in a graduate. Having the infrastructure to develop Software developers for these tech companies is crucial, build the infrastructure & we will see a lot more companies choose to locate here for the talent.

I think it’s a smart play. We have all the right pieces, just need to put it together.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by ATLfromJAX

Big corporations, going back like 50-60 years ago, (like IBM back in the day) had "hubs" and "regional offices" in major cities like LA, Atlanta, Chicago, etc.

Until recently, the Silicon Valley guys avoided that. But the Amazons and Googles of the world are now 20-25 years old and have started to turn into regular corporations. They are mature companies now with big boy issues.

What's changed is remote work technology has gotten better. These hubs will still exist in the future. They will be smaller now.

We are human, so there will be a need for face-to-face time in the office. But it will be WAY less.

Well like with Amazon in Seattle, they are having trouble getting sufficient talent being all in one place. Plus, there is some politics in it. Harder to lobby against anti-trust or regulations when almost all your employees work in one congressional district in one state.

There's definitely some weird group-think in these places. I don't know if that is part of it or not. They want a culture, but it gets in-bred.

[M3Guy]

Originally Posted by markjames68

The biggest driver for these hubs are the ability to get large quantities of high quality, entry level, cheaper talent. In areas that are likely to retain these people for at least a few years.

If it was just about cost you could do it all in India.

If it was just about entry level you could do it in Kansas or Iowa.

But if it wasn’t about cost or retention they could just hire in SF and Silicon Valley.

This is the scary part. People don't think WFH has downfalls. Employers are all about saving money (rightfully so). Once they realize they can outsource WFH jobs for cheaper, they will. I'm all for either, WFH or go into the office, but there are downsides to both.

[atlHawks]

Originally Posted by M3Guy

This is the scary part. People don't think WFH has downfalls. Employers are all about saving money (rightfully so). Once they realize they can outsource WFH jobs for cheaper, they will. I'm all for either, WFH or go into the office, but there are downsides to both.

The work gets worse the more you outsource it.