Who is back in the office? (Boston, Haverhill: tax, severance, employers)

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by yesmaybe

A lot of times, when a company moves... that's kind of the point of the move.

I've never heard of that happening. They move a whole company to get away from certain people/employees? Seems like it would be easier to just not hire/fire those people.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by charolastra00

As far as anyone here has let on, no one on this forum is making decisions for a company's relocation.

The challenge with settled companies in Boston is that people fan out all over metro west and even down to Providence. I have coworkers who take the train from Providence or Attleboro 3 days a week - if we moved HQ to Nashua then not only would those people have to move (and possibly uproot their spouse's career) but also all the younger employees who live with roommates in the city would have to buy cars and move. The same is true if we moved to Providence or Worcester - a good chunk of the company has made their life somewhere based on commuting into Boston.

Do I wish there were more opportunities for satellite offices in other cities or more remote work? Absolutely. And I certainly wish new or expanding companies would consider Providence, Worcester, Lowell, Haverhill, Nashua, Springfield, etc. rather than immediately plopping down in Cambridge or Boston. While moving an existing company would likely ease future employees, it's a great way of losing a ton of your existing talent. Even if you're not enjoying a sub 5% interest rate mortgage, just moving to a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment can easily cost $10-15,000 out of pocket with first, last, security, broker's fee and moving expesnes.

Except due to tech companies being clustered in places like Cambridge and Burlington, far more of those employees live north of Boston vs. south. There is an outflow of tech workers from southern NH and the Merrimack Valley to jobs south of there, way more than the reverse. So to a layperson, it would make sense for more companies to locate more of their operations up in that area. Some of course have (often due to employee demand), but you'd think more would follow.

[id77]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Not how it works though, generally. People hop from company to company, and many are not eager to relocate these days. One might live in Chelmsford and their spouse already works in Nashua. Their whole family is here, that tech worker isn't just going to up and move to Salt Lake City. But they would happily work out of Nashua instead of making the nightmare drive to Waltham.

And a worker who wants to stay is easily replaced by the boatload of talent that wants to live in Salt Lake City should the company decide that's a more cost effective strategy for them. The exceptional talent that companies strive to retain will be humored with a remote position or some other package to make the move worthwhile.

There's nothing special about the talent pool in Nashua that sets its apart from the talent pool in other cities, just as there's nothing special about the talent pool in Boston or Cambridge, but there is a higher concentration of that talent aggregated closer to Boston than further out. This often leads to offices along the 128 loop for the same reason you cite as it ends up working both ways: put the office too far into downtown Boston/Cambridge and workers way out in NH won't want to come in, but put the office way out in Lowell or Nashua and the workers in Boston/Cambridge/inner suburbs won't want to drive out. Places like Burlington or Waltham become a comprise that neither pool loves but both are willing to tolerate.

Are there exceptions? Sure, some line up along 495. A few big companies even have more than one office in the area to attempt to cater to both. But for the company that is only going to have one location in New England, the chances it's close in to Boston is much higher simply because its attractive to more of their workforce.

[msRB311]

I am not suggesting that a company with boston roots up and move...but some of these smaller startup tech companies could have chosen locations outside of Boston...they didn't. No one is saying, hey moderna you should pick up and move to Nashua or Providence.

a smaller start up that seems to be going places could try to be more innovative and choose a different spot. They don't probably for fear of not attracting talent I guess.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by id77

And a worker who wants to stay is easily replaced by the boatload of talent that wants to live in Salt Lake City should the company decide that's a more cost effective strategy for them. The exceptional talent that companies strive to retain will be humored with a remote position or some other package to make the move worthwhile.

There's nothing special about the talent pool in Nashua that sets its apart from the talent pool in other cities, just as there's nothing special about the talent pool in Boston or Cambridge, but there is a higher concentration of that talent aggregated closer to Boston than further out. This often leads to offices along the 128 loop for the same reason you cite as it ends up working both ways: put the office too far into downtown Boston/Cambridge and workers way out in NH won't want to come in, but put the office way out in Lowell or Nashua and the workers in Boston/Cambridge/inner suburbs won't want to drive out. Places like Burlington or Waltham become a comprise that neither pool loves but both are willing to tolerate.

Are there exceptions? Sure, some line up along 495. A few big companies even have more than one office in the area to attempt to cater to both. But for the company that is only going to have one location in New England, the chances it's close in to Boston is much higher simply because its attractive to more of their workforce.

This still ignores my point about there being far more employees commuting south from NH (and Chelmsford, etc.) than north from Boston/128 to companies further up. We are talking about competition from fellow employers, in retaining/recruiting employees. There is a talent pool up there that is "ripe for picking". Sure it's not as big as Boston or maybe Salt Lake City, but those places also have more employers competing for workers. I'd be interested to see how many applicants per job opening an equal position results in, Nashua/Lowell area vs. Boston/Cambridge.

[id77]

Originally Posted by msRB311

I am not suggesting that a company with boston roots up and move...but some of these smaller startup tech companies could have chosen locations outside of Boston...they didn't. No one is saying, hey moderna you should pick up and move to Nashua or Providence.

a smaller start up that seems to be going places could try to be more innovative and choose a different spot. They don't probably for fear of not attracting talent I guess.

There are smaller startups who do exactly that. There's little tech parks in Concord, Acton, Lowell, Nashua, and a lot of other places further out jammed full of little startups and big companies alike. There's also a lot that don't.

[id77]

Originally Posted by massnative71

This still ignores my point about there being far more employees commuting south from NH (and Chelmsford, etc.) than north from Boston/128 to companies further up. We are talking about competition from fellow employers, in retaining/recruiting employees. There is a talent pool up there that is "ripe for picking". Sure it's not as big as Boston or maybe Salt Lake City, but those places also have more employers competing for workers. I'd be interested to see how many applicants per job opening an equal position results in, Nashua/Lowell area vs. Boston/Cambridge.

More come in from the north than the other way for various reasons, but the reason that really matters because they can and will.

A lot of tech workers in Boston/Cambridge, myself included, don't have a daily commuter car, so getting from Boston to Burlington or Waltham becomes slow or expensive. I don't think you'll ever get to a point out here where you achieve equilibrium on people commuting in to Boston versus reverse-commuting out simply because there's a chunk of the talent pool close in that cannot or will not do the reverse commute.

If more NH/outside 495 people drew a line in the sand and refused to take any job inside of 495, you could get some interesting test results with applicants that way. However, as long as people living in Nashua/Chelmsford are willing to drive in to Burlington (complaining or not) and people living in Boston/Cambridge are not willing to drive out to Burlington, the scales will always lean toward Boston/Cambridge, or office locations walkable from a commuter rail station (which is rare outside of 128).

[yesmaybe]

Originally Posted by msRB311

I've never heard of that happening. They move a whole company to get away from certain people/employees? Seems like it would be easier to just not hire/fire those people.

Convincing people to quit is cheaper than layoffs. Severance, Unemployment Tax goes up, etc.

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by yesmaybe

Convincing people to quit is cheaper than layoffs. Severance, Unemployment Tax goes up, etc.

We moved an office location a few years back. Only an hour from previous site. Depending on the position, some folks were paid a healthy severance, and some folks were extended relocation assistance and compensation. Some folks were allowed to transition to full WFH and never set foot in the office since.

All depends on who you are, position and what you do and how it aligns with company planning.

[bostongymjunkie]

Interesting piece on WFH:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...9b08d9ee&ei=39