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 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.
How many cities can you viably exist without a car? Boston, NYC, DC, SF, Chicago? Maybe a few others? Again, you're probably going to pay more in rent or for property that is convenient to the subway or bus lines than you would in the suburbs further out.
It usually does whether you live there or not.
If you live there you have to pay higher for crappier housing plus you have to pay to park, etc. Then there is the cost of a meal while you are there. My experience suggests you pay more for that in the city too. If you don't live there you have to commute in. If you drive you'll have to pay for parking either way. Many cities also have a tax imposed on people that work in the city but don't live there. Insurance costs (health, property, etc.) also tend to be higher for city than outside the city.
In the example given the city worker was also getting paid less to boot.
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.
Hamster-style living may be familiar to individuals just getting out of school but that hardly means a significant number of them prefer it. Not sure you ever put forth a "quality of life" question but living in a condo does not represent a positive quality of life especially given the ubiquitous legal disputes and legal ownership entanglement involved in hive living. Your "style" seems to be singly focused on luxury or non-luxury condo living - both of which represent a poor "quality of life" rather than "style of life" whatever that was supposed to mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
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.
Considering that so few actually pursue degrees that prepare them for anything beyond what they could have done without said degree - of course the companies are correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
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.
"millenial culture"? care to define that one? Description from a fairly recent paper claims: "Millennials are more likely to socialize with friends and family daily — and to go to communal social events, like concerts and basketball game" while describing millenials as aged "16-29".
16 year olds aren't renting apartments. The "socializing daily with friends and family" for the others is because they're living at home or single. After they find a significant other at all these "communal social events" they will tend to want something more than a "condo" where someone else is telling them what they are allowed to do. They might actually want a yard (gasp!), privacy, more private ownership (than "communal, open space" ownership), a decent school district/school, and many other things. So they'll seek housing that meets those needs - and 99/100 times it won't be downtown. So your hiring scheme might be great for obtaining and indoctrinating new, young, single employees with liberal arts degrees but they'll be migrating off to more desirable housing in a few years. Perhaps it's a great idea for companies (or company divisions) that expect or want to have a high turnover (e.g., consulting firms, sales offices, etc.) on the other hand maybe you're just paying to educate your competitor's employees (the competitor being located someplace besides downtown).
So your hiring scheme might be great for obtaining and indoctrinating new, young, single employees with liberal arts degrees but they'll be migrating off to more desirable housing in a few years. Perhaps it's a great idea for companies (or company divisions) that expect or want to have a high turnover (e.g., consulting firms, sales offices, etc.) on the other hand maybe you're just paying to educate your competitor's employees (the competitor being located someplace besides downtown).
Even if it's true that the vast majority young people with liberal arts degrees will eventually move out of the city to the suburbs (it remains to be seen in the current generation just how strong of a majority that will be) why does that necessarily mean they will leave the downtown company for competitors located outside downtown? It's not like all the thousands of companies located in Manhattan, or the Loop in Chicago, or downtown San Francisco or whatever dense urban downtown you want to name are solely populated by young people fresh out of college. Plenty of older people are working there too.
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.
I've said it before, and I'll say it here: one of the reasons I like rust-belt cities, is because they haven't gotten outrageously expensive to live in, yet. (though, I think Pittsburgh is well on its way, from what I've read on this forum)
However, every neighborhood in Youngstown is cheaper than living in the suburbs, because most of the suburbanites think all of Youngstown is "the hood." And yes, crime rates are higher in every Youngstown neighborhood; some are much worse than others. But, I was willing to take the slightly elevated risk of being a victim of a crime, for the advantages of living in the city. (i.e. better transit access, walkable, close proximity to Mill Creek Park, more attractive--to me--early 20th century neighborhood, etc.)
I understand that perception of safety, and one's willingness to deal with the potential for crime, is different for everyone. For me, the perception of safety wasn't a high priority.
Most people who want to live in the city understand these issues, and are either willing to pay more rent, or are willing to deal with a higher potential for crime.
How many cities can you viably exist without a car? Boston, NYC, DC, SF, Chicago? Maybe a few others? Again, you're probably going to pay more in rent or for property that is convenient to the subway or bus lines than you would in the suburbs further out.
True enough, the US only has half a dozen or so truly urban cities. The fact that they also have the most expensive real estate in the country says something about how desirable density and public transit is for many people (not everyone, but enough people to significantly increase prices).
That said, I have a friend who used to bike or take the bus from Broad Ripple to work at the Children's Museum every day, so even in other cities there are distinct benefits to living in a denser environment with public transit. He and his wife would have had to own two cars if they were outside the city, which feed up $300 or so every month to put towards a mortgage. They also had a decent amount of things to do within walking distance of their house.
No. An example is Microsoft. The main campus in Redmond is basically a humongous office park type setting, and yet they attract best and brightest candidates. They are able to offer amenities and sufficient compensation.
That campus was built 20 years ago. Since then they've expanded office space in more urban areas as well as run shuttle busses from the most popular urban neighborhoods out to the campus.
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.
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.
Bold #1: Oh, really? Not what I've seen/heard.
#2: I do not see that happening in Denver. Downtown is one of the employment nodes. The others are the Denver Tech Center and the Broomfield/Boulder corridor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Hamster-style living may be familiar to individuals just getting out of school but that hardly means a significant number of them prefer it. Not sure you ever put forth a "quality of life" question but living in a condo does not represent a positive quality of life especially given the ubiquitous legal disputes and legal ownership entanglement involved in hive living. Your "style" seems to be singly focused on luxury or non-luxury condo living - both of which represent a poor "quality of life" rather than "style of life" whatever that was supposed to mean.
Considering that so few actually pursue degrees that prepare them for anything beyond what they could have done without said degree - of course the companies are correct.
"millenial culture"? care to define that one? Description from a fairly recent paper claims: "Millennials are more likely to socialize with friends and family daily — and to go to communal social events, like concerts and basketball game" while describing millenials as aged "16-29".
16 year olds aren't renting apartments. The "socializing daily with friends and family" for the others is because they're living at home or single. After they find a significant other at all these "communal social events" they will tend to want something more than a "condo" where someone else is telling them what they are allowed to do. They might actually want a yard (gasp!), privacy, more private ownership (than "communal, open space" ownership), a decent school district/school, and many other things. So they'll seek housing that meets those needs - and 99/100 times it won't be downtown. So your hiring scheme might be great for obtaining and indoctrinating new, young, single employees with liberal arts degrees but they'll be migrating off to more desirable housing in a few years. Perhaps it's a great idea for companies (or company divisions) that expect or want to have a high turnover (e.g., consulting firms, sales offices, etc.) on the other hand maybe you're just paying to educate your competitor's employees (the competitor being located someplace besides downtown).
Exactly! I posted something similar a few days ago. I've read all sorts of ranges for millennials, everything from 1980 at one end to 2004 at the other end. Now some of these children born in 2004 just turned 10 years old last month. They're in 4th-5th grade! No matter how you define millennials, a great deal of them are in school, from elementary school to grad school.
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.
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.
I've read that millennials don't have loyalty to their companies, that's one of their defining characteristics. They're supposedly out for themselves. I don't know if I actually agree with that, but that's the mantra.
I've read that millennials don't have loyalty to their companies, that's one of their defining characteristics. They're supposedly out for themselves. I don't know if I actually agree with that, but that's the mantra.
Gen X doesn't have loyalty to our companies either. This is because we saw the Boomers get mistreated by the companies they were loyal to.
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.
