Hacker News Reader

Comment by patejam | Hacker News Reader

I think it's an important distinction to say that is isn't a space issue, it's a money issue.

Yes and no. Ultimately, any space issue can be solved with enough money, so yes. But space usually isn't easily expanded. My company has the 7th floor of a 10-floor building. When we hire people as we've been doing, we can either fit them into the existing space somehow, or... move the entire office? Rent space on the floor above or below? It isn't as easy as just "spend a bit more money, get a bit more space," so no.

Ultimately, when they moved into this building, they spent quite a bit more than they needed to for the entire floor, knowing they expected to grow. Now they're cramming people in too closely and will probably have to move to a larger building in the future. In the meantime, however...

So yeah, it's a space issue first and foremost, and a money issue only secondarily.

Yes and yes is what I got out of your answer.

>When we hire people as we've been doing, we can either fit them into the existing space somehow, or... move the entire office?

Yes. Exactly.

My office did it with 0 days down time combining 3 separate locations spread out around a city downtown. We labeled our stuff on Friday, a company was contracted to make sure on Monday our stuff would be in a new office, and it was.

It's a money issue through and through, until the lost productivity is greater than the cost to move, more people get crammed in. Simple as that.

yes it's easy to move when everything is sorted, but it's not quick to get to that point - it's potentially months going from "we need more space" to moving day.

finding the space, contracts, fit outs - it's not a one-day task

The original question was is it space vs money. It's always money.

Unless there is literally no real estate within your location, it's always money.

So for every new hire at your company, you pack up on a Friday and unpack on a Monday? Do you only hire on one day a year, or sign week-long leases, rather than year-long leases?

No, that's silly. You lease a building bigger than you need today, and then when you fill it up you either pause hiring or start cramming people in until your lease is up and you can move.

Or, I guess you can set money on fire and break lease after lease after lease, but I think there's no way around the fact that this is a space issue first and foremost, with money providing a way to mitigate/solve space issues.

In what way is this a valid response to what I said?

We moved into a building bigger than our current size yes... so?

You don't fill up overnight.

Do you hire people on a coin flip? Or make up open positions when it tickles someone's fancy?

We were hiring at an incredible rate, but never got to the point of being actively detrimental to our space because once that was barely in sight, we started to move.

But having money afforded that option.

Hence, it's always money, not space.

It's a valid response because you seem to be denying any factors other than money, which is ridiculous.

I've mentioned lease terms as one major counter-example. It is not enough to lease "larger than you need right now," but given 12-month standard lease terms, you must lease "larger than you will need one year from now," which isn't a factor of money alone.

Office/Commercial space is usually leased on much longer intervals than 1 year. It has to be or it would make no sense to complete the necessary renovations.

We had that problem at a different company (lease start actually, being a little far out) and opened a temporary office for 2 months.

There is literally no situation where any moderately competent company is forced to cram people closer than normal except to save money. Even "normal" is defined by money.

Heck, even an incompetent company can pay a competent company figure it out for them.

> I think it's an important distinction to say that is isn't a space issue, it's a money issue.

It's not even a money issue in general, it's what money is untouchable, vs what money can be freely cut into.

Working conditions for regular employees? Sure, brand it as "increased collaboration" and cut that sucker down to the bone.

Number of yachts per CxO? Nope, can't touch that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com