Hacker News Reader

> House prices are a function of wages (or, more accurately, have a floor set by wages if land is constrained) not the other way around.

I guess if you state it as a fact, that makes it true?

But if that’s the case, why would the company pay an engineer more when she moves from the Austin office to the NYC office? She has become more valuable to the company overnight? And the most valuable engineers just happen to live in the most expensive cities?

Sorry, but salaries are impacted by cost of living. Because if they’re paying top talent too low relative to cost of living, those engineers will just move elsewhere, as you suggest.

Yes, this puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the housing market, affecting everyone in the Bay Area. I’m not claiming this is good.

Vancouver is a different situation entirely.

> Why do you think you're entitled to a $1.5m house at all let alone 3 years out of college?

This is not at all what I said. And most people I know here cannot afford a house 10+ years out of college, unless they’ve worked at a top-paying company all those years.

Who is claiming they’re entitled to it? I’m saying companies are offering it to retain employees, because it’s in the companies’ best interest.

> it completely ignores people with real problems, like, oh I don't know, the people who drive the shiny white buses who need to live 2+ hours away.

And there are plenty of people less fortunate than the bus drivers. By your logic, if they don’t like it, they can just move somewhere cheaper. Maybe it’s just too late in the evening, but I’m not really seeing your point here.

>Engineers are compensated well now because of the value they create for their employer

This is dubious.

No, COL definately is a large reason. Even the same engineers at Google will get paid different amounts based on where they are located. I believe the Bay area is x1.5 more than other cities, for google.