Amazon HQ2

[clubtokyo]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

No kidding. IBM opened an office in Austin in 1937 and had a factory here by 1967, as did Texas Instruments. Motorola came in 1974, MCC in 1983 along with 3M. Dell didn't come until 1984 after all of those. Austin's been a "tech city" however you want to define that for half a century, which is pretty amazing when you think about it.

Thanks for the history, that really is impressive. Do you think it was because of UT?

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

Austin, at one point, was not a tech city full of engineering professionals. Then Dell planted itself in Round Rock. Eventually, small to medium size tech companies starting moving here or organically grew from Dell employees leaving to start their own companies. Then before you knew it, Austin was crawling with tech workers. Tech workers will follow where the jobs are.

I would say it started back even further, before Dell, when Motorola set up shop in Austin. Then IBM set up a big work force when they moved their Boca Raton, Florida employees here. Dell didn't just plop down in Round Rock. It started in Michael Dell's UT dorm room and grew organically from that...with the help of a lot of talent from other tech companies. e.g. When I worked at IBM back in the day, Dell pilfered IBMers on a regular basis. Why? Dell was fast growing and going places at the time. They offered better salaries and stock options that many made a boatload of money off of.
I myself even considered leaving for an offer from Dell.

It's the same playbook Amazon could/would easily copy. Amazon is more powerful and capable than even Dell was back then.

None of Motorola, IBM, or Dell immediately set out to hire 50k people in 10-15 years. Their beginnings were much more modest. Even at it's biggest, I don't believe Dell ever had 50k employees in the Austin area. So this isn't the same thing.

Also...Motorola, IBM, Dell did bring in a lot of tech talent from elsewhere. Because they could. Austin was a desirable place to move to even back then. It was known to have a growing tech scene. IBM brought me down from Chicago. Chicago wasn't a tech mecca. In my mind, Silicon Valley, and Austin were the only two places I was really considering back then. I interviewed in Silicon Valley. I then visited Austin for an interview...and I was sold. Frankly, Silicon Valley blows chunks. It was a bland, suburban sprawl hell and San Francisco was a pain to travel to. I knew I would enjoy Austin way more than SV.

My point is: The mindset of more recent Millenial computer science and software engineering graduates hasn't changed much from what mine was back then.

Millenials will move on a moments notice if the opportunity is right. Single with no kids, I would say $100k income is a nice opportunity for a young professional, especially if the locale has a low cost of living and the culture is decent.

People who get $100k+ job offers, get multiple $100k+ job offers. Unless they are the less desirable engineers that have few options, they aren't going to move just anywhere. Talented software engineers can pretty much pick where they want to go. They will almost always pick top tier technology cities. Some may go to whichever random city because of Amazon, but most won't. They'll have options.

Yes, it would cost Amazon more to start from scratch in a city with a small talent pool. They would have to pay out a little more in relocation packages to get people to move, but that cost should go into their calculus whether to move to that city or not. To relocate 50k employees with a $10k relo pkg, it would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $500M over 10-15 years. $50M a year is peanuts. That's worst case. Ideally a good number of the talent will come from surrounding universities with students who already live there.

It's not the costs. I'm sorry to keep repeating this, but it's not the same as hiring people to fill rudimentary factory jobs. These people aren't going to go just anywhere. Even older engineers want to be someplace where there are options. Software engineers switch jobs...A LOT! If you come to a time in your career in which you feel you need to leave your job, you want to be in these places: Austin, Boston, DC, Seattle, SV, SF. In any of those, you *know* that you can easily find another company to go to without needing to pick up and move cross-country.

For example. One city that keeps being mentioned, Atlanta. I'm NEVER, EVER going to move there for a software job. Not for Amazon, not for any company. They aren't going to be able to pay me enough. I want to be someplace where I can easily go to the next cool opportunity working with the latest cutting edge stuff. Atlanta simply does not have that.

Also, just because Austin has a good size talent pool doesn't mean that it's available. Austin has something like 3% unemployment. There's not a whole lot of available talent out there. My feeling is thst even if Amazon plans to raid the smaller local companies for their talent, there's only so much dissatisfied talent they can squeeze out of these small companies before they need to import from out of town.

But in a non-tech city, there's little talent to hire at all. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. And as far as the unemployment rate, this isn't any different than any other tech city. Software engineers are in demand. I'm not sure what the unemployment rate is in my field, but fairly certain that it's lower than 3%.

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Yeah...no.

If you said IBM. Or MCC. Maybe.

Well that's a matter of opinion when Austin truly became a tech hub. IBM never set up an HQ here. Dell did and was the one that really put Austin on the map, IMO. They grew to levels IBM never did in Austin.

But whether it's Dell or IBM, we're digressing and splitting hairs. The point is Austin was once a town like Syracuse and was considered nothing more than a college town before a big company came in and changed the ratio of the population to be less college and more tech. Just because a town isn't known for having a tech talent pool should not disqualify it. You build it, they will come.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

Well that's a matter of opinion when Austin truly became a tech hub. IBM never set up an HQ here. Dell did and was the one that really put Austin on the map, IMO. They grew to levels IBM never did in Austin.

But whether it's Dell or IBM, we're digressing and splitting hairs. The point is Austin was once a town like Syracuse and was considered nothing more than a college town before a big company came in and changed the ratio of the population to be less college and more tech. Just because a town isn't known for having a tech talent pool should not disqualify it. You build it, they will come.

ignoring all the other errors:

At the time each and every one of those tech companies came to (or started in) Austin, Austin was a dynamic and growing city (double digit rates each decade for forever).

Contrast this with Syracuse which is dying and contracting.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

My feeling is thst even if Amazon plans to raid the smaller local companies for their talent, there's only so much dissatisfied talent they can squeeze out of these small companies before they need to import from out of town.

Oh.. And.. No matter where Amazon picks, they are going to have to also import talent from elsewhere. There's no way around that.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

Just because a town isn't known for having a tech talent pool should not disqualify it. You build it, they will come.

A few will. But in general. Nope, they won't come. They simply won't.

[mumu]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

Well that's a matter of opinion when Austin truly became a tech hub. IBM never set up an HQ here. Dell did and was the one that really put Austin on the map, IMO. They grew to levels IBM never did in Austin.

But whether it's Dell or IBM, we're digressing and splitting hairs. The point is Austin was once a town like Syracuse and was considered nothing more than a college town before a big company came in and changed the ratio of the population to be less college and more tech. Just because a town isn't known for having a tech talent pool should not disqualify it. You build it, they will come.

Comparing Syracuse and Austin in any way or at any time is not valid. Maybe Albany and Austin, due to being capitals of large population states with downtown-ish universities.

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by Novacek

ignoring all the other errors:

At the time each and every one of those tech companies came to (or started in) Austin, Austin was a dynamic and growing city (double digit rates each decade for forever).

Contrast this with Syracuse which is dying and contracting.

Yea dude, you're missing the point left and right. I don't how else I can explain it for ya.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

Yea dude, you're missing the point left and right. I don't how else I can explain it for ya.

Sure, Amazon could choose Bumfuck Alabama. Buy a whole damn company town, population 10. Or a ghost town in Nevada. Population 0.


Super cheap.


Doesn't mean people will move there, no matter if they "build it".

[ATXboom]

When Austin was selected to be the Home of International Sematec to compete with Japanese dominance in semiconductors it started.

[Mopacs]

One thing that is not often mentioned in all of this... Where will Amazon as a corporation be in 10 years? It's a behemoth now, but who knows what the future will bring.

[The ATX]

My picks have been NoVa, Atl, DFW or Boston. This project filing makes a good case Atlanta:

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/...r-amazons.html

An undisclosed party has filed plans to develop 9.3 million square feet of office and 1 million square feet of retail space at the Gulch, near CNN Center and Philips Arena. Plans also call for a 1,500-room hotel and 2,100 apartments. This is a 9-acre property owned by the city of Atlanta, according to Fulton County property records.

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by Mopacs

One thing that is not often mentioned in all of this... Where will Amazon as a corporation be in 10 years? It's a behemoth now, but who knows what the future will bring.

Remember this scene from Idiocracy? Just change out Costco for Amazon. Would be awesome if they built this at the Statesman site. You could envision the I-35 bridge over the river to the right there. "Welcome to Amazon, I love you [so much]."



• Video Link

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by mumu

Comparing Syracuse and Austin in any way or at any time is not valid. Maybe Albany and Austin, due to being capitals of large population states with downtown-ish universities.

Have you heard of Syracuse University?

At the 2010 census, the city population was 145,252, and its metropolitan area had a population of 662,577. It is the economic and educational hub of Central New York, a region with over one million inhabitants.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syracuse,_New_York

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Sure, Amazon could choose Bumfuck Alabama. Buy a whole damn company town, population 10. Or a ghost town in Nevada. Population 0.


Super cheap.


Doesn't mean people will move there, no matter if they "build it".

I don't where Bumfuck Alabama is. Sounds cheap, but also sounds like it might be a little painful living there.

I believe we were talking about Syracuse as an example. Have you actually looked at where Syracuse is on the map? It's in shouting distance to Boston, NYC, and DC.

Now look at Austin on the map. If we want to talk about Bumfuck... How close is it to any place of consequence? Let's be clear, I'm not advocating Syracuse as a prime candidate. I'm just saying that to arrogantly discount Syracuse would be naive.

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Oh.. And.. No matter where Amazon picks, they are going to have to also import talent from elsewhere. There's no way around that.

That was my point. Sorry it wasn't clear.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

I don't where Bumfuck Alabama is. Sounds cheap, but also sounds like it might be a little painful living there.

I believe we were talking about Syracuse as an example. Have you actually looked at where Syracuse is on the map? It's in shouting distance to Boston, NYC, and DC.

Now look at Austin on the map. If we want to talk about Bumfuck... How close is it to any place of consequence? Let's be clear, I'm not advocating Syracuse as a prime candidate. I'm just saying that to arrogantly discount Syracuse would be naive.

Syracuse is 4-6 hours driving from any place of consequence. Austin is 3 hours from two of the largest and most important metro areas in the country, not to mention centrally located enough to be within a reasonable flight time to anywhere else. Syracuse is a dying city and the total metro area is a quarter of Austin's. The weather sucks. I could go on...

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by paul78701

I would say it started back even further, before Dell, when Motorola set up shop in Austin. Then IBM set up a big work force when they moved their Boca Raton, Florida employees here.

This goes to my point that Dell was the sea change in Austin, not IBM. When the IBM satellite was in Boca Raton, was Boca then considered a tech city? No. So when they moved to Austin, Austin was considered a tech city all of a sudden? Austin was just another city with one of many IBM saltellites.

No other company impacted this town more than Dell. The scale and money that a Dell HQ brought into this economy dwarfs anything IBM brought to Austin. I don't recall IBMionaires, but I remember Dellionaires. Smaller companies sprouted to be near the Dell HQ. I'm not sure the same could be said for an IBM satellite office manufacturing typewriters.

People who get $100k+ job offers, get multiple $100k+ job offers. Unless they are the less desirable engineers that have few options, they aren't going to move just anywhere. Talented software engineers can pretty much pick where they want to go. They will almost always pick top tier technology cities. Some may go to whichever random city because of Amazon, but most won't. They'll have options.


It's not the costs. I'm sorry to keep repeating this, but it's not the same as hiring people to fill rudimentary factory jobs. These people aren't going to go just anywhere. Even older engineers want to be someplace where there are options. Software engineers switch jobs...A LOT! If you come to a time in your career in which you feel you need to leave your job, you want to be in these places: Austin, Boston, DC, Seattle, SV, SF. In any of those, you *know* that you can easily find another company to go to without needing to pick up and move cross-country.

For example. One city that keeps being mentioned, Atlanta. I'm NEVER, EVER going to move there for a software job. Not for Amazon, not for any company. They aren't going to be able to pay me enough. I want to be someplace where I can easily go to the next cool opportunity working with the latest cutting edge stuff. Atlanta simply does not have that.



But in a non-tech city, there's little talent to hire at all. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. And as far as the unemployment rate, this isn't any different than any other tech city. Software engineers are in demand. I'm not sure what the unemployment rate is in my field, but fairly certain that it's lower than 3%.

Just also keep in mind that Amazon HQ is not all software engineers.

I don't see Austin as "top tier". I consider it on the same level as Denver, Raleigh and Atlanta. If you're a top tier engineer, you're going to go west to Seattle or the Valley, or Boston. If you want to work with the best on the leading edge and be paid for it, go to those places. So to your point about Atlanta, some might say the same about Austin. FWIW, recent CBRE report ranked Altanta #5 to Austin's #8 as top cities for techies.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

If you're a top tier engineer, you're going to go west to Seattle or the Valley, or Boston. If you want to work with the best on the leading edge and be paid for it, go to those places.

What you say about Dell makes sense. But I couldn't let this one alone. I've had offers in all those cities, and also have done business in them. But decided on Austin as my final resting spot. The point is, I chose Austin, not those other cities. I think you'll find that pretty common. Don't like Seattle weather, don't like California commutes. Don't like east coast mobs. Thus, Austin.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

This goes to my point that Dell was the sea change in Austin, not IBM. When the IBM satellite was in Boca Raton, was Boca then considered a tech city? No. So when they moved to Austin, Austin was considered a tech city all of a sudden? Austin was just another city with one of many IBM saltellites.

Boca a tech city? Of course not. That makes no sense at all. IBM was the only thing in Boca that I'm aware of. So no, it wasn't a tech city.

When IBM moved the Boca staff to Austin, they obviously weren't the only tech company in town. They joined the ranks of an already existing tech scene...which was mostly hardware oriented. IBM helped round out the Austin tech portfolio by bringing it's software chops.

It doesn't seem that you know much about IBM's Austin presence. Just about everyone that worked/works there is in software. There are very, very few hardware people there in comparison.

IBM helped put Austin on the map software wise. Some well known Austin software companies sprouted from the likes of former IBMers. (Tivoli for example.) IBM itself didn't make Austin a tech city, it just helped solidify Austin as a tech spot. Just like Dell wasn't *the* company to make Austin a tech city. But yes, Dell did further help solidify Austin's standing.

(Yes, I realize that some software companies were started by Dell people also.)

No other company impacted this town more than Dell. The scale and money that a Dell HQ brought into this economy dwarfs anything IBM brought to Austin. I don't recall IBMionaires, but I remember Dellionaires. Smaller companies sprouted to be near the Dell HQ. I'm not sure the same could be said for an IBM satellite office manufacturing typewriters.

You're right. No company probably had more impact than Dell. But I, and many others, don't really think of it as what finally what made Austin a tech city. That happened before Dell turned into a giant.

Just also keep in mind that Amazon HQ is not all software engineers.

Of course it's not. But that is the primary skill set that they are looking for.

I don't see Austin as "top tier". I consider it on the same level as Denver, Raleigh and Atlanta. If you're a top tier engineer, you're going to go west to Seattle or the Valley, or Boston. If you want to work with the best on the leading edge and be paid for it, go to those places. So to your point about Atlanta, some might say the same about Austin. FWIW, recent CBRE report ranked Altanta #5 to Austin's #8 as top cities for techies.

Austin is top tier. Believe it or not, the pay does match up with those three cities. So does the technology. I have no idea why you think otherwise. It's not as large as those those, but I've been around long enough to know where Austin stands in the market nationwide. There's a reason why so many companies (tech or otherwise) open up big, tech oriented offices here.

I vaguely recall that CBRE report that you mention. If I remember right, it just talked about tech workers in a generic sense. It wasn't very detailed. I know of no software engineers, or anyone in the tech industry, who would put Atlanta (or Denver) in the same class with Austin or the three you mentioned.

Raleigh has a tech scene, sure. It used to be considered one of the top tech scenes (I believe IBM's RTP offices are still it's largest.), but it seems that it hasn't really kept up with Austin. I don't hear much about it (and no longer have recruiters contacting me from there) these days.