Cape Breton island welcomes American refugees

[MadImmortalMan]

Yes, by all accounts the Maritimes are gorgeous.  But there might be a reason I've met so many maritimers (and in particular Cape Bretoners) in Alberta who tell me how gorgeous it is...

when people talk about how gorgeous a place is, they usually do not employ this adjective for overcrowded cities.  Landscapes totally devoid of people are gorgeous, not Hong-Kong wannabes...

Well, yeah.

[Berkut]

I guess talent would need to want to work over there? I mean my industry is often in major cities, even though there is little reason that most research staff need to be. Hell even for those visiting clients, most pharma firms aren't in the cities.

I think the main problem is perceived prestige. Having a downtown address = you are a major player.

Well yes, that's true. Though again, as you've said, that could be solved by having an office but a smaller one and then have other people located elsewhere.

Actually that is how my team in the US works. I think there is one person still based in NYC, everyone else is in NJ, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina and Georgia and just works at home.

I strongly suspect this is the wave of the future, and what is stopping it happening now is pure inertia and conservatism in my profession. 

There would be an interesting back and forth if that were to happen.

As more workers leave the "high prestige" locations due to cost, the cost would come down, making the value proposition for the prestige move in the other direction...

[viper37]

This has always struck me as economically dumb. Why not divide the firm up and only have those lawyers who actually need to be close to downtown/the courts there, and put the others elsewhere? Yet the big firms don't do that.

One, they were set up that way before we had technology that would let us have real, practical video conference between an office in Toronto and an office in Vancouver.
Two, that technology is often not available in remote area.  I'm 1.5 hours away from Quebec city, and I don't have access to uber top speed for my internet connection, especially the upload speed is drastically limited (12mbps).  For regular web surfing and downloading stuff, it's ok.  For a lawyer's firm that need to have real time video conferencing, it won't be that practical.
Second, once in a while, you need to step foot in the main office.  If you go from Cape Breton to Toronto, your firm will need to pay you to drive to Halifax, plus the air transport.  It comes expensive, even if for once in a while.
Third, lots of companies tried to have their employees work at home.  Lots.  It was thought to be the future, at some point.  Recent moves have companies move to bigger offices and have everyone at the same place, even if it's low level jobs like customer support.  It seems the costs of setting up everyone in their homes was prohibitive, even in big cities, and I suspect it's the same for smaller offices, you need people to set up the computer infrastructures and companies usually want their own teams to do that.

[Berkut]

As someone who spent the last four years working from home, and now working for a bank where there are some people who work from home, some remotely, and most onsite, I see the difference.

If you work from home in a culture where everyone works remotely, it works out just fine. For a given meeting, everyone is remote, and that is fine. For a given set of meetings happening over time, it is just expected that everyone will be connecting remotely, and if by chance a few people are together in a conference room somewhere, no big deal, they are expected to adjust.

But now, working somewhere where it is common for some people to work remotely, and common for most to be in an office...the remote workers are definitely marginalized. When you have 20 people in a conference room, and 6 dialed in remotely, there is no question that the six lack influence. A lot of time that is fine, and if I know I won't really be a major contributor, then I am happy to work from home that day and dial in.

But if it is something important, where I feel I will need to drive the content, or be a major contributor, I am making that 1.5 hour drive because I know I cannot possibly contribute properly without being in the room.

[Malthus]

This has always struck me as economically dumb. Why not divide the firm up and only have those lawyers who actually need to be close to downtown/the courts there, and put the others elsewhere? Yet the big firms don't do that.

One, they were set up that way before we had technology that would let us have real, practical video conference between an office in Toronto and an office in Vancouver.
Two, that technology is often not available in remote area.  I'm 1.5 hours away from Quebec city, and I don't have access to uber top speed for my internet connection, especially the upload speed is drastically limited (12mbps).  For regular web surfing and downloading stuff, it's ok.  For a lawyer's firm that need to have real time video conferencing, it won't be that practical.
Second, once in a while, you need to step foot in the main office.  If you go from Cape Breton to Toronto, your firm will need to pay you to drive to Halifax, plus the air transport.  It comes expensive, even if for once in a while.
Third, lots of companies tried to have their employees work at home.  Lots.  It was thought to be the future, at some point.  Recent moves have companies move to bigger offices and have everyone at the same place, even if it's low level jobs like customer support.  It seems the costs of setting up everyone in their homes was prohibitive, even in big cities, and I suspect it's the same for smaller offices, you need people to set up the computer infrastructures and companies usually want their own teams to do that.

I agree that moving just myself to Cape Breton is probably a step too far right now.   

I was thinking more like 'move all of the lawyers & staff who don't actually need regular court access out of downtown Toronto'. Like to somewhere in the burbs where rent is comparatively cheap, or even to a satellite city like Barrie (again, because of cheap rent).

I actually don't like the notion of working at home - for one, I value maintaining a certain separation between home life and work, that technology threatens to erase.  Plus, access to support staff. 

[viper37]

This has always struck me as economically dumb. Why not divide the firm up and only have those lawyers who actually need to be close to downtown/the courts there, and put the others elsewhere? Yet the big firms don't do that.

One, they were set up that way before we had technology that would let us have real, practical video conference between an office in Toronto and an office in Vancouver.
Two, that technology is often not available in remote area.  I'm 1.5 hours away from Quebec city, and I don't have access to uber top speed for my internet connection, especially the upload speed is drastically limited (12mbps).  For regular web surfing and downloading stuff, it's ok.  For a lawyer's firm that need to have real time video conferencing, it won't be that practical.
Second, once in a while, you need to step foot in the main office.  If you go from Cape Breton to Toronto, your firm will need to pay you to drive to Halifax, plus the air transport.  It comes expensive, even if for once in a while.
Third, lots of companies tried to have their employees work at home.  Lots.  It was thought to be the future, at some point.  Recent moves have companies move to bigger offices and have everyone at the same place, even if it's low level jobs like customer support.  It seems the costs of setting up everyone in their homes was prohibitive, even in big cities, and I suspect it's the same for smaller offices, you need people to set up the computer infrastructures and companies usually want their own teams to do that.

I agree that moving just myself to Cape Breton is probably a step too far right now.   

I was thinking more like 'move all of the lawyers & staff who don't actually need regular court access out of downtown Toronto'. Like to somewhere in the burbs where rent is comparatively cheap, or even to a satellite city like Barrie (again, because of cheap rent).

I actually don't like the notion of working at home - for one, I value maintaining a certain separation between home life and work, that technology threatens to erase.  Plus, access to support staff. 

There's a difference between having a satellite office in Barrie and one in Louisbourg.

[Malthus]

There's a difference between having a satellite office in Barrie and one in Louisbourg.

Well, I'd agree. The former is easily possible right now, while the latter may become easily possible in the near future, with improvements in communication tech.

[OttoVonBismarck]

What it doesn't point out is that Americans can't simply move to Canada - there's a whole immigration process to go through.

This is why I eye roll so hard at the idiots who say "if you don't like America, just move." Most people don't realize you can't "just move" most places anyone would want to live. If you're in the OECD and you're not part of one of the big "eased immigration/ free immigration" blocs, like the Schengen area or the British Commonwealth it's really just not easy to emigrate there.

If you're an American and want to move to Central America it's somewhat easier, but most Americans aren't gung ho over that prospect.

It is odd to me that a lot of countries will accept unlimited Muslim refugees who have low education, poor jobs kills and who will probably be a drain on society for 2-3 generations if not more but someone with marketable job skills and assets basically cannot immigrate to say, Britain from the United States or vice versa. Although America does have more liberal "non-refugee" immigration than most, maybe any, OECD country, in that there's a big lottery that literally anyone can enter. While some countries have higher immigration rates than the United States, most of these are entirely because of refugees, very few OECDs countries seem to believe in allowing educated middle class immigration. Maybe it's because there's a fear of exposing middle class citizens to competition from abroad in the labor market, I dunno.

[Josquius]

Gorgeous natural scenery and being a good place to live are usually mutually exclusive.

[MadImmortalMan]

Gorgeous natural scenery and being a good place to live are usually mutually exclusive.

And when they aren't, the people who move there turn them into bad places to live.

[Malthus]

This is why I eye roll so hard at the idiots who say "if you don't like America, just move." Most people don't realize you can't "just move" most places anyone would want to live. If you're in the OECD and you're not part of one of the big "eased immigration/ free immigration" blocs, like the Schengen area or the British Commonwealth it's really just not easy to emigrate there.

If you're an American and want to move to Central America it's somewhat easier, but most Americans aren't gung ho over that prospect.

It is odd to me that a lot of countries will accept unlimited Muslim refugees who have low education, poor jobs kills and who will probably be a drain on society for 2-3 generations if not more but someone with marketable job skills and assets basically cannot immigrate to say, Britain from the United States or vice versa. Although America does have more liberal "non-refugee" immigration than most, maybe any, OECD country, in that there's a big lottery that literally anyone can enter. While some countries have higher immigration rates than the United States, most of these are entirely because of refugees, very few OECDs countries seem to believe in allowing educated middle class immigration. Maybe it's because there's a fear of exposing middle class citizens to competition from abroad in the labor market, I dunno.

It's based on humanitarianism, not self-interested reasons: countries with a choice typically accept Muslim refugees because enough people are convinced it is the right thing to do, to save them from a terrible fate. So they make an exception to the usual rules.

[Valmy]

It's based on humanitarianism, not self-interested reasons: countries with a choice typically accept Muslim refugees because enough people are convinced it is the right thing to do, to save them from a terrible fate. So they make an exception to the usual rules.

Damn. Bismark was wrong all along.

[Malthus]

It's based on humanitarianism, not self-interested reasons: countries with a choice typically accept Muslim refugees because enough people are convinced it is the right thing to do, to save them from a terrible fate. So they make an exception to the usual rules.

Damn. Bismark was wrong all along.

Clue me in on the reference?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Which is odd to me--because even with influxes of Muslims a lot of Europe is going to suffer debilitating demographic collapse. It just seems odd that you'd not be doing anything proactive about that. Canada like the U.S. is in better shape in that regard, but it's just odd that you wouldn't want educated immigrants with job skills AND refugees. The United States accepts both, albeit it's not as liberal on refugees these days (sometimes we have been--we had a very liberal policy to Vietnamese refugees for a couple decades until that program phased out.)

[Valmy]

Clue me in on the reference?

That nations have no friends, only interests. Yet here they are not pursuing interests for the purposes of being good friends.