Canada is (often) to tech what Mexico is to cars.
Mexican 'assembly' of cars is fine and good, but they don't exactly move up the value chain from there.
Canada produces a lot of decent tech people, who will work for 2/3 the wages, unfortunately, this doesn't map to a successful entrepreneurial climate. Now, that's a hard thing to contemplate, as 'nobody' can really compete with SV at their own game, but it's disingenuous in the least to farm out labor and compare that activity with those doing much of the higher-level work, and most importantly: controlling the profits.
Maybe the Mexico analogy goes a little bit too far, as there are tech startups and a few decent companies in Toronto, by and large, but they have serious trouble scaling into anything. To be fair, it's not like most US cities are any better. In fact, aside from the weather and lack of charm, Toronto is a 'better all-around city' than most American cities.
But there's a serious lack of exceptionalism, and far too many of Toronto's best move on to the US, London, or elsewhere.
This kind of 'pathetic nationalism' is why loathe the CBC. It's as though they are utterly unaware of the extent to which they extoll mediocrity.
Canadians are well educated, get along pretty well, and the 'average person' in Canada in many ways lives better than the average American, at very least there's a lot less calamity, fraud, there's full healthcare which isn't great but it's mostly good.
But - on the issue of talent and exceptionalism, it's a disaster. We are near the bottom of the OECD it talent and R&D expenditures. Canada sends China 'raw materials' and they send us back finished goods: this is the opposite of 'first world/developing world' trading norm.
We should not be hailing mediocrity as a victory. It's nice to have jobs, but there is no Valley of the North.
I’m not sure why you’re upset with the CBC over this, we’ve been a branch plant economy since the 1960s. A lot of this has to do with Canadian temperament and mindset, which isn’t particularly entrepreneurial due a dearth of leadership from its investor class.
There have been many tech darlings out of Canada over the years (top of my head - Shopify, Hootsuite, Flickr, Matrox, ATI, BioWare, Eidos, iStockPhoto, Nortel, Corel, BNR, Cognos, Delrina, Hummingbird, Newbridge, Jetform, RIM/Blackberry, OpenText, Mitel, Newbridge networks, QNX, Sierra Wireless, SMART technologies, Redknee, PointClickCare, Solace) but often a reasonable exit lies with pools of capital outside of the country such as IPOing in the US capital markets.
Which gets to my confusion over your complaint. The problem with Canada over the last 50+ Years is that its capital holders are extremely risk averse and largely old money. That’s changing with recent funds, but it takes time for that to lead to improved VC and other funding. But we see this problem in every industry. A major chunk of Canada’s Oil and Gas interests for example are owned by foreigners. I’m not sure what your suggested approach is — Government subsidized entrepreneurship? We already have that to some degree.
Even in the USA we are increasingly seeing grads taking the FAANG paycheque instead of doing a startup. The stress and market barriers are too high to make it worthwhile relative to the alternative of making $150k at age 22.
I’m not sure why you’re upset with the CBC over this
The reason this is so infuriating is the congratulatory rhetoric rings hollow for many Canadians with US work experience who realize how much better it is, in so many (but not all) ways, to be a tech worker in the US vs. in Canada.
To produce articles with the tone of the OP, you would need to be either myopic or disingenuous.
This is especially so in the context of a company like Google. If you're a Canadian engineer who can get a job at Google, your take-home pay after housing will be dramatically higher in the US than in Canada (if you don't like the lifestyle sacrifices that requires in the Bay Area or NYC, you can do better in umpteen smaller cities). All the while you will have access to better health care, lower wait times, and easy immigration status (TN).
we’ve been a branch plant economy since the 1960s. A lot of
this has to do with Canadian temperament and mindset, which
isn’t particularly entrepreneurial due a dearth of
leadership from its investor class.
Wherever you want to draw the line - R&D investment, industrial complexity, and product sophistication have been going down for the last 30 years and the major turning point was NAFTA, large scale migration, and the more globally oriented policies. Most it seemed pretty rational at the time (much of it still does) but now that we see the results, it's time to take a more nuanced approach.
There is a lack of investment capital available to companies based in Canada. Programs like IRAP and SR&ED don't help in any meaningful way.
Canada is a great country, but we've been underperforming for a while now and we should be a lot more concerned about that.
I think IRAP and SRED are okay, they just led to government picking winners (IRAP) and an awful ecosystem of vendors and abuse (SRED).
I’m of the opinion that Canada should take that money and do what Israel did with Yozma. Match the creation of VC funds with government capital and generous exit terms (e.g. government matches with 50% capital, is totally silent partner and can be bought out at any time with a 30% premium). I bet big VCs would jump at the opportunity and everyone would win (Israel actually saw a return in the end).
If people immigrate to canada instead of the us to work in tech, I would expect there to be more companies founded here eventually. Further, fewer caandians will go to the us if hiring rises. I can only imagine it will have upwards pressure on wages too, which will eventually help create a pool of people with some capital for angel investing.
I am against the narrative of this as equivalent to, or comparable to the Silicon Valley.
Of course, it is 'good for Toronto' in many ways, there's little doubt.
The Ontario government, during negotiations with Cisco for a juicy corporate subsidy, indicated that salaries are 'very competitive' and that they'd do 'anything to keep it that way'. Literally stating that he wanted to keep us 'poorer' to guarantee the jobs. (Sorry I can't find the reference).
From a certain perspective, it's understandable: Ontario's competitive advantage is 'a lot of decent tech workers with lower pay' so it makes sense to back that, after all, it's what brings the jobs.
But the very thing that provides a nice economic baseline of wealth (compared to most other countries), also severely limits our potential to be competitive in most areas. Basically, a gilded cage.
The problem with Canada's approach to the US and globalism in this manner is that it systematically reduces the ability of Canadian businesses to be competitive at higher levels.
A commenter noted 'that it brings tech jobs and they might go on to make startups' - which is a good point. But this won't likely be the case, paradoxically, the opposite.
Essentially, NAFTA/USMCA makes Canada an economic suburb: nice place, with basic prosperity, but lacking in exceptionalism and the ability to form groups that bring in real profits, excess surpluses, control, power & influence.
It seems like a paradox - shouldn't free trade, migration etc. make Canada more diverse and competitive? But it's not: Since NAFTA and 'globalization' and 'all of these jobs' ... Canada's expenditures on R&D has actually decreased. Have a look [1].
This in particular, is a disaster. Very important to note that public spending on R&D is not that low (i.e. Canada does good research at University level). And it's not so much that Canadian tech companies spend less on R&D' but it's that Canada produces less and less of the companies that naturally spend on R&D i.e. drugs, medical equipment, tech, etc..
Not only that, in the last 30 years, industrial diversity has actually been shrinking! Have a look [2] Canada isn't even in the top group anymore. Not only this, the sophistication of exports has been going down.
So therein lies the paradox: intelligent people keep saying 'these jobs are great, they'll help us move up the ladder', but it's not the case. NAFTA, large scale migration, other artifacts of globalization and Canada's peculiar history have meant that we get to go to a very 'good spot on the ladder' but actually going higher than that gets even harder.
The Canadian economy is increasingly dependent on Natural Resources and Auto Manufacture for export, and internally, it's driven by 'core businesses' like Finance & Insurance (especially mortgages), construction (again housing) and all of the other things that make a civic community work.
Basically, Canada is becoming a 'very well run civic entity' with less and less R&D spending, less economic complexity, less exceptionalism, fewer knowledge-based exports, and ever greater consumption of foreign products and service and it's the natural result of plain vanilla economic liberal policies, applied without really much thought to the special context of the country. Due to Canada's unique history and lack of its own institutional foundations, it means something different for us than say, Sweden. Almost all of Canadian media consumption is American. The vast majority of the products and services we consume are designed and produced elsewhere, usually in the US.
In order to 'get better' I think we might need a new approach, but I don't think that's what Canadians want - I think even popularity, most Canadians just want 'decent jobs, safety, their Toyota and Netflix'. And so a new Google office is perfect for that.
[1] https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/april-2018/will-can...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_...
Actually Canada products a lot of decent tech people, most of which go south the US. The ones that stay, or the ones that immigrate here, mostly work for 2/3rd (or less) of the wages.
But yes, Canadian economy is mostly "rip and ship"; and that seems to apply to talent education as well.
As in total aggregate, I agree. On a per-capita basis, no. Some countries have a very healthy tech sector without being as large as in the US. Canada does not not need to have FAANG, just an F is enough.
An 'F' generally requires a critical mass of competitive expertise in certain areas, along with the 'F' (and smaller entities) to commercialize it. Basically an 'industrial hub'.
Sweden, Switzerland have F-like companies, but also the surrounding competitive base (and often direct participation of government) to support them.
Switzerland is very competitive in drugs, among many other things.
Interesting example: Sweden makes Fighter Jets (Grippon), maybe the most sophisticated of all product categories.
Making 'Fighter Jets' requires a highly specialized industrial base, and the investment/cooperation of government: Jet sales are done as much through the diplomatic corps as anything else. Policy is shaped around it.
But how did Sweden get there? Well, because they're a sovereign nation and have fought several wars with Russia, 'everyone serves' as part of their community requirements. In the 1960's tiny Sweden had one of the largest air forces in the world! So, out of this (and other developments), they have the ability to make advanced fighters.
So it's a panacea of cultural elements and underpinning institutions that enable exceptional entities.
The problem with what I have just described, is that it 'does not compute' in the American, neoliberal model. In America, entrepreneurs 'raise money' and 'make companies' and 'many fail, but some win'. This kind of neoliberal model is heralded as the 'true free-market solution', but in reality, it disproportionately favours very large countries.
Smaller nations have to play a different game.
The Canadian elite has mostly bought into the neoliberal model, even most 'progressives'. So Canada s a small country, caught up in playing from the American ideological playbook.
Also: I'd quite like to see what the distribution of carreer-levels is, when comparing Silicon Valley to non-Silicon Valley locations for these companies. I'd be willing to bet that non-Silicon Valley locations have predominantly more junior people, and that certain promotions are harder to get and will come with the necessity to move to the valley.
I'm also not saying that there's anything wrong with these companies expanding their presences outside the valley. (I would very much welcome it), only that we're not seeing enough of it right now to contradict the notion that these companies are still very much centralized. Maybe real estate prices and competition for tech talent will eventually force them to properly decentralize. But I could also see a scenario where those companies could put their might into play to overcome that resistance-level and allow them to continue growing while remaining centralized. It's simply too early to tell which way this thing is playing out.
Facebook, Google, and Apple all have large or rapidly growing presences in Seattle. It does the real estate market and traffic no good, but it is what it is.
No they aren't, Mountain View much bigger than all of those combined.
This doesn't sound right TBH.
Most junior people are actually in HQ, because HQ has head counts and can offer to train them, while satellite office won't have so many HCs and usually there to snatch up experienced developers.
As to promotions to higher level, yes HQ are definitely better, but that is only because it is HQ, so critical decision is made there naturally.
The traditional wisdom is that you should work from HQ to maximize your career advancement, but I think many people are weighing this against the untenable housing situation and realizing it's not worth it.
Also, San Francisco was considered a fun alternative to living in Cupertino or Menlo Park or Mountain View, but the city just keeps going further downhill. Junior employees likely have a higher tolerance than senior employees for the quality-of-life issues you deal with in San Francisco.
There are advantages to being at headquarters but it's not practical to move everyone to the SF Bay Area.
As a tech worker in Atlanta, I find that quite the opposite is true. People tend to career-(s)hop out in the valley and don't stay at the same company for long.
In Atlanta people tend to stay with the same company for years and grow their role and influence. As such, the SF headquarters tends to put its most important pieces in its remote offices.
I also think SF sees a lot of products spun up as promotion vehicles, whereas remote offices tend to think long term with long time horizons.
They bought Infineon (through intels purchase of Infineons mobile chip assets years ago)
It may sound small but it has a major impact on our happiness, energy levels, and overall well-being.
Why are salaries so low in Canada ? Now at least owing to the US immigration fiasco, more labour should move in and salaries should technically rise - but I don't see that happening. Not sure why.
Competitive salaries on par with California or even NYC will have a dramatic impact on the influx of immigrants.
I was looking to move because I like colder weather/climate change related reasons and I had one recruiter tell me "You can't possibly ever make that much, that's CEO pay!".
That would improve the talent situation here.
The TN wasn't responsible for my leaving and it isn't the reason I'm staying away.
Without the TN it's likely you may not have been hired because it's not worth the effort for most companies: T1 is easy, then once you're in they can process it more.
FYI this is not an argument for or against TN.
Salaries are about to go up way more for the average employee. Simultaneously, any companies that were making money on labor price arbitrage are about to have a real tough time; Good riddance.
If you're in a non-primary market in the U.S. (non NYC/SF/Boston), my experience has been that you can hire comparable or better talent in Canadian cities for less the local U.S. median salary, especially in talent-starved markets within the U.S. It's an open secret that many Americans are somehow unaware of.
https://www.csmonitor.com/EqualEd/2019/0304/Go-north-young-g...
Lol. Maybe a similar culture to some parts of California or Washington, and that is a stretch, but Vancouver is very very different than "the United States". Live in both for a while and all the little difference (the guns, health care, government, police, civil-military relations, the environment, land use, education etc) add up to markedly different approaches to life.
As a new grad myself, I am in this situation where I get offers of >120k USD if I move to SV with a growth potential (both in technical and financial terms) far better than what I can get here. In Quebec (where I live), I saw most of my peers stay around and accept salaries ranging from 65k CAD to 80k CAD (50k-61k USD). From what I know, an average senior can expect 120-130k CAD in Montreal. The only way to make more is by being a consultant, which is why you see a lot of them around here (for better or worse). I would feel a bit guilty to move to the US right now considering I got basically a free education and I do want to contribute back to society.
/sarcasm on
With 26 years in software development, low level linux (kernel "stuff") and low level windows (kernel "stuff" again), with work including from analyzing malware to writting DRM that was left unbroken for 3 years, to high level software, system administration on various unixes and unix like beasts, including low level networking, fluent in c, c++, asm x86/64, go and some "stuff" I am not proud off (c#, java, python, js, php), expirience in management, team leadership, working for bluechips, US three letter agencies and army (as a part of my previous jobs), annoyingly proficient in security (..., there is more, but who cares) I earn 24k netto euros a year and consider myself lucky, due to a fact that I cant move to another country based on broken marriage and my wish to still parent my kid every second week. Oh, you have 120k salery? I wouldnt complain if I were you.
/sarcasm off
Just my 5 cents, Instead of counting the money, concentrate on what makes you happy. You will pass better on long term. At the end there is not much you can take into grave. And money certanly doesnt make it softer.
> and some "stuff" I am not proud off (c#, java, python, js, php)
I would venture that maybe you should be less proud of the first one and less ashamed of the second one.
People aren't being paid $200k-$2M / year for reasons of charity. They get paid that much because their contribution to the company is higher than that.
Vancouver’s tech scene is exploding, with a number of top tier tech companies being based here (like Clio) and majors setting up dev offices (Shopify, Amazon, Microsoft).
Pretty soon, rent is going to be too high for someone making 100k Canadian ( if it isn’t already )
Rents in Montreal are going up but still no where near Toronto level. Cost of living is lower too on many levels. Of course it depends on the area but generally it's reasonable.
You can live pretty comfortably on a 75k salary and lots of people in the tech sector make more than this, infosec paying even 6 figures in some places.
I recently turned down an offer from Google for a job in Sunnyvale because even though I might have been paid twice as much, I knew the cost of living was much higher and quality of life probably not as good.
Part of it is that QC has crazy high taxes, which drives down demand and keeps the big money in VAN or YYZ, and also that there are a lot of open / in demand jobs in the QC. They offer decent salaries -- but they want people who are bilingual or purely Francophone. I get weekly notices from LinkedIn for Data Center Mgmt roles around MTL -- HydroQuebec = cheap power and therefore cheap colo -- but I don't speak enough French.
It seems Google will try to influence city government soon or it might already be doing.
> The median Canadian “Software Engineer” salary is CA$72,000. The median US salary is US$91,000.... The cost of living in Vancouver is about 4.8% higher than Austin. While the median Software Engineer salary in Austin is 40% higher than Vancouver when accounting for the exchange rate.
https://medium.com/@sprice/more-canadian-software-engineers-...
As is always the case with protectionist policies, the country imposing them experiences a net loss.
Both sides lose equal amounts. It's just that the larger economy notices it less.
Things haven’t changed in any particular way on TN status, L status, or B-2 status.
If anything the US should be directly helping Canada to boom in tech. Enlarge the regional blackhole, suck up all the world's talent. They're our largest export market, the richer they get, the more people they have, the more US exports they are likely to buy (and vice versa). Canada's tech talent will occasionally also go south and start companies in the US. Canadian investors can fund US start-ups from their successes. US investors can back Canadian start-ups and public companies. The more the merrier.
I am in a Canadian software engineering program right now, and it is a goal of many people here.
Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/technology/article-...
I've never heard US and Canada mentioned as competition in anything - let alone in tech. Geographically, demographically, technologically and economically, Canada is in no position to compete with the US.
> The US benefits enormously from having a wealthy, vibrant Canada, including in its tech sector.
Enormously? Canada pretty much sells us their resources and some canadian manufactured US cars. We account for 76% of all canada's trade, canada represents a much smaller portion of our overall trade. One party benefits a lot more than the other party.
> We're permanent allies, liberal democracies and share a very large border as well as $600 billion in goods trade.
No such thing as permanent allies. Just like there is no such thing as permanent government since canada existed mostly as a nonvoting subject of a monarchy.
> They're our largest export market
And also one we seem to have a neverending trade deficit with.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/t...
> If anything the US should be directly helping Canada to boom in tech.
Or we could help arkansas, idaho, pennsylvannia and a countless other states "boom in tech". Shouldn't Canada be the ones helping themselves? Shouldn't the US be helping ourselves?
> The more the merrier.
Sounds like a utopian dream.
There may be a few people here for visa reasons (I know one or two), but that's now a very small portion.
Excited, because now that I've joined one of these SV companies recently expanding their presence Canada, my yearly TC is now an integer multiple of what I was making at a local small company.
But I'm also concerned, because the majority of Canadian companies absolutely cannot compete. At all. My fear is all the biggest talent will get sucked into US-based companies. Super hypocritical of me, I know.
Canada needs so many more Shopifys.
The scene around might grow and might not. Wannabe Googlers might come on spec and work for a different employer if Google doesn’t work out. Xooglers will be emerge eventually, but if they’re not making googly money, it’s hard to see them staying to work in tech.
Currently remote for a US firm, doing well by local standards. I desperately wish there were more competitive local options, esp. in places that are NOT Toronto or Vancouver. In the US you can go to Austin, Denver, Seattle, the Washington DC area, NYC, SF, even Raleigh-Durham for tech jobs... but in Canada it's just YYZ and YVN.
Fwiw, I am a foreign grad student currently happy with the lifestyle in Canada. But I'm wondering whether I've made the right career move moving to Canada.
edit: include career growth
I'm in Sydney and we see Amazon do a lot of recruitment sessions here.
