Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups • Hacker News Board

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#161

Post by kristianc » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 1:40 PM UTC

dmode wrote: post #137

myspy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yey, living in SF where junkies shoot on the street and everything is littered with excrements because fuck you good social security system. Let‘s live there! Plus, everything really expensive to live there. And if I work at Google I drive two hours with a bus there. I don‘t know but reading about that place it‘s insanity. And the output is Hit and miss. I know of no startup in the last ten years that‘s any substanti…

Only a small portion of SF is matches the dystopian vision you claim. Even those portions are not any worse than other urban areas. There is a reason why housing here is extremely expensive. People want to live here.

> Only a small portion of SF is matches the dystopian vision you claim.

My impression of SF having spent time there is that it hits the nail on the head. Sure, I doubt you get junkies asking you for money for heroin in Marin County, but it certainly happens in Union Sq.

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#162

Post by bilbo0s » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

jeffasinger wrote: post #158

amelius wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> particular kinds of engineering talent—that are much harder to find outside the bay area. Does that also hold for biotech talent?

My understanding is that biotech is actually better in Boston than the bay area by a pretty wide margin.

Just chiming in from the perspective of a medical technology company guy, I think biotech talent in the bay area is second to none. My own startup was in Wisconsin, but the guys and gals out in San Fran knew... their... stuff!

That said, I would agree that Boston was right up at the top with the bay area in that respect. We always thought of it as Boston for depth, and the bay area for breadth.

The rest of the country was lagging way behind as I remember it, but this was a while ago. I mean there were a few bright spots. Places like Maryland-NOVA-DC area believe it or not, but they didn't shine like Boston and the bay area.

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#163

Post by badfrog » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #155

ramraj07 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're gonna trust your company will not lay you off in a year? What will you do after two years even if it didn't,? I doubt you'll continue to keep finding similar paying jobs in Dallas.

> I doubt you'll continue to keep finding similar paying jobs in Dallas. You are replying to a post about how employers should stop paying such a premium for a SF ZIP code with the observation that the premium exists.

I believe they were replying to the parent comment which said:

> Assuming if you keep offering same comp

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#164

Post by badfrog » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 1:47 PM UTC

iovrthoughtthis wrote: post #132

chillacy wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it could happen if the incentives are set up differently, otherwise right now you spend time and effort training people only to have them change jobs in 2 years at a better company.

Bigger raises. People move because the paybump is often whole multiples of pay rises. Also better managers. We don’t quit jobs as often as we quit managers.

Yeah, at FANG when you get promoted, your RSU grant isn't increased to match the new level. So if you can get a job elsewhere at your new level, it's almost always a big pay increase.

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#165

Post by diogenescynic » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 1:50 PM UTC

I don’t even see how it’s a realistic place to start out as a new college grad anymore either. If you don’t have a friend in a rent-controlled multi-bedroom house who can let you move into an open room, you’re unlikely to find rent for a decent price. A crappy house costs about a million here. If you have that kind of money, why not just buy something in cash somewhere else or just move to another city like Seattle or Denver or Austin where you can make 80% of the income for a fraction of the cost of living and taxes? I don’t think the differential income really makes up for the cost of living, taxes, or quality of life.

We absolutely have to be approaching or beyond the breaking point where it stops making sense for a lot of new college grads to want to move here. I have a friend who just started at Google but lives 3+ hours away... that’s crazy. Once workers stop wanting to live in the Bay Area, tech companies will have to shift hiring (even more) than they already have. I know at the company I work for they have been pushing more new hires to Austin.

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#166

Post by nostrademons » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 1:55 PM UTC

heartbreak wrote: post #160

nostrademons wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you work in tech and a short commute is important to you, you can make it happen anywhere in the Bay. I had a 2 mile commute when I was working at Google - it was 5 minutes by car, and about 12 minutes by bike. I've got a 30 foot commute now - I work from home. I've put about 30k miles on my 10 year old car. Many of my friends are the same - live in Mountain View, work at the Googleplex, ~10 minute commute. Well,…

Working from home and still choosing to live in the Bay Area sounds like an inefficiency. A major, 5- to 6-figure per year inefficiency.

My wife's family all lives here, and my work is all on scalable startup ideas (i.e. they either fail outright or will need outside capital in a hurry), and my wife basically has her dream job, of which very few positions exist in the world. It's the right choice for us - we've discussed it several times - but probably wouldn't be without the family considerations or startup dreams.

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#167

Post by diogenescynic » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

Johnny555 wrote: post #115

temp1928384 wrote: post #4

And 50% of people living in SF want to leave https://sf.curbed.com/2019/2/20/18233498/poll-2019-leaving-s...

I'd take that with a big grain of salt, I spent over a decade of my 20 years living in SF looking elsewhere to move to since I couldn't afford the real estate. So I'd be counted as one of the ones that want to leave, but I never left until finally I moved down the Peninsula.

I wouldnt, I’m just surprised it’s not higher. Most of my friends hit 30-32 then move out to Marin, Walnut Creek or San Mateo. Once you get to the age where you’re married and thinking about kids, you want out of SF.

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#168

Post by diogenescynic » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #32

temp1928384 wrote: post #4

And 50% of people living in SF want to leave https://sf.curbed.com/2019/2/20/18233498/poll-2019-leaving-s...

Then why dont they? Or are there 2 people willing to take the place of every person leaving?

Commute times and rent control. I’d love to move to North Bay but I have to be in San Jose twice a week for meetings. We need better public transit and we could solve a portion of these problems.

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#169

Post by inferiorhuman » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 2:10 PM UTC

kristianc wrote: post #161

dmode wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only a small portion of SF is matches the dystopian vision you claim. Even those portions are not any worse than other urban areas. There is a reason why housing here is extremely expensive. People want to live here.

> Only a small portion of SF is matches the dystopian vision you claim. My impression of SF having spent time there is that it hits the nail on the head. Sure, I doubt you get junkies asking you for money for heroin in Marin County, but it certainly happens in Union Sq.

> Sure, I doubt you get junkies asking you for money for heroin in Marin County, but it certainly happens in Union Sq.

Meth hit San Rafael pretty hard, Novato was taking federal money for anti-gang police work, and homelessness is definitely a visible problem in Marin (well, more visible these days).

Edit: Oh yeah, and the Canal was a hot spot for child sex trafficking when I was younger (cash wages + men away from their families), dunno if it still is. Marin City, well, that's a story for another time.

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#170

Post by Bahamut » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

randomacct3847 wrote: post #94

enra wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for many people it comes down to go exactly where and do exactly what there. Once lived in Bay Area for while, you have certain expectations on compensation, services, things to do, career growth etc. If you are used to a city like SF and enjoy the level of things in there, in the world and US there only few cities similar. Like nyc, la, London, Tokyo etc. Portland, Seattle, Austin, Berlin are all good but no…

It’s not just cost of living but taxes. Living in a state with no income tax is an automatic 10-12% bump in take home pay. Agree though if you’re single your living situation is more flexible and you can find a place for less than market rate here pretty easily. It’s once you get married and want kids that SF makes no sense for most people. Someone making 200k in Austin has a much much better quality of life than som…

In that case, taxes and rent only would account for about a $50k difference at those numbers - not enough to make up the gap between Austin and SF if we're talking $200k and $300k, and I'd imagine $200k isn't as easy to hit in Austin as $300k+ in the Bay Area.