It has everything to do with the lack of overly constrictive employer non compete agreements. I personally do not want to live in a state that allows an employer to own the work of an employee that is created on personal time at personal cost. Its simple freedom, freedom to create.
Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy
251–260 of 1001 posts
Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rich people don't want to live in your 100 year old apartment with 50 year old finishes. Unfortunately, in San Francisco, they don't have any other choice.
That, I agree with. San Francisco should have built more housing to accommodate the growth. Though if people are leaving already, I can also see why developers might have been reluctant to bet too big on new construction.
San Francisco's housing stock also suffers because they have made renovation of rental properties illegal.
(Technically, they've only enforced price controls which make made profitable renovation illegal, but it has the same effect.)
Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, mostly. The bottom is still decently high even in Midwest cities. But if you’re making $140,000 + RSU/Bonus/Etc., someone from somewhere else will do that job remotely for $100,000 easy. But I would characterize this as a wealth distribution, and overall net positive for the country. People who don’t have the opportunities to work at the top companies in the Bay Area or NYC or Boston now have better access.…
>> wealth distribution At the moment that may be true but increasing the pool of potential labor rarely results in wealth distribution. I think companies will pay less. That money won't go to other hires as tech companies limit hiring for other reasons than money. The money will go to bottom lines, to stockholders: the opposite of wealth distribution.
Maybe? But as things are, most of those generous employee salaries are parasitized by NIMBY landlords and property owners in SFBA who have selfishly engineered SF's horrendous housing supply shortage.
If that value is going to be captured by anyone, I would much MUCH rather it be captured by Google shareholders, many of whom are employees and are at least partly responsible for the company's incredible success, than lazy and parasitic SFBA landlords who profit from their own NIMBYism and regulatory predation.
Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy
#254> threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy There was no inherent "supremacy", just one created by a bunch of companies being together. Did SV municipalities do anything else to deserve it? There are better places, with more rental space, more resources, better weather, and so on, plus WFH is here to stay...
Not municipalities but the state's labor laws are highly conducive to the tech culture and don't exist most places in the country. There's not much money for the startup crop that feeds big tech outside the Bay Area. It's all on Sand Hill Road. I can only speak for myself but I'll never live in a red state again. Not even Texas, it's not worth it. Even where I grew up (the purple midwest) is too socially conservative…
Is "the [SV] tech culture" the secret sauce (especially noting that the culture has changed a lot in the intervening 10-20 years)? Could tech companies thrive with a different, more ideologically diverse talent pool?
Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> wealth distribution At the moment that may be true but increasing the pool of potential labor rarely results in wealth distribution. I think companies will pay less. That money won't go to other hires as tech companies limit hiring for other reasons than money. The money will go to bottom lines, to stockholders: the opposite of wealth distribution.
A few thoughts: 1. Americans need to buy and hold equities. Period. When Google cuts costs or makes more money, I benefit as a shareholder (or you can hold total market indexes and the like). 2. Maybe the money will go to new hires, capabilities, expenditures, etc. ? 3. Sure, but this is certainly a good arguing point against immigration, population growth and H1-B visa programs and the like. 4. Increase taxes on the…
> 1. Americans need to buy and hold equities. Period. When Google cuts costs or makes more money, I benefit as a shareholder (or you can hold total market indexes and the like).
Yes, but it is not good that your "compensation" will be coming from something that isn't tied to your job performance. Wages at least have some tenuous connection to how well you perform at work.
> 2. Maybe the money will go to new hires, capabilities, expenditures, etc. ?
Based on recent trends, this will not happen.
> 3. Sure, but this is certainly a good arguing point against immigration, population growth and H1-B visa programs and the like.
Yes, definitely.
> 4. Increase taxes on the wealthy, etc.
Yes, or nationalize the banks.
Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without William Shockley moving to the west coast, the "Silicon" part of Silicon Valley would likely be elsewhere in the world.
William Shockley graduated from CalTech, and his connections from CalTech, more specifically Arnold Beckman, funded his new venture in silicon transistors. It's true that Shockley picked Palo Alto because of his mother, but it would be unfair to not also credit Stanford who had an outsized role in helping solidify the Bay Area as the hub for "Silicon Valley". Many many many companies tried to move the industry away f…
Okay, so if California's "free-wheeling culture" caused SV to be where it is, what factored into CA's cultural development? Why the lack of free-wheeling culture elsewhere?
Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think many people prefer petty crime to tech elites. With the upward pressure on rents over the last 10 years, even having your bike stolen every few weeks is cheaper than getting evicted and/or having to find a market rate dwelling. Of course, it's better to have neither exploding costs nor petty crime, but at the end of the day, dealing with petty crime is more affordable. EDIT: Getting downvoted to oblivion but…
You're not wrong that many people do seem to prefer the petty crime to tech. But you seem to be condoning that preference, and that preference is ridiculous. An economic boom should not be a bad thing. And tech is not raising rents, it is raising housing demand which could easily be met with a corresponding rise in supply that would limit the price increases, but new housing has been being actively blocked for decade…
[deleted]
Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot to like about many areas of California. Which ones may depend on your weather, cultural, etc. preferences. But Silicon Valley proper I find not particularly appealing; housing costs are only part of the reason. (SF itself has well-documented pluses and minuses.) I don't live or work in CA/SV. But if I were in SV but no longer needed to commute, I might well stay in CA but I'd probably move somewhere out…
I think SVs appeal is that you can leave in a quiet suburb close to a lot of easily accessible nature, while still having Amazon 2-day shipping, ridesharing, Uber Eats, and luxury retail. There's not many places in the US like this. Europe has a lot but there's not much tech jobs in them. You are also close to SF if you like the madness of the city every once in a while. Other suburby places with nature easily access…
>Other suburby places with nature easily accessible usually have a more spartan retail experience and sometimes the mail/Amazon doesn't work so well.
Most suburbs of decent sized cities on the east coast have 2 day Amazon shipping, even the ones close to national parks. And the mail works fine in basically any suburban area.
Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few thoughts: 1. Americans need to buy and hold equities. Period. When Google cuts costs or makes more money, I benefit as a shareholder (or you can hold total market indexes and the like). 2. Maybe the money will go to new hires, capabilities, expenditures, etc. ? 3. Sure, but this is certainly a good arguing point against immigration, population growth and H1-B visa programs and the like. 4. Increase taxes on the…
> Increase taxes on the wealthy, etc. Anyone working for a Silicon Valley company as an engineer is almost certainly considered "the wealthy" by most of America.
>> Anyone working for a Silicon Valley
Depending on your definition of wealthy, "anyone working" full stop. A large number of americans do not work (too young/old etc). Others are sick. Many at the top of society don't earn much income (tax voodoo). And automation is coming. If we define "wealthy" as the top 25/15/10% of wage earners, how soon before that is basically just anyone with a fulltime job?
Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
> poor public schools in many areas What exactly makes them so bad?
I don't know exactly, but my experience is that most parents say private schools do a better job (teachers are better engaged and aren't checked out, apathetic pencil pushers). In the areas with good school districts (and there are a handful of those), things swing to another extreme: too much pressure, like Singapore-style schools, which causes children to buckle under the pressure later in their lives.
There is a positive (in the control systems sense) feedback loop with school quality. Whenever test scores drop a little, the most affluent and engaged parents tend to panic. They transfer their children to private school, or move to higher rated school districts. The public school they left behind then suffers further declines in test scores and funding, and the downward spiral continues.