Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy • Hacker News Board

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#601

Post by pjlegato » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

tesseract wrote: post #589

arthurjj wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody really brings up that the bay area is one of few places in the US where you can live without a car. Is this true? I've only visited the bay for a total of 15 days but only SF and parts of Oakland seemed walkable.

There are suburban "downtowns"/shopping districts near many BART and Caltrain stops where it's quite possible to commute and do most everyday errands on foot/bike/transit. Possibly even easier than a lot of the southwestern half of SF proper. (Having no access to a car at all - through friends or a willingness to use Lyft/Uber - does make some things harder). The older and higher-density suburbs tend to be better for…

The walkable parts of those cities is vanishingly small, on the order of a few square blocks. The tiny walkable segment is also super-expensive.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#602

Post by DeRock » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #548

ericmay wrote: post #195

Earlier 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…

> 4. Increase taxes on the wealthy, etc. This won’t work. When the tech exodus begins, it’s going to cause CA to buckle at its knees because the wealthy has been subsidizing more than 80% of the population. It is not sustainable or healthy at all to suckle at the teat of the wealthy. We should abolish all taxes and only retain taxes based on consumption. And a flat modest capital gains tax. With dedications gone, thi…

> the wealthy has been subsidizing more than 80% of the population

CA does not tax wealth, they tax (predominately) income, and I wouldn't be so quick to equate the 2. Prop 13, for example, can mean that wealthy land owners pay almost nothing in tax if they've owned their property for a long time.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#603

Post by robotnikman » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

nus07 wrote: post #582

rpearl wrote: post #555

Nobody really brings up that the bay area is one of few places in the US where you can live without a car. Really, even compared to other "walkable" cities beyond a select few, similarly expensive places. Nobody really brings up that the bay area has better LGBT and other minority protections than anywhere in the US, either. Every time someone mentions cheap midwest cities I have to pull up https://crossingenres.com/…

I agree on almost all of your points with a few caveats. - Cars : The Bay Area is very walkable but that’s mainly SF. The tech burbs of Palo Alto , Menlo Park are not super walkable and you are relying on the BART and other public transport . But Covid has destroyed public transport and cuts in funding threaten them further. LGBT : This is not really the 80s and 90s . Most big cities from DC, Atlanta, Austin ,Chicago…

Phoenix and the surrounding area also has a decent LGBT presence.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#604

Post by philwelch » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

iso1631 wrote: post #334

sandworm101 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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?

Wealthy is about how much wealth you have, not your income. In 2020, $121,411 was the median household net worth in the United States. This is up from $97,225.55 in 2017. The average household net worth in 2020 was $746,821. It was $692,100 in 2017. The disparity between these two numbers is itself a major problem, but not the point. If you have a net work of $120k you aren't wealthy, even if you earnt that all in th…

You have an interesting thesis here but I think there are some logical consequences you aren’t considering. Prior to COVID the US personal savings rate was under 10%, lower than that of countries like China and India, both of which are materially poorer than the US on a per-capita basis. Relatedly, Americans also have extremely high levels of consumer debt.

When you consider just how low US individual income tax rates are by global standards, it’s obvious that disparities in net worth have a lot to do with the fact that a large share of Americans, regardless of their income, effectively choose to live from paycheck to paycheck on the brink of personal insolvency.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#605

Post by geebee » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

tschwimmer wrote: post #389

munificent wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a quiet suburb close to a lot of easily accessible nature, while still having Amazon 2-day shipping, ridesharing, Uber Eats, and luxury retail. Maybe I'm missing, but I don't see anything in that list that isn't true of almost every metro area in the US. I think people living in SF notice when new services come out that are only available there, like Uber was at first. But they don't notice when those services late…

I agree, this describes most metro areas over 100k people in the US I feel.

I have family in Wisconsin, and I enjoy visiting. I like parts of Milwaukee, and I've gotten out into the countryside. It's really nice.

This is all subjective, of course, but what can I say? I've been in restaurant and bars at the top of tall hotels in Milwaukee, I enjoyed it and the view of the lake and city... and no, I don't think it even remotely measures up to views of the bay from Pacific Heights or another dozen views in San Francisco. Nor does the surrounding countryside in Milwaukee - which I sincerely do like quite a bit - measure up to redwood forests, Pt. Reyes, the headlands, the coastline from SF to Santa Cruz. A little farther afield, Big Sur and the high Sierras, Sonoma and Napa valleys. I'm not really even sure how to debate it with people, it seems so self-evident to me. California and SF have some really bad qualities, but no, it's not all six of one and a half dozen of the other around any randomly selected US city of 100K in the US. The nature around San Francisco is a differentiator and a selling point (though I would tend to agree that it is now officially overpriced).

Puget Sound is remarkable, though, and the forest around Portland is beautiful. As I've mentioned in another thread, though, the coast is far more accessible in San Francisco.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#606

Post by cj » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

arthurjj wrote: post #564

rpearl wrote: post #555

Nobody really brings up that the bay area is one of few places in the US where you can live without a car. Really, even compared to other "walkable" cities beyond a select few, similarly expensive places. Nobody really brings up that the bay area has better LGBT and other minority protections than anywhere in the US, either. Every time someone mentions cheap midwest cities I have to pull up https://crossingenres.com/…

> Nobody really brings up that the bay area is one of few places in the US where you can live without a car. Is this true? I've only visited the bay for a total of 15 days but only SF and parts of Oakland seemed walkable.

I lived in 4 different apartments in SF in 4 different neighborhoods, each for 1 year. (Haight/Ashbury, SoMa, Potrero, and Castro).

Where I lived in Potrero and SoMa was absolutely not walkable. Potrero was particularly bad because any amount of walking meant climbing a very, very long and steep hill - as in by the time you make it up, you're sweating like crazy.

Castro and Haight/Ashbury were walkable, but nowhere as walkable as a city like NYC.

The middle ground for me was a motorcycle. Easy to park anywhere. Cheap. Great gas mileage, etc.

I had roommates working for Cisco in SoMa who took the bus to work. That was a constant topic of frustration for him. He ended up getting a motorcycle too because of the commute.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#607

Post by throwaway201103 » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #575

rpearl wrote: post #555

Nobody really brings up that the bay area is one of few places in the US where you can live without a car. Really, even compared to other "walkable" cities beyond a select few, similarly expensive places. Nobody really brings up that the bay area has better LGBT and other minority protections than anywhere in the US, either. Every time someone mentions cheap midwest cities I have to pull up https://crossingenres.com/…

Some people don't care about those things, but do care about how big their house is, how many cars fit in the garage, and how much they (and their kids) look like the people (and schools) around them. To be fair when I was living "rural", I loved being only 45min from a 24hr Walmart, and I've lived as a minority, which doesn't feel great so I get going back from whence you came. But I'm still going to say, what you d…

Yes, though it would be painful in the short term I think a "correction" in bay-area cost of living would be a good thing in the long term because more than one type of person would be able to afford to live there.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#608

Post by kodah » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #129

sandworm101 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> and still come out ahead financially. Ya. Earning a SF wage but living elsewhere is great. But there is a flip side to this coin. As employees realize they can work from home, employers also realize they can have employees work from home. They will soon realize they don't need to pay SF wages. Those who convert their in-office jobs into work-from-home are a covid oddity. Those who will be hired in the future on th…

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.…

Former Texan here! You will not get RSU's or bonuses as an engineer in Texas. You will get cash and insurance. If you doubt me, feel free to go on an interview and ask about those things!

I can tell you there's a reason I left Texas and it's because cash doesn't do to your savings what RSU's and bonuses will.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#609

Post by dkdk8283 » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

rpearl wrote: post #555

Nobody really brings up that the bay area is one of few places in the US where you can live without a car. Really, even compared to other "walkable" cities beyond a select few, similarly expensive places. Nobody really brings up that the bay area has better LGBT and other minority protections than anywhere in the US, either. Every time someone mentions cheap midwest cities I have to pull up https://crossingenres.com/…

I disliked almost everything about SF when I lived there. Literally the only thing keeping there was my job.

It’s a great city for some. If you like it - I do hope you enjoy it and stay for as long as you wish.

I have long left and prefer other states like Texas and the South. It’s more my style.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#610

Post by elevenoh » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

rpearl wrote: post #555

Nobody really brings up that the bay area is one of few places in the US where you can live without a car. Really, even compared to other "walkable" cities beyond a select few, similarly expensive places. Nobody really brings up that the bay area has better LGBT and other minority protections than anywhere in the US, either. Every time someone mentions cheap midwest cities I have to pull up https://crossingenres.com/…

This is why I'm moving to Vancouver, BC.

Safe, walkable, low pollution, high density of tech co's, beautiful people.