Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by bgorman »

CalChris wrote: post #140
bgorman wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without William Shockley moving to the west coast, the "Silicon" part of Silicon Valley would likely be elsewhere in the world.

That's a counterfactual. Yeah, maybe Shockley's project happened elsewhere it Silicon Elsewhere could have happened somewhere else. But it didn't happen elsewhere. But you are assuming that it would have catalyzed elsewhere. For example, it could have catalyzed in Murray Hill, New Jersey after the transistor but it didn't. Anyways, people are always leaving the Bay Area. If you came here five years ago, first you wer…

It is interesting how you can gloss over the signifcance of the inventor of the transistor moving to the bay area, and then use the example how his former laboratory in New Jersey failed to commercialize the transistor as an example of how Silicon Valley is uniquely situated to allow innovation to happen.

A much more reasonable interpretation is that Shockley was going succeed no matter where he went, not that Silicon Valley is uniquely situated, especially with the dominance of east coast companies in defense contracting.

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

#792

Post by bcrosby95 »

opportune wrote: post #755
habosa wrote: post #689

In the last 10-15 years San Francisco gained a ton of residents that didn't want to be there at all. They moved there because the job opportunities in tech were too hard to turn down. I had some friends like this, they just never really liked the city. Now they're all leaving because their job is not making them stay. That's fine and I'm happy they have more choices now. But there's a flip side to that. One of my lea…

The thing is, the SFBA while everything is closed down/restricted is not the same as during a regular economic downturn when you can still go out to eat and socialize. For all the faults I take issue with, the SFBA is probably the single place I most fit in culturally in the world. It’s where I want to be. But I can’t justify paying the absurd rents to live there when my job doesn’t require me to be there AND sociali…

I grew up in the SFBA and the absurd housing prices make me sad. I would have loved to stay but it just made no sense. I left about 5 years ago to move to SoCal where I can actually afford a house in a school district that doesn't completely suck. I paid 600k which is still a lot - but if I wanted an equivalent up north it would have been over 1 mil.

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

#793

Post by CountSessine »

bcheung wrote: post #573
notSupplied wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a landowner is having trouble making a profit on rent due to high mortgage costs, that just means that the wealth was captured by the previous owner via a high sale price. So the point still stands that a disproportionate amount of wealth is flowing to land instead of capital or labor.

Appreciation is not rent seeking though. Also, savings is what funds capital investment. There's no capital without previous profit.

Appreciation is not rent seeking though.

It most certainly is, if at the same time you're hanging out at city council meetings protesting construction and housing development. The cost of housing in SFBA isn't really the cost of land - its the cost of regulation. It's the marginal cost of building new housing.

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

#794

Post by headsupftw »

somethoughts wrote: post #557
pvarangot wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the last unspoken one and perhaps most important one in this list is access to family in the APAC region. The other proposals (i.e. Colorado, Arizona, etc.) have all the other stuff but not the access to Asia. Looking at air travel - Denver to India or Austin to China - everything is a 1 day+ and over $2000+. SF/LA to these places is about 15 hours and about $1500. If the business (i.e. Apple/Google making ph…

The most important thing is not the airports. All metros have them. The differentiator is the vast number of asian grocery stores, restaurants and other stores/businesses. In America the Bay Area is only behind Los Angeles in that regard.

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

#795

Post by city41 »

rpearl wrote: post #678
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #634

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. Not really, not compared to Boston or, particularly, New York.

The rest of that paragraph says: > beyond a select few, similarly expensive places. Nobody's putting Boston and NYC on the list of cheap places to live, any more than SF. That said, someone in a different part of this thread brought up Chicago, which seems plausible! Though I haven't been there enough to know if that's true! (Though when I visited, their transit definitely was very good).

I lived in Chicago for five years without a vehicle. It's very doable, the train pretty much goes everywhere.

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

#796

Post by diogenescynic »

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/…

It’s also one of the only cities where cops don’t do anything about property crime and homeless people are free to harass you and break into your building and cars without any real repercussions. My neighbor worked for SFPD and we still had to get a restraining order against a homeless person to get them out of our buildings garage. It’s also one of the only cities where kids will have to see drug use like heroin being injected openly on public transportation.

Geographically, San Francisco is amazing. But I’ve never been to any other city that is as expensive as Switzerland and run like a sleazy third world country. I finally moved out after a bullet went through my bathroom wall in Glen Park. Somethings are more important than the geography.

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

#797

Post by malandrew »

tempsy wrote: post #790
malandrew wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state didn't make them rich. You're giving credit where none is due. Their hard work coupled with many others like them that worked with them made them rich. The same group of people could have been in another state and done just as well. The people in California that made people successful are the Peter Thiels, Elon Musks and Keith Rabois of the area. VC money is the king maker. In the Bay Area it all started wi…

I’m not sure how to respond but no their success comes from being in Silicon Valley at the right time and developing relationships within this ecosystem. So no I disagree that if Rabois was somehow not in Silicon Valley that he’d be just as successful and wealthy as he is now. And I’m speaking about his investments. Cutting a check is not “hard work”. You could argue Musk is different because he’s actually the CEO of…

Why is Silicon Valley where it is other than accident of history? The US government could have made military investments elsewhere and Fairchild Semiconductor would have just as easily been in another state.

California and the SF Bay Area doesn't get credit for that. Heck, Silicon Valley was a bunch of fruit orchards for decades. Could have been a different set of fruit orchards in a different state.

Had Fairchild been elsewhere, the Traiterous 8 would have become the kingmakers they became in a different place and Keith Rabois or someone like him would have moved to that ecosystem instead to develop relations at the right time and become rich.

Seattle is the perfect counterfactual to the narrative you're invested in. Microsoft is Seattle's Fairchild.

Saying that all they are doing is "cutting a check" betrays the fact that you've likely never actually worked with a successful VC. The successful ones do so much more than cut a check. For example, the hard work they put in to help you identify and hire talent is indispensable.

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

#798

Post by sampsonitify »

tempsy wrote: post #772
PopeDotNinja wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re echoing OP’s point. Some people come to California for opportunity, and when they find enough success, they leave. They’re not CA natives, they’re expats from places with less opportunity and crappier weather. People who want to live in California view the taxes as a cost of enjoying California.

No my main point is that people on here are reading into Rabois’ comments on quality of life issues at face value and not recognizing that his move out of state at this moment in time has to do with avoiding taxes on his IPO gains and not much else.

How do taxes work in the US? I find it so complicated! So California has their own state Capital gains tax? How much is that?

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

#799

Post by tempsy »

cltby wrote: post #778
rconti wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... so what you're telling me is, Washington has a very low tax rate and few people who complain about their overall tax burden?

My comment is a reply to this: "To blast the Bay Area and state which made them rich and then flee before they owe a penny is gross." It's not gross to minimize your obligations towards people who have done nothing for you. Seattle is the relevant counterfactual: flourishing tech scene without the punitive tax burden that we're supposed to believe enabled California's success.

Seattle’s tech scene consists of two giant tech companies that started in the 80s and 90s and the satellite offices of California HQ’d companies.

It’s a lot of cogs. There is no comparison when it comes to startups created in, say, the last 10 years or so.

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

#800

Post by [deleted] »

malandrew wrote: post #797
tempsy wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure how to respond but no their success comes from being in Silicon Valley at the right time and developing relationships within this ecosystem. So no I disagree that if Rabois was somehow not in Silicon Valley that he’d be just as successful and wealthy as he is now. And I’m speaking about his investments. Cutting a check is not “hard work”. You could argue Musk is different because he’s actually the CEO of…

Why is Silicon Valley where it is other than accident of history? The US government could have made military investments elsewhere and Fairchild Semiconductor would have just as easily been in another state. California and the SF Bay Area doesn't get credit for that. Heck, Silicon Valley was a bunch of fruit orchards for decades. Could have been a different set of fruit orchards in a different state. Had Fairchild be…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN