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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by [deleted] »

tempsy wrote: post #802
malandrew wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t know why this response devolved into defensiveness and personal attacks. I never said I was a founder, though I worked at a startup that Rabois invested in early. Being an investor is not “hard work” in the same way it is if you’re a founder or employee. Anyone who says it is is lying.

[deleted]

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

#842

Post by iEchoic »

sandworm101 wrote: post #89
bigyikes wrote: post #13

As it happens, tomorrow I’m putting in my 30-day notice to terminate my lease and leave the Bay. (And I’m paying 2 additional months rent in fees to do so) Not being tied to the office fundamentally changes the calculus of choosing where to live. There just aren’t good reasons to live here anymore for so many of us. Even if you enjoy the area, chances are you can get a better deal by moving just a bit further away. A…

>> 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…

> They will soon realize they don't need to pay SF wages . . . I predict a race for the bottom.

Remote companies that attempt to race for the bottom will be at a huge competitive disadvantage against remote companies that don't. Over time, they'll learn and adapt (or they'll die).

The biggest misconception about remote work is that remote work is good because don't have to pay bay area salaries. When you do that, you're broadening your talent pool, and you're then limiting yourself to the bottom half of it.

When you pay Silicon Valley salaries (or higher) for remote work, you broaden your talent pool to the entire world, and then you get to select from the very top tier. We've been doing this for years, now, and it still feels like an undiscovered gold mine hiding in plain sight.

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

#843

Post by DSingularity »

tempsy wrote: post #760
ido wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that surprising? This is exactly how they treat the rest the world in business (e.g. Apple/Google/Amazon's elaborate international tax evasion schemes see dutch sandwich/double irish style arrangements). Also see Uber/AirBNB "disruption" of not paying benefits/hotel taxes. I would be more surprised if they didn't "optimize" like that.

It’s not, but this entire thread is focused on quality of life issues, which is exactly what the “tech elite” mentioned in this article want people to focus on, and not the real reason why they’re leaving. My point is don’t fall for their public relations spin BS.

The longer I love the more I realize that heroes are doing their thing far from positions of prominence in front of the public eye.

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

#844

Post by johnwyles »

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.

I moved out of state BEFORE an IPO on options gained while working in CA that I then purchased as a resident outside of CA. This does not work as others are describing it. CA did and will come after anyone who earned options while in the state.

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

#845

Post by stainforth »

chii wrote: post #776
iso1631 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I often hear arguments about capital gains taxes being an unfair advantage, and that it should be taxed the same as income. But often these arguments don't present a full picture - because it only discusses the end result of the dollar received and compare the tax rates. What about the risk? A job-income is 100% guaranteed to be received if one worked. Even if the business paying the said wage doesn't make a profit,…

The person with a job and the person "risking" their billions in capital are not comparable.

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

#846

Post by shuckles »

madamelic wrote: post #826
rmah wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In summary, for normal people, taxes in the US come at federal, state and local levels. 1. Federal: a) Income tax of 10% on income over around $12k (single) or $24k (married) up to 37% on income over $518k (single) to $622k (married). Capital gains tax is at the same rate for assets held less than a year but up to only 20% for assets held more than one year. b) FICA, a wage tax. You pay for 7.65% for social security…

>Some cities also have an income tax (for example NYC). SF afaik and all of Pennsylvania does the same. NYC's rate is 3.9% I believe.

San Francisco is not allowed to have a city income tax due to state law. It wouldn’t matter much anyways: it’s a huge commuter town (daytime population is double or more the resident population), so the base to tax is relatively small. The real untapped taxable value in the city is land wealth. Until Prop 13 allows the city to tax land equitably, it will be forced to try harebrained tax schemes on employers or sales.

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

#847

Post by shuckles »

dcolkitt wrote: post #823
tempsy wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what you’re getting at but it isn’t my point. And the other way to look at it is California is expensive because the opportunity to become rich is greater here than elsewhere.

Florida and Texas both have comparable numbers of billionaires, and aren't crazy expensive.

Both have a considerably lower number billionaires (2-3x) per capita, and the Florida number should be investigated to see where the money was earned. (What’s the per capita billionaire rate of, say, Monaco or St. Tropez? Is that meaningful?) It’s certainly a nice place to retire to, as evinced by Keith.

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

#848

Post by DSingularity »

BobbyJo wrote: post #786
greensquirrel wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they just never really liked the city. Pretty hard to like a city where a non-trivial portion of the residents are hating on you and blaming you and others like you for many problems of their own doing. I left a year ago and I personally hope both San Francisco and all of California suffers fiscal collapse. The state grossly mistreats it's most productive citizens, when its those very citizens that fund the greates…

I can echo this. I loved the bay when I first moved here 8 years ago, but the political dynamic of the area, and the ever growing drug/homelessness crisis said dynamic is completely unable to deal with, both have just worn my enthusiasm away.

It is unbecoming to point at the homeless and blame them for making our cities unattractive. These are human beings with souls and emotions. When they make us feel uncomfortable with their appearance or behavior we should remember they lead lives where they are likely suffering most of every day.

We as a people have failed to create a society with space for these people to exist in peace, happiness, and good health. Now we can’t let ourselves conveniently overlook their humanity due to the inconvenience their state creates for us as a whole.

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

#849

Post by Afton »

nph5667 wrote: post #670
Afton wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started a new job in April. Between when I interviewed and when I was started, offices shut down. It's been great. The fact that everyone is remote is actually a great 'leveler', since the company has a 'main office' and a few satellite offices in other cities. I'm not affiliated with the 'main office', but I actually am concerned that I'll suffer career-wise once the company goes back to in-office, since I'll be i…

Sorry for not understanding, but I still don't quite get why is it a good time? From the description of your situation it looks like any new job right now is a temporal job. At least that's how I read it.

I mean that everyone who wants to work remotely, now actually has the opportunity to do so, and since everyone is working remote, you are not at a disadvantage based on your remote status. That may change in the future, it may not. But right now, changing jobs doesn't seem like a 'bad time', which is what the parent poster was claiming.

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

#850

Post by tempsy »

johnwyles wrote: post #844
tempsy wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I moved out of state BEFORE an IPO on options gained while working in CA that I then purchased as a resident outside of CA. This does not work as others are describing it. CA did and will come after anyone who earned options while in the state.

It depends on your situation. A VC does not have options when they invest - they are getting preferred shares.

An employee that forward exercises their options pay taxes on date of hire and vest automatically. Post IPO you’re only taxed when you sell.

Post reply on HN