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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by throwaway201103 »

ericmay wrote: post #482
gabereiser wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This argument that cheaper workforce is out in the sticks, waiting for “remote work” is a lie corporate America has told to keep people in the office. The truth is, no matter where you are, talent knows what talent is worth. We price accordingly and in the end the market is stable at a certain price level. We’ve been seeing this over the last decade in major US cities competing for SF-level talent. Tech is o…

Thanks, Gabe. And I don't think it's SV -> Rural America exclusively. Many of these jobs will filter back into medium to large sized metros across the country. Places like Columbus, Indianapolis, St Louis, Atlanta, Nashville, etc. . There are scores of talented developers in these areas that would be open to remote work, but not relocation to the major metro areas.

Not to mention eastern Europe, South America, Asia, etc.

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

#652

Post by thorough »

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/…

Hmm... the Bay Area in my experience is one of the less walkable parts of the United States I’ve visited.

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

#653

Post by munificent »

jmalicki wrote: post #339
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…

The primary point is easy access to nature from a metro area. Other than easy access to nature, all of those points are true for major metro areas. But other than say, Salt Lake City, does any other metro area offer such close access to nature? Boston and Seattle are even much farther away...

I live in Seattle (south end of Ballard). I can jog to Discovery Park and be in forest surrounded by beach, or up to Carkeek and see tide pools and wetlands. I can be on a real hiking trailhead in less than an hour.

Camelback Mountain is half an hour from the center of Phoenix. Virginia Key Beach Park's walking trails are 20 minutes from downtown Miami. Lionel Hampton-Beecher Hills Park is about the same distance from Atlanta. You get the idea.

SF certainly has really nice nature close by, but it's not like other US cities are industrial wastelands.

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

#654

Post by menomatter »

foxtr0t wrote: post #461

How many times can SV, SF, the Bay Area, California die? How many of these articles will be written? How many 400+ comment meltdown threads about the end of Silicon Valley will we see? Our economy is cyclical, so is the technology industry, and so is the technology industry within the Bay Area. It seems to me a large cohort of the HN community has reached an age where they'd typically move to suburbs, "back home", or…

Same with NY

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

#655

Post by Apocryphon »

dmoy wrote: post #570
Apocryphon wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with heat lamps for outdoor dining, especially when it's cold?

Like I said that might be just me with a personal pet peeve But it is crazy inefficient to pump heat into the outdoors. It's not as inefficient in most parts of california, even northern california. But when you move north it gets down under 40... (In the Midwest where it gets below 0, it's complete lunacy) It's a weird thing to be simultaneously in favor of environmental controls and trying to raise awareness for cl…

Ah, fair, it does seem like a valid criticism from an environmental/efficiency point of view. Though maybe it can be made less wasteful if establishments also add tents and other shelters that can better trap that heat.

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

#656

Post by philwelch »

ianmobbs wrote: post #574
philwelch wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point the basic maintenance of law and order (or conversely the refusal to do so) takes precedence over walkability or the local art and culture scene. As for tolerance, West Coast cities are rapidly developing a social and political milieu that is openly hostile towards the tech industry to a much greater degree than Austin or Miami (to name two examples from the article) are hostile to LGBT people.

Are you really saying that it's harder to be a techie than LGBT in San Francisco?

I can't speak to San Francisco, but in Seattle at least, I never saw any flyers or graffiti telling LGBT people they were unwelcome and should leave town, nor did I ever encounter political discourse that LGBT people were somehow ruining the city, or scapegoating the LGBT community for local issues. So in my personal experience as an LGBT software engineer, I wouldn't be surprised if San Francisco was the same way.

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

#657

Post by busterarm »

throwaway6734 wrote: post #650
nus07 wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is there a general belief that San Francisco is a counter cultural place?

Only by some San Franciscans who've been sniffing their own farts for too long.

Everyone else thinks that The Bay is culturually homogenous.

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

#658

Post by nph5667 »

dekhn wrote: post #134
nph5667 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was the local govts did not contribute to the the rise of Silicon Valley, not that no one in the Bay area was involved

local govts did a few things to enable this. They created a welcoming business environment that allowed for rapid expansion. For example, Stanford Research Park was a joint venture of Stanford, and Palo Alto. I am not sure there is any good writeup on the contribution of local governments to silicon valley.

If you say so. As an outsider (although I used to work close, in Sacramento, for 5 years), I only can say that I did not hear anything about substantial govt participation, similar to post-war infrastructure projects, or recent push for green energy. But, of course, I will be glad to find out that the Valley is the coproduct of some govt program, not only a lucky star alignment.

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

#659

Post by vkou »

alentist wrote: post #585
vkou wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The SFBA does not begin and end with San Francisco. You're free to pick and choose among its many, many neighbouring municipalities, none of which happen to be governed by the San Francisco city council . 2. These are fantastic examples of measures that at worst, mildly inconvenience the most affluent members of its society, and at best are harmless social signaling of issues that don't matter. It speaks more abou…

1. Many of the links I shared are about the Bay Area as a whole . 2. Here's the definition of zoning: > Zoning is a method of urban planning in which a municipality or other tier of government divides land into areas called zones, each of which has a set of regulations for new development that differs from other zones. Here's the definition of libertarianism: > Libertarianism is a political philosophy and movement th…

> Literal nonsense. That's not what "libertarian" means.

That is exactly what libertarian means in practice. The ideology, when implemented in a democratic society has no mechanism to combat this kind of regulatory capture. It becomes just a shorthand for "People with money get to keep it, people without get to pull themselves up by their bootstraps."

Autonomy from government is only welcome by actual libertarians when it comes to autonomy from obligations towards government - but reliance on government is sought out when it comes to protection of their wealth by government.

Stop looking at symbolic virtue-signaling gestures, and start looking at what policies actually affect real people's lives, and why those policies are in place. The SFBA is a great place to live if you are self-reliant (wealthy), and can afford its smorgasbord of world-class private services, for anything from education to transportation to healthcare, to legal work, to housing. It very quickly becomes a far-from-great place to live if you have to result to public options for any of those things - because they range from either 'on life support' to 'non-existent'.

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

#660

Post by busterarm »

skrtskrt wrote: post #623
throwaway201103 wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't speak for other cities, and maybe not even Chicago today, but when I lived there, there was a lot of diversity in the loop (the downtown business district) during the workday, but beyond that it was a very segregated city. Also, though I did own a car, I really only used it on weekend trips out of town. If I had stayed long-term, I would have sold it, because it's expensive to own one there (parking is expensiv…

Chicago is pretty segregated, but the transit situation is easily the best of any major US city. A car helps you get places quicker, but an adventurous person can get all over the city easily on the buses and trains and any given neighborhood is very walkable. The main issue is the cold. You have 3 months of amazing summer and 8 months of cold with two weeks of spring and fall on either end. If you're not from the Mi…

Cold is fine.

Getting robbed at gunpoint isn't. That's the real Chicago you have to contend with.

Post reply on HN