This article is 2 years old and it shows. Comparing post-brexit London to San Francisco falls flat very quickly. Living in London is not living in Europe.
Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)
71–80 of 91 posts
Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)
#72As a foreigner I have lived in London for more than a decade and have friends and families living in SF. One interesting I found is although both London and SF have large number of foreigners/immigrants, in London not one group of immigrants have dominant majority and deep roots in the city. Immigrants usually live scattered around the boroughs, this I think makes London more diverse than many US cities. Because new comers will have to interact with people of other background and try to fit the culture of where they are living.
Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's ludicrous extremes like having pingpong tables and games and coffee baristas at work. This is not living "frugally." If a pingpong table and games are a major expense in your company, you're already dead. A barista is wasteful, unless he/she is serving coffee to hundreds of employees that would otherwise waste company time by leaving the office for a coffee break. As an engineer, I avoid companies like the plag…
Hmm, I work for Google now, and they are the first company I have worked for with either baristas[1] or ping-pong tables. These are definitely luxurious perks and not "basic niceties". But Google is not a frugal startup. It's a giant company offering a big complicated benefits package. [1] Free ones that is. Not counting big plants with cafes that charge market prices and seem to break even.
A ping pong table is a one time cost of about $600. I don't understand how that could be considered a luxury in the context of a company in San Francisco
Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never lived in SF or Europe, but as an American who's lived in the suburbs of DC and now NYC, it seems to me that Americans in general are less internationally conscious than Europeans. Most Europeans I know speak 3+ languages, have studied and lived abroad, and have traveled extensively. Americans in my experience tend to be more insular and less cultured. And it makes sense because Europe has so many different…
As an European who speaks 3 languages I can agree to that. I live in London and even though British people may not speak as many languages as the average continental European person, but most Europeans and especially British people have literally traveled the world. I don't even mean that Europeans travel more because they jump a few European borders. Most European people I know have taken a whole year out after univ…
> Most European people I know have taken a whole year out after university to travel the entire planet,
This is not true of most European people I know. Yes, some people do it, but it's a very small percentage of the population, concentrated among the wealthier part. Even in the UK it's only a small part of the population that does it, never mind in poorer countries like Greece. I do think the majority of Scandinavians I know have done the "gap year" trip, but not the majority of British, Polish, French, Spanish, or Greeks.
My view of what's normal in the UK, though, may be different because I don't live in London.
Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)
#75This article is 2 years old and it shows. Comparing post-brexit London to San Francisco falls flat very quickly. Living in London is not living in Europe.
"Living in London is not living in Europe"
Could you explain that sentence? Please.
Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, I work for Google now, and they are the first company I have worked for with either baristas[1] or ping-pong tables. These are definitely luxurious perks and not "basic niceties". But Google is not a frugal startup. It's a giant company offering a big complicated benefits package. [1] Free ones that is. Not counting big plants with cafes that charge market prices and seem to break even.
A ping pong table is a one time cost of about $600. I don't understand how that could be considered a luxury in the context of a company in San Francisco
The table itself may be cheap, but the office space for it is probably not.
EDIT: Not that I'm saying it's not worth it, just that there are more costs to consider here.
Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
A ping pong table is a one time cost of about $600. I don't understand how that could be considered a luxury in the context of a company in San Francisco
The table itself may be cheap, but the office space for it is probably not. EDIT: Not that I'm saying it's not worth it, just that there are more costs to consider here.
That, and also the culture that says it's OK to just play ping-pong whenever you feel it is Ok to play ping-pong.
Well, maybe that is not expensive, but it is a big deal, and a company has to back itself to know that it will come out ahead.
Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)
#78Here's a comment of a surprised San Francisco traveler that sums up the city for me: "I was rather surprised that there were so many homeless people. You'd think the supposed tech center of the world would be...you know...civilized and able to protect the weakest members of society better."
SF is by far the dirtiest first world city I've ever been in - significantly fouler than the outskirts of Naples, as uncollected garbage is less rank than SF's human faeces.
Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are also an alarmingly large number of Trustafarians in San Francisco who are playing at 'being in a start up' rather than admitting they are just dossing about on a trust fund...
There seem to be a rather large number of those people in London too. Though in their cases, it's often more playing at 'running a company' in general rather than a startup.
One stellar example: http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-fling-social-media-app-die...
Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are also an alarmingly large number of Trustafarians in San Francisco who are playing at 'being in a start up' rather than admitting they are just dossing about on a trust fund...
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion, or are you just making baseless insults?
Do you have any evidence that it isn't true? :) A wealthy family, if you have one, would be an excellent source of money for a startup.
It's sometimes hard to tell which bits are for real, and which bits are the play-acting, but I've long suspected anyway that more people than you'd think are playing startup. Does it matter if it's with somebody else's money rather than their own? I say no... but of course if your story fits the rags-to-riches American Dream then this can help ennoble what would otherwise be a straightforward tale of simple money-grabbing.