3 ms·

Perhaps another way to look at this problem: Isn't it strange, and not very efficient for such a large number of very prosperous companies to be located all in

by x0054 11y ago

Perhaps another way to look at this problem: Isn't it strange, and not very efficient for such a large number of very prosperous companies to be located all in one area. Apple, for instance, is building yet another campus in the valley. Couldn't they build a facility some place else, spread the wealth a little, so to speak. There are lot's of towns north of SF and south of Monterey that could use the influx of capital. I am not saying we should force companies to move headquarters, I am just pointing out that Silicon Valley has huge, one might claim unreasonable, concentration of wealth. This concentration of wealth really shifts perceptions. For instance, 4 years ago or so I visited a friend in SF. We were to meet in a restaurant. An Uber car pulled out and he got out. I asked him about how it worked. His reply: "It's awesome, I order it on my phone, it picked me up and dropped me off here (~3 miles away) for ONLY $40! Isn't that awesome!" I am sorry, but for me at the time $40 was a lot of money, I would have walked the damn 3 miles for that money. My point is, sometimes I think the entire Silicon Vally is in the bubble of affluence, and might be slightly delusional about what other people, outside the bubble, might think is or is not reasonable. The solution isn't giving the poor people free money, the solution might be to grow (geographically) and spread the bubble around, making lot's of people better off by reducing housing strain in the valley, and economically improving other communities throughout CA or even the grater USA. Just an idea, I might be wrong.

kjksf 11y ago
It is not strange at all. The best companies are here because this is where the greatest number of good programmers is. Good programmers come here because this is where all the best companies are. It's a virtual cycle for the industry but vicious cycle for housing, especially when confronted with SV's housing politics (Seattle is also experiencing a boom but is dealing better with it by building more tall buildings). This is almost a power law in play. It's not about SV having 2x more programmers than elsewhere. It literally has hundreds (if not thousands) times more than, say, the entire state of Ohio. For that reason Apple can't just move to Ohio because they won't be able to hire good programmers at scale. Moving elsewhere might work for small companies that never intend to grow a lot because you can find one or two good programmers that haven't yet moved to SV but that won't move the needle. And even small companies start here because this is where all the VC money is to give you a start and this is where all the programmers are when you start growing.
- x0054 11y ago
  But I am not saying they should move to Ohio, they can move to Eureka, California, or basically any place north of SF. Also any place south of Monterey. Those areas are not dirt cheep, but they are inexpensive compared to SV. Let's say, for instance, Apple was to open a campus in Eureka, and offer some of it's employees to relocate there and continue to get the same paycheck and work on the same projects. Don't you think a lot of employees might take them up on that offer. I am not saying everyone would, but people with families, who wish to have a house and a back yard, and a dog, and a nice home life, and wish to not have to pay 3/4 of their paycheck to the bank for the privilege, would take Apple up on that offer. Further more, if you think about it, it might be to Apple or Googles advantage to actually open some remote, out of the way, campuses. This way they can recruit developers who like the out of the way life style (yes there are some) and those developers might be less inclined to jump ship. Maybe they can make 10% more at company X in SV, but they have a nice life, cheep housing, and no traffic, why bother. It could be a good retention tool, and possibly a good recruitment tool.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > But I am not saying they should move to Ohio, they can move to Eureka, California, or basically any place north of SF. Also any place south of Monterey. Those areas are not dirt cheep, but they are inexpensive compared to SV. Basically, any place outside of the Bay Area (within California, that's can be North, South, or East of the areas immediately surrounding the Bay.)
michaelt 11y ago
Isn't it strange, and not very efficient for such a large number of very prosperous companies to be located all in one area. Once a cluster of companies has formed, employees think being anywhere else will make it harder to change jobs/advance their career, and employers think being anywhere else will make it harder to hire people.
- tired_man 11y ago
  Except for all those people who telecommute or hire teleciommuters.

by x0054 11y ago

kjksf 11y ago

It is not strange at all. The best companies are here because this is where the greatest number of good programmers is. Good programmers come here because this is where all the best companies are. It's a virtual cycle for the industry but vicious cycle for housing, especially when confronted with SV's housing politics (Seattle is also experiencing a boom but is dealing better with it by building more tall buildings). This is almost a power law in play. It's not about SV having 2x more programmers than elsewhere. It literally has hundreds (if not thousands) times more than, say, the entire state of Ohio. For that reason Apple can't just move to Ohio because they won't be able to hire good programmers at scale. Moving elsewhere might work for small companies that never intend to grow a lot because you can find one or two good programmers that haven't yet moved to SV but that won't move the needle. And even small companies start here because this is where all the VC money is to give you a start and this is where all the programmers are when you start growing.

x0054 11y ago
But I am not saying they should move to Ohio, they can move to Eureka, California, or basically any place north of SF. Also any place south of Monterey. Those areas are not dirt cheep, but they are inexpensive compared to SV. Let's say, for instance, Apple was to open a campus in Eureka, and offer some of it's employees to relocate there and continue to get the same paycheck and work on the same projects. Don't you think a lot of employees might take them up on that offer. I am not saying everyone would, but people with families, who wish to have a house and a back yard, and a dog, and a nice home life, and wish to not have to pay 3/4 of their paycheck to the bank for the privilege, would take Apple up on that offer. Further more, if you think about it, it might be to Apple or Googles advantage to actually open some remote, out of the way, campuses. This way they can recruit developers who like the out of the way life style (yes there are some) and those developers might be less inclined to jump ship. Maybe they can make 10% more at company X in SV, but they have a nice life, cheep housing, and no traffic, why bother. It could be a good retention tool, and possibly a good recruitment tool.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > But I am not saying they should move to Ohio, they can move to Eureka, California, or basically any place north of SF. Also any place south of Monterey. Those areas are not dirt cheep, but they are inexpensive compared to SV. Basically, any place outside of the Bay Area (within California, that's can be North, South, or East of the areas immediately surrounding the Bay.)

michaelt 11y ago

Isn't it strange, and not very efficient for such a large number of very prosperous companies to be located all in one area. Once a cluster of companies has formed, employees think being anywhere else will make it harder to change jobs/advance their career, and employers think being anywhere else will make it harder to hire people.

tired_man 11y ago
Except for all those people who telecommute or hire teleciommuters.