4 ms·
(I'm the author) Even putting aside the ethical and moral arguments, which carry a lot of weight for me: (1) There are network effects in urban environments.
by zt 11y ago
(I'm the author)
Even putting aside the ethical and moral arguments, which carry a lot of weight for me:
(1) There are network effects in urban environments.
(2) Globally, specific industries often concentrate in specific cities. A lot of tech has concentrated in the Valley up to the San Francisco. The effects are getting stronger as that migration occurs. That's a great thing: it allows for people to move between companies easily, allows ideas to be shared, etc, etc.[1] That effects is and will continue to be hard to replicate elsewhere.
(3) Destroying that seems like a gigantic waste.
(4) We are destroying it through our current public policies -- housing and other.
(5) I believe there are political solutions, just not ones that have been well-organized.
[1] Urbanism has a lot of other benefits too, if done right: like less traffic, and a lower per capita carbon footprint.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y agoAnd yet there's nothing inherent with software development that makes SF and the Bay Area any different from lots of other cities, other than inertia. It's amazing that an industry that prides itself on being non traditional is so tied to a specific geographical location, as if there's some valuable mineral that can only be mined in SOMA and downtown Palo Alto.
- zt 11y agoThere is nothing inherent about finance that makes New York and London any different than a lot of other cities, other than inertia. It could be otherwise than it is, that's sort of the truth of network effects, but it's difficult.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y agoFavorably comparing Bay Area software to Wall Street is an odd thing to hear from you.
- zt 11y agoI don't like big banks, but that doesn't mean finance has been bad for NYC.
- zeemonkee3 11y agoHow much of this is down to VCs/incubators insisting startups move to the Bay Area?
- Grishnakh 11y agoActually, there is: non-compete clauses. They're unenforceable in California. Everywhere else, they are. That makes it an attractive place to be a tech worker, since tech workers tend to change jobs relatively quickly. In the Bay Area, you can easily switch jobs, even going to a competitor; this isn't the case in other states. And then you get the chicken-and-egg problem: with all those workers there, companies want to locate there to have access to that talent pool. And then the workers want to stay there so they have access to all those jobs that they can hop between.
- slackstation 11y agoHere in Santa Monica, CA companies are seeing more candidates because the ridiculous rents that you pay in SF affect your bottom line. Living in SOMA requires $120k/yr minimum to responsibly afford renting a 1 bdrm. Getting paid 20% less but, having housing costing 1/4 of what it is in SF is a win overall. And this is coming from someone who loves the tech scene in SF. So many smart people, so many great ideas, so much energy. But, to move there, I'd have to make at least $35k/yr more just to break even and that's living in a hovel in comparison to where I live now.