7 ms·

The benefits of California are vastly overstated. Almost nothing about the climate (I like winter) or culture appeals to me, yet I'm pulled towards there to su

The benefits of California are vastly overstated. Almost nothing about the climate (I like winter) or culture appeals to me, yet I'm pulled towards there to succeed in a tech career. This is simply network effects in action, except that unfortunately this network has been built in one of the locales in the US with some of the most aggressively anti-growth policies possible. Things would be much better if tech was centered around somewhere like Chicago or even New York.

chaostheory 10y ago
There are other large metros that support a lot of tech companies outside of California.
- jonlarson 10y ago
  But few of them have such a high concentration of true tech companies where the tech is the product and not a cost center.
  - chaostheory 10y ago
    There are at least 2-3 other metros that meet this criteria and the cost of living is cheaper than the SF Bay Area (or LA)
    - muzz 10y ago
      Are you referring to Seattle and NYC? They are cheaper but not by much.
      - chaostheory 10y ago
        There's also Austin. Portland is up and coming.
jasonkester 10y ago
Thought experiment: Would developer salaries in general be as high as they are today if we hadn't happened to choose an area with such high cost of living area as our nexus, with the consequential requirement to pay so much to attract talent? That is, would a guy like me (or you) be able to pull in multi-six-figures a year to telecommute to the Bay Area from out in the sticks if there weren't so many poor souls physically there keeping rates up for the rest of us? What would things look like if the tech hub were in Ft. Worth TX instead (or Scott's Bluff, Nebraska), with hundreds of miles of flat empty cheap land in all directions to keep housing prices down near zero.
- eloisant 10y ago
  The cost of living follows salaries of the tech sector, not the other way around. Even the tech hub was not on a peninsula, you'd still have an expensive center and poor people would have to suffer a long commute like East Bay people do in the Bay Area. Just look at London or Paris: it's not cheap despite not having the same geographical problem. It's not as expensive as the Bay Area because there are many people with various jobs, not just highly paid tech workers.
  - whack 10y ago
    It's a combination of demand and city-policies. San Francisco has a lower population density than queens, but the same housing price levels as Manhattan. If the city got its act together and built up a housing density that's on par with Manhattan, cost of living would fall dramatically. Good governance matters. It makes a huge difference in cost-of-living. The way SF is run, it's almost as though people want the cost-of-living to be as high as possible.
    - softawre 10y ago
      > The way SF is run, it's almost as though people want the cost-of-living to be as high as possible. Surely you're joking? Of course that's what they want. SF people, home owners, are voting on SF policy. Do you want to lose half the value of your house?
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
As a west coaster, I can't stand Chicago or New York. The weather sucks, the topology is boring, the people are either boring Midwesterners, or crass north easterners. I'm happy the west coast gets more play, though I would probably not want to live in SF.
- empthought 10y ago
  That's "topography." The topology at Chicago, Harvard, MIT, and Princeton is clearly less boring than the topology at West Coast schools, Stanford included.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    Ah, true, oops. Yes mountains, not networking.
    - Arnt 10y ago
      Go look up what topology means, I think I'll like it. It applies to more than just networking and some people find it fascinating.
- koolba 10y ago
  (emphasis mine) > As a west coaster, I can't stand Chicago or New York. The weather sucks, the topology is boring, the people are either boring Midwesterners, or crass north easterners. I'm happy the west coast gets more play, though I would probably not want to live in SF. While the stereotypes exist for a reason (and anybody who's lived in NYC or Chi-town testify to these particular ones), have to disagree with you on the being able to put up with "those" people. It's the west coast that is the outlier here as a (stereotypical) bunch of pansies who can't (again stereotypically) deal with rawness of reality.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    I'm fortunate, or not, for having lived in western (Seattle) and eastern Washington, Bay Area, Portland, Toledo, New York City (well, Westchester County), Vicksburg MS, Boca Raton, Salt Lake City, Austin (some for a few months, many for a few or more years). There is nothing wrong with the other areas of the US, and Americans are mostly the same, but I find the laid back style of the left west coast just to be the most suited. Well, Californians can take that a bit too far...
pc86 10y ago
> I'm pulled towards [California] to succeed in a tech career. I promise it is very possible to have a successful career in technology without being anywhere close to California.
- whack 10y ago
  It's "very possible" to have a "successful career" in lots of places, doing lots of sub-optimal things. But if your goal is to optimize your tech career, that narrows down your options significantly.
  - John23832 10y ago
    That really depends on what you define as "optimal". Having worked at the Google's, FB, and Apple's of the world is something to put on a resume. 9/10 the job isn't fulfilling.
    - whack 10y ago
      I'm not telling anyone what their life goals should be, or what they should optimize for. Just pointing out that if someone highly prioritizes career success, they would find themselves having to move to SF (or one of the few other hubs). I don't think it's anyone's role to lecture others on the internet about what their life goals should or should not be.
      - sethammons 10y ago
        Define "career success." I live 3+ hours out of LA. I work with scaling distributed back end systems. I make well into 6 figures (admittedly with a 1 in front). Bay area companies try to recruit me often enough but tend to not be able to afford me (and I really like where I work). I'm not trying to toot my own horn, and I may be in a minority; however I don't find myself "having" to move to a tech hub, and I feel successful thus far in my career. Tangentially, I avoid SF like prices: my mortgage in my mountain community is about $800/mo. Sorry to be pedantic, but the correction I'd make to your statement: one can likely incease their chances for career progression (or starting their career) by moving to a tech hub.

chaostheory 10y ago

There are other large metros that support a lot of tech companies outside of California.

jonlarson 10y ago
But few of them have such a high concentration of true tech companies where the tech is the product and not a cost center.
- chaostheory 10y ago
  There are at least 2-3 other metros that meet this criteria and the cost of living is cheaper than the SF Bay Area (or LA)
  - muzz 10y ago
    Are you referring to Seattle and NYC? They are cheaper but not by much.
    - chaostheory 10y ago
      There's also Austin. Portland is up and coming.

jasonkester 10y ago

Thought experiment: Would developer salaries in general be as high as they are today if we hadn't happened to choose an area with such high cost of living area as our nexus, with the consequential requirement to pay so much to attract talent? That is, would a guy like me (or you) be able to pull in multi-six-figures a year to telecommute to the Bay Area from out in the sticks if there weren't so many poor souls physically there keeping rates up for the rest of us? What would things look like if the tech hub were in Ft. Worth TX instead (or Scott's Bluff, Nebraska), with hundreds of miles of flat empty cheap land in all directions to keep housing prices down near zero.

eloisant 10y ago
The cost of living follows salaries of the tech sector, not the other way around. Even the tech hub was not on a peninsula, you'd still have an expensive center and poor people would have to suffer a long commute like East Bay people do in the Bay Area. Just look at London or Paris: it's not cheap despite not having the same geographical problem. It's not as expensive as the Bay Area because there are many people with various jobs, not just highly paid tech workers.
- whack 10y ago
  It's a combination of demand and city-policies. San Francisco has a lower population density than queens, but the same housing price levels as Manhattan. If the city got its act together and built up a housing density that's on par with Manhattan, cost of living would fall dramatically. Good governance matters. It makes a huge difference in cost-of-living. The way SF is run, it's almost as though people want the cost-of-living to be as high as possible.
  - softawre 10y ago
    > The way SF is run, it's almost as though people want the cost-of-living to be as high as possible. Surely you're joking? Of course that's what they want. SF people, home owners, are voting on SF policy. Do you want to lose half the value of your house?

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

As a west coaster, I can't stand Chicago or New York. The weather sucks, the topology is boring, the people are either boring Midwesterners, or crass north easterners. I'm happy the west coast gets more play, though I would probably not want to live in SF.

empthought 10y ago
That's "topography." The topology at Chicago, Harvard, MIT, and Princeton is clearly less boring than the topology at West Coast schools, Stanford included.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  Ah, true, oops. Yes mountains, not networking.
  - Arnt 10y ago
    Go look up what topology means, I think I'll like it. It applies to more than just networking and some people find it fascinating.
koolba 10y ago
(emphasis mine) > As a west coaster, I can't stand Chicago or New York. The weather sucks, the topology is boring, the people are either boring Midwesterners, or crass north easterners. I'm happy the west coast gets more play, though I would probably not want to live in SF. While the stereotypes exist for a reason (and anybody who's lived in NYC or Chi-town testify to these particular ones), have to disagree with you on the being able to put up with "those" people. It's the west coast that is the outlier here as a (stereotypical) bunch of pansies who can't (again stereotypically) deal with rawness of reality.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  I'm fortunate, or not, for having lived in western (Seattle) and eastern Washington, Bay Area, Portland, Toledo, New York City (well, Westchester County), Vicksburg MS, Boca Raton, Salt Lake City, Austin (some for a few months, many for a few or more years). There is nothing wrong with the other areas of the US, and Americans are mostly the same, but I find the laid back style of the left west coast just to be the most suited. Well, Californians can take that a bit too far...

pc86 10y ago

> I'm pulled towards [California] to succeed in a tech career. I promise it is very possible to have a successful career in technology without being anywhere close to California.

whack 10y ago
It's "very possible" to have a "successful career" in lots of places, doing lots of sub-optimal things. But if your goal is to optimize your tech career, that narrows down your options significantly.
- John23832 10y ago
  That really depends on what you define as "optimal". Having worked at the Google's, FB, and Apple's of the world is something to put on a resume. 9/10 the job isn't fulfilling.
  - whack 10y ago
    I'm not telling anyone what their life goals should be, or what they should optimize for. Just pointing out that if someone highly prioritizes career success, they would find themselves having to move to SF (or one of the few other hubs). I don't think it's anyone's role to lecture others on the internet about what their life goals should or should not be.
    - sethammons 10y ago
      Define "career success." I live 3+ hours out of LA. I work with scaling distributed back end systems. I make well into 6 figures (admittedly with a 1 in front). Bay area companies try to recruit me often enough but tend to not be able to afford me (and I really like where I work). I'm not trying to toot my own horn, and I may be in a minority; however I don't find myself "having" to move to a tech hub, and I feel successful thus far in my career. Tangentially, I avoid SF like prices: my mortgage in my mountain community is about $800/mo. Sorry to be pedantic, but the correction I'd make to your statement: one can likely incease their chances for career progression (or starting their career) by moving to a tech hub.