3 ms·
Right, clearly the Bay Area has to accommodate every startup, and no one else should have any.
by Finnucane 9y ago
Right, clearly the Bay Area has to accommodate every startup, and no one else should have any.
- techsupporter 9y agoI don't think kcorbitt meant that at all. I read it as that if the Bay Area wants to remain (regain?) competitiveness with other, lower-cost areas, it must adapt, not that the Bay Area is entitled to hoard every startup. Other areas are competing on the basis of cost or livability so the Bay Area has to navigate that competitive landscape if the people there wish it to remain a destination.
- Finnucane 9y agoWhy do they need to be competitive? Is it a zero-sum game? Will people suddenly decide they don't want to live there any more? The only way the Bay Area/Silicon Valley is going to suffer from this is if the entire tech industry collapses.
- kcorbitt 9y agoI knew I'd get this objection. :) It's true that to some degree Silicon Valley's loss is the rest of the world's gain, and I'm totally cool with that. But I worry that to a perhaps larger degree companies that would have been successful will simply never be formed, because the founders that could have made them happen won't be in an environment with the critical concentration of capital, mentorship and skilled employees. That outcome would be a tragedy for all of us.
- conanbatt 9y agoStartups are not a bag of marbles that you want to spread out in a way everyone gets one. They are businesses driven by people with objectives, financial or otherwise. For better or worse, San Francisco attracts talent in a way the mid-west doesnt. By not cleaning up its act,its turning away people that would otherwise go there. California loses, so California has a huge incentive to change things for that. The mid-west can do their own policies to compete for the interests of businesses and people.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]