5 ms·

I don't live in SF. I visited a few times and it's not my cup of tea. I prefer LA and plan to stay here forever. LA is expensive as well, but there are places

I don't live in SF. I visited a few times and it's not my cup of tea. I prefer LA and plan to stay here forever. LA is expensive as well, but there are places that you can rent on the cheap, or at least a reasonable amount of money, and be safe. If this wasn't the case, LA as a city would break down. We need music, artists, actors, people pouring coffee, and serving tables to keep this city alive. We need a poor person living in the same building as an executive. On top of that, we need places where poor people can afford to eat, so there is a McDonalds anywhere you go. I bring up McD's because I was "over-fooded" in SF and went on a desperate search for something trashy to eat, almost to no avail. I'm just wondering how SF is able to sustain itself and how it plans to sustain itself in the future if they push all the poor people to such a distance that they can't even take the BART or bus to work anymore. The other difference is that LA is very much a gig economy. There are a LOT of people out here that either don't have a job and live just fine, or they have a day job and do random gigs during their off-hours. As someone once told me, you don't sleep in LA, you just rest. Others have pointed out that this is a work area, and so on. But even so, there are so many different industries down here that you can, with time, talent, and luck, have sustainable life and your own place, well outside tech, movies, music, art, and so on. My impression is that the bay area is an area with a few viable ways to make a living. Is it just that the lower class has to live in the dangerous areas of Oakland (and elsewhere) to just have a roof over their head?

twblalock 9y ago
> My impression is that the bay area is an area with a few viable ways to make a living, and is it just that the lower class has to live in the dangerous areas of Oakland (and elsewhere) to just have a roof over their head? There is no shortage of fast food workers, waiters, retail workers, coffee shop workers, handymen, etc. It's expensive to live in the Bay Area, but clearly those people are able to make a living or they wouldn't be around anymore. And they don't all commute from far away. I know plenty of people working those jobs who live in the Bay Area near their places of work.
- closeparen 9y ago
  There's a lot of inertia to people and their geography. The absolute loss of non-tech activity may be small for now, but ask anyone who hires people outside our industry where the think their organization will be in 10 years. A colleague once remarked, "It's the second derivative of the thing that'll get you."
farnsworthy 9y ago
Yeah, but is that "on purpose" altruism, or an accident of expansive geography? Regardless, it sounds like a more affordable place (if car-bound).
- dizzystar 9y ago
  It could be part of both. It seems that, especially in the past 30 years, the entire bay area (which is large) just become a tech hub. The difference is that, while LA is well-known for Hollywood, you can go a few miles in any direction and get away from "the industry." Considering there were bench advertisements for big data all around SF, it didn't feel like you could get away from tech or really any of the things that are more or less a deep reflection of the cliche tech crowd. So, whether "on purpose" or not, the fact is that the resulting food, work, life, and so on appear very different. For an example, if you trying to be an actor, you'll likely fall through the cracks, though it's entirely possible you will still work in entertainment in some capacity. The difference is that you can leave that industry entirely and still have a viable way of making a go at life. This is different than being a place that (feels like) you have the option of tech or get out. I'm not bashing SF at all, by the way. It seems there is a bit of a resistance to welcoming other things at this point. I could be thinking wrong here, but the "tech is everywhere" is definitely a comment I've heard from people living there or visiting there that have no involvement in tech.

twblalock 9y ago

> My impression is that the bay area is an area with a few viable ways to make a living, and is it just that the lower class has to live in the dangerous areas of Oakland (and elsewhere) to just have a roof over their head? There is no shortage of fast food workers, waiters, retail workers, coffee shop workers, handymen, etc. It's expensive to live in the Bay Area, but clearly those people are able to make a living or they wouldn't be around anymore. And they don't all commute from far away. I know plenty of people working those jobs who live in the Bay Area near their places of work.

closeparen 9y ago
There's a lot of inertia to people and their geography. The absolute loss of non-tech activity may be small for now, but ask anyone who hires people outside our industry where the think their organization will be in 10 years. A colleague once remarked, "It's the second derivative of the thing that'll get you."

farnsworthy 9y ago

Yeah, but is that "on purpose" altruism, or an accident of expansive geography? Regardless, it sounds like a more affordable place (if car-bound).

dizzystar 9y ago
It could be part of both. It seems that, especially in the past 30 years, the entire bay area (which is large) just become a tech hub. The difference is that, while LA is well-known for Hollywood, you can go a few miles in any direction and get away from "the industry." Considering there were bench advertisements for big data all around SF, it didn't feel like you could get away from tech or really any of the things that are more or less a deep reflection of the cliche tech crowd. So, whether "on purpose" or not, the fact is that the resulting food, work, life, and so on appear very different. For an example, if you trying to be an actor, you'll likely fall through the cracks, though it's entirely possible you will still work in entertainment in some capacity. The difference is that you can leave that industry entirely and still have a viable way of making a go at life. This is different than being a place that (feels like) you have the option of tech or get out. I'm not bashing SF at all, by the way. It seems there is a bit of a resistance to welcoming other things at this point. I could be thinking wrong here, but the "tech is everywhere" is definitely a comment I've heard from people living there or visiting there that have no involvement in tech.