4 ms·

> Why San Francisco? San Francisco is the Schelling point for high-openness, smart, energetic, optimistic people. Global Weird HQ. This could describe Seattle,

by mugsie 8y ago

> Why San Francisco? San Francisco is the Schelling point for high-openness, smart, energetic, optimistic people. Global Weird HQ. This could describe Seattle, Portland, Austin, Denver (from my experience) in the US, and a myriad of other places worldwide.

gfodor 8y ago
Note: optimism in SF more easily sighted when the preferred political party is in power
- nostrademons 8y ago
  Nah, there are still plenty of optimistic people in SF. Many of them right now are working on a blockchain something-or-other or an AI-powered something-or-other. The type of folks you want to meet, if you're interested in doing something that will be seen as important in a generation, are generally fairly apolitical. Politics (at least the hyper-partisan variety pursued in the U.S. today) consumes a lot of energy for the purpose of opposing other people who are expending a lot of energy. It makes sense that neither one of them makes much progress, though they generate much heat and noise in the process. Real change comes from people working on stuff so weird that nobody bothers to oppose them.
- ritchiea 8y ago
  Note: optimism in SF more easily sighted when you’re a well off tech worker
SEMW 8y ago
By definition only one place can be the Schelling point: the one that, in the absence of any coordination, a plurality of people think would be picked as the one that a plurality of people think would be picked as... etc.
seathrowaway 8y ago
Seattle is (or was) great at many things but as someone who has lived here all my life, I disagree with this categorization. From what I know of Portland, it describes that city even less well. We're politically liberal (sometimes to a fault), not any more optimistic than average (and quite possibly less), and definitely not what I'd call "energetic". It'd be more accurate to say the PNW has positioned itself as the laid-back alternative to SF. I've known a couple companies who have left the area because they couldn't find enough people here in their particular field who wanted to really work hard. On these particular axes (which may or may not be important to you), Seattle/Portland simply aren't in the same league as San Francisco or New York City. People in those cities are mercilessly open, optimistic, and energetic.
- kyledrake 8y ago
  Having spent a year in the Bay Area after living in Portland for 10, I really do feel there is much more creative energy in places like Portland, and also that it's a far better place to start most companies. The problem is that the Bay Area might be full of more creative, interesting people, but the quality and cost of life down there is terrible (and nobody's fixing it), and the problems associated with that more than mitigates the benefits. You meet smart people, but in order to pay their exorbitant rent they need to work long hours for companies that can pay them an enormous salary, and that's usually the big ones you know about already. That financial burdon, combined with chronic transportation issues, prevents the congealing of people and free time required to form the really creative new ideas and companies, and you just end up with whatever the VCs want to throw a pile of money onto. So naturally, the thing I do find the area useful for is companies that could be considered VC/10x plays. But I feel like most companies, even very successful ones, don't fall under that criteria. And it only works for companies VCs are willing to fund, limiting your ability to get creative and outside the box. My advice would be to go there for 1-2 years after college, then decide if all the problems with the area are worth it. Anecdotally, most people I've known eventually get sick of it and leave. And infact the problems are so bad now that the area has started losing population. I think in order for the Bay Area (and California in general) to really become good for creatives, they need to take a deep existential look at themselves and really decide that they're willing to solve the problems. That means making radical, Marshall Plan levels of reform to zoning and property tax laws, establishment of strong regional metropolitan governments, and significant investments in better transportation. I have zero confidence in the idea that the region will continue to be successful unless they aggressively tackle these problems.
  - aphextron 8y ago
    >I think in order for the Bay Area (and California in general) to really become good for creatives, they need to take a deep existential look at themselves and really decide that they're willing to solve the problems. That means making radical, Marshall Plan levels of reform to zoning and property tax laws, establishment of strong regional metropolitan governments, and significant investments in better transportation. And this will never, ever happen. California is going to continue it's slide into something resembling the third world, where the ultra-rich elite 10% live in their exurban gated communities with armed guards, and a permanent underclass of service workers provides for their every need while barely scraping out an existence. The incentives pushing things in this direction are simply too great for any kind of change to happen. I've been here for 4 years now and have seen it visibly getting worse in that time. The place is completely unlivable. I'm now just biding my time to save for a down payment in Seattle or Portland, because the thought of buying a house here has literally become a punchline for even high income earners.
archagon 8y ago
That quote just makes me sad. It feels like every time I visit a new city abroad, my understanding of the world expands twofold. SF is great if your life revolves around tech and startups, but I find it hard to perceive as the center of anything but money and hubris. I can't help but roll my eyes at the utterly self-absorbed and vapid conversations I overhear in cafés from day to day. Nothing remotely Weird about any of it.

by mugsie 8y ago

gfodor 8y ago

Note: optimism in SF more easily sighted when the preferred political party is in power

nostrademons 8y ago
Nah, there are still plenty of optimistic people in SF. Many of them right now are working on a blockchain something-or-other or an AI-powered something-or-other. The type of folks you want to meet, if you're interested in doing something that will be seen as important in a generation, are generally fairly apolitical. Politics (at least the hyper-partisan variety pursued in the U.S. today) consumes a lot of energy for the purpose of opposing other people who are expending a lot of energy. It makes sense that neither one of them makes much progress, though they generate much heat and noise in the process. Real change comes from people working on stuff so weird that nobody bothers to oppose them.
ritchiea 8y ago
Note: optimism in SF more easily sighted when you’re a well off tech worker

SEMW 8y ago

By definition only one place can be the Schelling point: the one that, in the absence of any coordination, a plurality of people think would be picked as the one that a plurality of people think would be picked as... etc.

seathrowaway 8y ago

Seattle is (or was) great at many things but as someone who has lived here all my life, I disagree with this categorization. From what I know of Portland, it describes that city even less well. We're politically liberal (sometimes to a fault), not any more optimistic than average (and quite possibly less), and definitely not what I'd call "energetic". It'd be more accurate to say the PNW has positioned itself as the laid-back alternative to SF. I've known a couple companies who have left the area because they couldn't find enough people here in their particular field who wanted to really work hard. On these particular axes (which may or may not be important to you), Seattle/Portland simply aren't in the same league as San Francisco or New York City. People in those cities are mercilessly open, optimistic, and energetic.

kyledrake 8y ago
Having spent a year in the Bay Area after living in Portland for 10, I really do feel there is much more creative energy in places like Portland, and also that it's a far better place to start most companies. The problem is that the Bay Area might be full of more creative, interesting people, but the quality and cost of life down there is terrible (and nobody's fixing it), and the problems associated with that more than mitigates the benefits. You meet smart people, but in order to pay their exorbitant rent they need to work long hours for companies that can pay them an enormous salary, and that's usually the big ones you know about already. That financial burdon, combined with chronic transportation issues, prevents the congealing of people and free time required to form the really creative new ideas and companies, and you just end up with whatever the VCs want to throw a pile of money onto. So naturally, the thing I do find the area useful for is companies that could be considered VC/10x plays. But I feel like most companies, even very successful ones, don't fall under that criteria. And it only works for companies VCs are willing to fund, limiting your ability to get creative and outside the box. My advice would be to go there for 1-2 years after college, then decide if all the problems with the area are worth it. Anecdotally, most people I've known eventually get sick of it and leave. And infact the problems are so bad now that the area has started losing population. I think in order for the Bay Area (and California in general) to really become good for creatives, they need to take a deep existential look at themselves and really decide that they're willing to solve the problems. That means making radical, Marshall Plan levels of reform to zoning and property tax laws, establishment of strong regional metropolitan governments, and significant investments in better transportation. I have zero confidence in the idea that the region will continue to be successful unless they aggressively tackle these problems.
- aphextron 8y ago
  >I think in order for the Bay Area (and California in general) to really become good for creatives, they need to take a deep existential look at themselves and really decide that they're willing to solve the problems. That means making radical, Marshall Plan levels of reform to zoning and property tax laws, establishment of strong regional metropolitan governments, and significant investments in better transportation. And this will never, ever happen. California is going to continue it's slide into something resembling the third world, where the ultra-rich elite 10% live in their exurban gated communities with armed guards, and a permanent underclass of service workers provides for their every need while barely scraping out an existence. The incentives pushing things in this direction are simply too great for any kind of change to happen. I've been here for 4 years now and have seen it visibly getting worse in that time. The place is completely unlivable. I'm now just biding my time to save for a down payment in Seattle or Portland, because the thought of buying a house here has literally become a punchline for even high income earners.

archagon 8y ago

That quote just makes me sad. It feels like every time I visit a new city abroad, my understanding of the world expands twofold. SF is great if your life revolves around tech and startups, but I find it hard to perceive as the center of anything but money and hubris. I can't help but roll my eyes at the utterly self-absorbed and vapid conversations I overhear in cafés from day to day. Nothing remotely Weird about any of it.