16 ms·

I don't know when Peak California will come, but I'm fairly certain it will happen at some point, and this opinion article actually does a great job at summariz

I don't know when Peak California will come, but I'm fairly certain it will happen at some point, and this opinion article actually does a great job at summarizing my opinion as to why in its very last sentence: "Californians will end up like the landed gentry in interwar England. Lovely houses, illustrious history, and no conceivable way to pay their bills." Why do tech companies flock to California (LA/SF)? I often hear people credit the great technical universities. But that can't be, because most of the actual workers at these companies didn't go to Bay Area or even California universities [1]. If they're willing to move from their home to California for work, it's safe to assume they're willing to move from their home to almost anywhere else for work. It's not due to cheap housing or even available housing. It's not due to the great commute into work. It's not due to the low cost of living. The only argument I hear is that tech companies move to SF/LA because lots of tech workers are there, and lots of tech workers are there because lots of tech companies are there. So if there's nothing holding technology to SF/LA, when does it become a competitive advantage to have your offices anywhere but California? At some point it will. And it will be long overdue. [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/h-1b-foreign-citizens-make-up-nearly-three-quarters-of-silicon-valley-tech-workforce-report-says/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/h-1b-foreign-citizens...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
joshuamorton 8y ago
> Why do tech companies flock to California (LA/SF)? I often hear people credit the great technical universities. But that can't be, because most of the actual workers at these companies didn't go to Bay Area or even California universities [1]. 2 flaws here: 1. The majority of those h1b workers are at like tcs Wipro and Infosys, not conventional sv companies. 2. Being close to technical universities is good if it gives you a recruiting edge, even if only some of your employees come from that school.
- jldugger 8y ago
  > The majority of those h1b workers are at like tcs Wipro and Infosys, not conventional sv companies. Who do you think those companies contract out to?
jlrubin 8y ago
Unenforceable non-compete clauses played a non-minor role in the success of CA as a tech-hub. Sure take a job in MA or NYC as an engineer, but come back in 2 years when your employer is preventing you from working or building a company.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Note that: 1.) Massachusetts recently passed a law significantly limiting non-competes 2.) I've never been able to find specific numbers, but my experience in Massachusetts is that they're far from universal. I've only had one in my career and that one was quite narrow. (That was EMC which was one of the local employers who fought hardest against the weakening of non-competes.) I don't like non-competes and personally think the new law should have been stronger than it was. But, historically people jumped around employers like the Route 128 computer companies all the time.
  - 80386 8y ago
    I'm in Massachusetts and when I got a grunt job at an Amazon FC a few years ago I had to sign a noncompete. I don't know if it's enforceable and doubt it'd be enforced, but technically I think I'm not supposed to take a comparable job elsewhere for a year after I quit, or something like that.
    - currymj 8y ago
      the law bans this kind of thing now (as of October 2018): you simply can't have a noncompete unless the employee is exempt from overtime. even for an exempt employee, the MA law now requires 50% salary to be paid for the period the employee can't work. i don't know if existing agreements are enforceable or not though.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        50% garden leave isn’t ideal. A lot of people aren’t in a position to take that pay cut (along with bonuses and RSUs) to hang out for a year. OTOH it makes companies put a fair bit of skin in the game which has considerable value.
tyre 8y ago
It’s the network effects you mentioned. The reason to be here is because people are here. While that doesn’t seem like something that _has_ to be in California, it is already here and that’s not something you can just move. As for why other cities have a hard time competing, it’s the same thing. If CA is perceived as “where innovation happens” then people will look for jobs here. They won’t even look at e.g. Kansas City or Charlotte or wherever, even if there are open roles there. It doesn’t have to be this way and probably won’t be in ten or twenty years. Especially after this wave of IPOs, SF will likely be unlivable for most. If companies can continue to raise enough money to pay equivalently higher salaries, then the boom can continue a while longer. Otherwise, the numbers don’t make sense.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  It’s the network effects you mentioned. The reason to be here is because people are here. When a scene gets hot, there's always the danger of grouthink. There is far too much groupthink here. Much of it now is even the toxic kind. "Fear is the mind-killer." However, fear is only the start, only the beachhead. Groupthink is the main body, and it's the mechanism whereby the mind-killing starts to result in real world consequences. When a scene gets hot, and there's real money and power to be had, it also attracts the sociopaths. https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths
  - PaulHoule 8y ago
    It's all about the exits. You could never get an exit if you were based in Chicago or St. Louis or Montana, etc.
    - elpakal 8y ago
      Based in Colorado. Just wondering if you could expand on this. Seems like what you are saying is no startups in Montana ever get exits - personally I think that's because startups seeking an exit end of moving to The Bay Area because of all the factors being mentioned here.
    - 8y ago
anyfoo 8y ago
> If they're willing to move from their home to California for work, it's safe to assume they're willing to move from their home to almost anywhere else for work. Not sure. I moved to the Bay Area from Germany, and while the primary factor was of course the job that was offered to me, the nice weather and the really quite stunning landscape were a factor. I'm still pretty happy if I'm on a hilly street in SF and see the bay, the Golden Gate Bridge, all that jazz. And SF itself is still quite a pretty city, despite its problems.
- ghaff 8y ago
  The Bay Area has some of the nicest weather and access to some of the most beautiful recreation opportunities just about anywhere (even if Silicon Valley itself is mostly meh suburban sprawl). It's hard to believe those don't have some effect. Sure, most people who move there do so for jobs, but--especially as they get a bit older--most people will try pretty hard to have a job somewhere they actually like living.
- drdeadringer 8y ago
  My first job out of College University had me relocating around the USA about every 9-12 months for about 4 years. Not constant travel, constant relocation. Living out of luggage got bad and sad real quick; I stayed in much too long. Saying "I'm done with this" once I got to California turned out to be good; now, I've lived in the same location for longer than I have since graduating College University and I honestly can't complain. I still compulsively keep boxes because of the bad habits I picked up from continuous relocation... but at this point is a separate issue. Yes, California rent ever up and on toward morning. Yes, NIMBYs are ever up and on toward morning. Yes, all of the other "Ever Bad Stuff" the same. I don't know where my new next breaking point is, but when it's there I'll find it and I'll act on it; I'm trying really hard to get started on that now, but factors are making that difficult. My Point: The simple fact of moving to California is not necessarily vindictive of "everyone who does this is going to move around the globe for giggles as suggested or implied". Maybe I wanted California as a destination. Maybe you wanted California as a way-station. Maybe someone born in California wants to stay here ... or move out ... and/or move back eventually. I have a doubt regarding "You move to California, You'll move anywhere".
lotsofpulp 8y ago
CA has some good laws, such as regarding non competes, parental leave, sick leave, environmental laws, legal marijuana, assisted suicide. Nice weather and landscapes also help.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Many other places have similar laws, and even in the places that don't, the tech companies there typically do those things regardless of whether it's a legal requirement.
  - mostlysimilar 8y ago
    But do they do those things because they must compete with the Californian companies that are required by law?
    - chillacy 8y ago
      Yup. I don't work in CA but it's obvious that CA laws affect us too, for better or worse: CA emission standards, Prop 65 warnings, etc. And I know my salary and benefits are abnormally good because the HQ is in the bay area. Local companies don't give as much. I feel like I got the best draw by working for a CA company outside of CA.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > But do they do those things because they must compete with the Californian companies that are required by law? They do those things because they have to compete with everyone in general. If employees want parental leave and will choose the company that provides parental leave over the company that provides <savings from not providing parental leave> in additional salary, companies will offer parental leave regardless of what California requires. And likewise if employees preferred the additional salary over the parental leave, they would provide that in a place the law allows it, even if that isn't allowed in California. But tech employees frequently prefer the flexibility to the money (because the money is still pretty good regardless). The exception to this is things like CARB where companies will design a car to meet California's fuel economy requirements, but then that model exists and can be purchased by anyone regardless of whether they live in California. If something has a fixed cost, the law in one place requires it, and that place is important enough to justify paying it to operate there, it gets companies to pay the cost. But that doesn't really apply to variable costs like employee benefits.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
The Bay Area is a 'critical mass'. How it came to be is related to a variety of factors. But it has incumbency in some things and will be impossible to compete with in some ways. Better for regions to develop competencies in which they have some kind of advantage. Alberta makes some kind of specialized natural resources extraction tech. Makes sense!
adrr 8y ago
California doesn't enforce non-competes so it's very easy to for employees to start a new business with little risk of being sued. Eg: you could work for Google self-driving car division, and leave and start a competing company. It happens all the time.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Probably not the best example. You still can't steal trade secrets and can still have NDAs.
  - illumin8 8y ago
    Of course, but the big difference is that Google can't prevent you from making a living using your skills as a technologist at a competitor, even if that competitor is your own startup.
- DrScump 8y ago
  We've already seen Apple's Self-driving division have multiple alleged trade-secret thefts.
tibyat 8y ago
I know I’m at the deepest pit in the heart of the like-button-coding monoculture here on HN, but if that’s really all you can come up with in support of living and working in california you need to step away from the blue light for a while. weather, geographical features, culture. or are we equating castro street to all of california?
roenxi 8y ago
This is a great opportunity to remind everyone that the less-known field of Economic Geography [0] exists. If California's state government mismanages things so badly that the costs imposed by being in California exceed the network benefits things could change very quickly. Until such a day, it is likely that they will enjoy a significant advantage in producing tech stuff. Location benefits are far greater than the pundits realise, some things are nearly impossible in practice if you aren't located in a key hub for your industry. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_geography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_geography
HillRat 8y ago
It’s the Dalton, GA effect — why do carpet companies set up their manufacturing in Dalton? Because that’s where people make carpets. To put it another way, current industrial capabilities contain historical path dependencies that are hard to replicate artificially. In the case of SV (+ Bay Area), the nexus of speculative capital, incumbent tech firms, a startup ecosystem, and top-tier technologists is basically impossible to develop artificially. While the geography of the area may expand — I’m no local, so it’s beyond me why East Bay hasn’t seen significant expansion — it’s hard to imagine SV being displaced as the center of American tech prowess.
- DrScump 8y ago
  that’s where people make carpets But you can make software anywhere -- there are no tools or materials supply chain to worry about... especially with Internet everywhere.
  - 80386 8y ago
    You can make software anywhere, but can you hire twenty people to make software anywhere?
    - meowface 8y ago
      It's a lot easier if your company is fully distributed and remote. Then you can hire anyone, from any location in the world. It's certainly not for everyone, but more and more successful tech startups seem to be moving to that model, and many new ones are using it from the very beginning.
      - borski 8y ago
        This requires a lot of discipline and experience managing remote teams. It’s significantly harder in a lot of ways. That doesn’t make it not worthwhile, but I’d argue you’re simply trading one set of problems for another. Whether those new problems are worth more or less is entirely dependent on your individual calculus.
      - 8y ago
jldugger 8y ago
> Why do tech companies flock to California (LA/SF)? 1. California has laws surrounding non-compete, making it easier to poach from the Fairchild Semis, Hewlitt Packards, Intels, Sun Microsystems and Googles of the era. 2. It's easier to recruit out of Michigan than into it. California wisely keeps its snow in one place: Tahoe. 3. Diversity. As you point out, there's a ton of H1-B workers, and SF and LA have sizeable preexisting communities. It's just easier to be an immigrant or hyphenated-American in world class metro areas that can support a variety of ethnic and cultural clustering. 4. Public transit. Depressingly, the bay area still has better public transit than most other cities. Yes, the big companies still run coaches in the bay area, but that works in part because of density you won't see in cheaper, lower cost metros. And if you're recruiting internationally, the ability to commute to work without a drivers license or car kinda matters. 5. Access to money. There's a decent number of banks in SF's Financial district -- Wells Fargo and Charles Schwab are headquartered here. VISA is nearby in Foster City, and there's a number of VCs on Sand Hill Road you won't find in other cities.
- juliansimioni 8y ago
  > California wisely keeps its snow in one place: Tahoe Just wanted to say I love this line. I've always said that in California winter is opt-in, but that's even better :)
- chrisco255 8y ago
  3. Neither SF nor LA are particularly more diverse than many other major metro cities. SF has a lot of Asians (SF is 53% white and 35% Asian) and LA has a lot of Hispanics...but Atlanta has a lot of Black Americans (53%) and Dallas and Houston have large populations of Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. Miami is over 70% Hispanic. NYC may be more diverse than any of them.
  - estebank 8y ago
    The GP said > _It's just easier to be an immigrant or hyphenated-American in world class metro areas that can support a variety of ethnic and cultural clustering._ The fact that there aren't as many african-americans in the bay area (outside of a handful of locales), doesn't make the GP's point invalid. I'm an immigrant in SF, and there are few places in the US where I would feel remotely as comfortable. Even being "white" (latin american of southern european ascent) I have a noticeable accent. That accent has triggered abuse by an elderly woman right after the past presidential elections in an ice cream shop in Hayes Valley, SF. And that is without going into the countless cases of "involuntary micro-agressions" ("oh, we don't mean you guys", "you're one of the good ones", etc.). Outside of the bay area the landscape very quickly changes to white picket fences with two large pick up trucks and white crosses in the lawn, towns with multiple churches of different christian denominations. All of this within an hour of driving from SF. I wouldn't feel at home, and likely not be accepted as part of the community in places like this. Because there are so many immigrants in the bay area, that gives exposure to the native-born citizenry making them less likely to treat immigrants like the feared "other", as well as immigrants treating other immigrants of different origin decently, for the most part. I think these points are what the GP was referring to. The problem of lack of systematic racism and unequal opportunities for african-americans are still a big problem in the US as a whole, and in the bay area as well, but that doesn't immediately affects the entirety of the immigrant population.
mattnewport 8y ago
I suspect we've already passed it but it will only be obvious when in retrospect.
Swizec 8y ago
For me personally this is the best place I could find where the environment pushes me to be better always. It’s the difference between launching something and making $8k in a week and people around you saying “Why so little? What went wrong? How can I help?” instead of “That’s not possible you must be lying” I for one find it easier to change my environment than to fight my environment.
TomVDB 8y ago
> If they're willing to move from their home to California for work, it's safe to assume they're willing to move from their home to almost anywhere else for work. Not at all: for me personally, California was a bit of the final destination. It's the place where you have the best chance of being at the forefront of technology. And where you have the highest chance of finding your next job if the first one doesn't work out. When I moved away from the East Coast to the Bay Area, it was already clear that it'd be hard finding another job in my field (chip design) if my current company would go under. That company has since gone under and over the past decade, a large part of our circle of friends there now lives here. Talk about Silicon Alleys or Silicon this or that somewhere else is nothing new. I remember such articles in the nineties. I do think things will slow down in general because of Moore's Law being close to the end. But that's going to be a problem for everyone, not just Silicon Valley.
- bsder 8y ago
  > When I moved away from the East Coast to the Bay Area, it was already clear that it'd be hard finding another job in my field (chip design) Yeah, diverse VLSI design is pretty much dead everywhere except California. Every other place tends to be a monoculture dominated by one company.
KorematsuFred 8y ago
Network effects matter a lot in startup world. You learn a lot about your own business by talking to other co-founders and business leaders. The lead generation is easy and talent is easily available. Indian and Chinese immigrants also play a big role. Stuck on backlog these are cheap employees who are desperate for employment because their H1b is tied to they having a job. These people will work for 60 hours a week for a salary of 20.
pascalxus 8y ago
People desperately want to escape CA but have no choice because that's where the jobs are. Jobs are there because companies are there. Companies are there because it's not their problem and they don't pay the full cost of their egregious location decisions. It all comes down to supply of jobs vs supply of homes: it's desperately out of balance. Voters think they can actually stop growth by stopping housing development. It's not the housing that brings people to CA, it's the jobs, especially jobs for immigrants and jobs for people outside of CA (in the US).
- anonymous5133 8y ago
  That used to be the case but it is changing now because potential employees are saying they aren't as interested in bay area because of the cost of living. I've seen more companies offering remote working arrangements. Work from home in vegas, reno, phoenix or some other small town within 1,000 miles from the bay area and then one day per month, fly into SF to attend the monthly meeting. That's why companies like wework and regus are becoming so popular these days. I've seen a decent amount of tech companies signing deals with these companies to basically be able to offer remote working as a work benefit. Of course, if employees don't want to use the remote working benefit then they can still live in the bay area.
baby 8y ago
I have one answer for you, the opportunities and the salaries are the greatest. Since all the great teams are in the bay, if you want to join one, you are forced to move to the bay now. It's a cycle.
borski 8y ago
It’s really quite simple; Silicon Valley is maybe the one place in which I have ever found nearly everyone I meet has a “pay it forward” attitude. It is infectious, and it means that as a “no name” startup founder, you have nearly infinite access to advice and capital, as long as you are convincing enough and tell a good story. There is no immediate expectation of return. I spent most of my life living in NYC, and I originally started Tinfoil in Boston (and went to school at MIT). Both cities are “startup hubs,” but the same attitude doesn’t exist. Boston was particularly bad about “what’s in it for me?” being the common theme of any conversation. The upshot is that now I volunteer my time often, and for free, to help others who are just starting out. I cannot predict who will be the next Google, but I enjoy helping smart founders, and I enjoy giving back in the same way I was given to. A few relevant essays: http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ronco.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ronco.html
- mooreds 8y ago
  I have found a similar ethic in Boulder, wonder if it arose separately or came from the valley?
  - borski 8y ago
    I have heard great things about Boulder, but I've never been. This may very well be true.
- ocschwar 8y ago
  > Boston was particularly bad about “what’s in it for me?” being the common theme of any conversation. I'm really surprised to hear that said of the city where RMS wrote GNU while living in his car. Not my experience there at all.
  - epistasis 8y ago
    The difference between GPL and BSD-like, to me , is that GPL says "what's in it for me?" Whereas BSD-like is "here you go take this for free, I may or may not got anything back for giving you my contribution."
creato 8y ago
> I often hear people credit the great technical universities. But that can't be, because most of the actual workers at these companies didn't go to Bay Area or even California universities [1]. Having great technical universities doesn't mean most workers will come from there. Obviously a majority of employees do not come from these schools. But a plurality? I wouldn't be surprised.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
simonh 8y ago
>So if there's nothing holding technology to SF/LA You just stated the reason why the tech companies are there. Feedback loops are a real thing that happens. As a result of all the tech companies being there, the tech VCs are there, the recruitment agencies are there, etc, etc. That’s just how this works. To see the original factors you’d need to look at the history of the region, but beyond a certain point these things become self sustaining. Sure there are forces in the other direction, and some individuals or companies might find them compelling, but specialisation works.
dalbasal 8y ago
The question of "clustering" is an old one in economics, and also politics and public discourse. PG addressed it a few times, for example. He also write about how to create new centers, fwiw. It's not a straightforward question, and I don't think any answer is entirely satisfying. A couple of cents though. 1¢ - Industries like tech are a cultural phenomenon, like a music industry or art industry. You can't just decide that Warsaw will have Seattle's grunge rock scene. It just grew there as a cultural outgrowth. It can't be planted elsewhere with predictable results. The thoughts and little decisions made by people are influenced by their cultural context. 2¢ - For the best (in business terms) tech companies, currently, costs like salaries mean nothing. Twitter and FB were Twitter and FB with 1% of their current visits and employees. The extremely profitable and businesses enabled them to hire tens of thousands of people and spend tens of billions per year. We're these people necessary to the ad part if the business that employs most of them? I suspect that they aren't. IE, if it turned out FB could only make $40bn or $8bn pa (currently making $80bn) from their site, they would manage to produce the same fb with few compromises on a much reduced budget. This isn't BMW, where operating costs and economic output (the number of cars) are tightly related to eachother. If google or FB want to increase profit margins, they can, easily, by a lot. They would if they needed to, but they don't. Capital markets like the idea that they are reinvesting for growth and capital markets don't have any better ideas for where to invest profits anyway. With no incentive to cut costs, why move somewhere cheaper?
C1sc0cat 8y ago
The Duke of Westminster owns huge chunks of real estate to this day :-)
Nasrudith 8y ago
I don't think the almost anywhere assumption holds for several reasons - a bad cultural climate can be a sure turn off (anti-intellecutalism and open bigotry), a "good" one can be a pleasure, and employees prefer to have plenty of alternative employers. There are multiple reasond - security from layoffs or bad workplaces, job-hopping is the defacto way to raise salary, and it also keeps them having to compete for them some. A middle of nowhere job sets off "it's a trap" alarm bells consciously or unconsciously as an isolating move. That said there is a lot of range between "most expensive areas in California" and "cheap one company towns". I suspect sprawling out to network edges would maximize benefits for costs similar to Palo Alto once being the cheap option.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

joshuamorton 8y ago

> Why do tech companies flock to California (LA/SF)? I often hear people credit the great technical universities. But that can't be, because most of the actual workers at these companies didn't go to Bay Area or even California universities [1]. 2 flaws here: 1. The majority of those h1b workers are at like tcs Wipro and Infosys, not conventional sv companies. 2. Being close to technical universities is good if it gives you a recruiting edge, even if only some of your employees come from that school.

jldugger 8y ago
> The majority of those h1b workers are at like tcs Wipro and Infosys, not conventional sv companies. Who do you think those companies contract out to?

jlrubin 8y ago

Unenforceable non-compete clauses played a non-minor role in the success of CA as a tech-hub. Sure take a job in MA or NYC as an engineer, but come back in 2 years when your employer is preventing you from working or building a company.

ghaff 8y ago
Note that: 1.) Massachusetts recently passed a law significantly limiting non-competes 2.) I've never been able to find specific numbers, but my experience in Massachusetts is that they're far from universal. I've only had one in my career and that one was quite narrow. (That was EMC which was one of the local employers who fought hardest against the weakening of non-competes.) I don't like non-competes and personally think the new law should have been stronger than it was. But, historically people jumped around employers like the Route 128 computer companies all the time.
- 80386 8y ago
  I'm in Massachusetts and when I got a grunt job at an Amazon FC a few years ago I had to sign a noncompete. I don't know if it's enforceable and doubt it'd be enforced, but technically I think I'm not supposed to take a comparable job elsewhere for a year after I quit, or something like that.
  - currymj 8y ago
    the law bans this kind of thing now (as of October 2018): you simply can't have a noncompete unless the employee is exempt from overtime. even for an exempt employee, the MA law now requires 50% salary to be paid for the period the employee can't work. i don't know if existing agreements are enforceable or not though.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      50% garden leave isn’t ideal. A lot of people aren’t in a position to take that pay cut (along with bonuses and RSUs) to hang out for a year. OTOH it makes companies put a fair bit of skin in the game which has considerable value.

tyre 8y ago

It’s the network effects you mentioned. The reason to be here is because people are here. While that doesn’t seem like something that _has_ to be in California, it is already here and that’s not something you can just move. As for why other cities have a hard time competing, it’s the same thing. If CA is perceived as “where innovation happens” then people will look for jobs here. They won’t even look at e.g. Kansas City or Charlotte or wherever, even if there are open roles there. It doesn’t have to be this way and probably won’t be in ten or twenty years. Especially after this wave of IPOs, SF will likely be unlivable for most. If companies can continue to raise enough money to pay equivalently higher salaries, then the boom can continue a while longer. Otherwise, the numbers don’t make sense.

stcredzero 8y ago
It’s the network effects you mentioned. The reason to be here is because people are here. When a scene gets hot, there's always the danger of grouthink. There is far too much groupthink here. Much of it now is even the toxic kind. "Fear is the mind-killer." However, fear is only the start, only the beachhead. Groupthink is the main body, and it's the mechanism whereby the mind-killing starts to result in real world consequences. When a scene gets hot, and there's real money and power to be had, it also attracts the sociopaths. https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths
- PaulHoule 8y ago
  It's all about the exits. You could never get an exit if you were based in Chicago or St. Louis or Montana, etc.
  - elpakal 8y ago
    Based in Colorado. Just wondering if you could expand on this. Seems like what you are saying is no startups in Montana ever get exits - personally I think that's because startups seeking an exit end of moving to The Bay Area because of all the factors being mentioned here.
  - 8y ago

anyfoo 8y ago

> If they're willing to move from their home to California for work, it's safe to assume they're willing to move from their home to almost anywhere else for work. Not sure. I moved to the Bay Area from Germany, and while the primary factor was of course the job that was offered to me, the nice weather and the really quite stunning landscape were a factor. I'm still pretty happy if I'm on a hilly street in SF and see the bay, the Golden Gate Bridge, all that jazz. And SF itself is still quite a pretty city, despite its problems.

ghaff 8y ago
The Bay Area has some of the nicest weather and access to some of the most beautiful recreation opportunities just about anywhere (even if Silicon Valley itself is mostly meh suburban sprawl). It's hard to believe those don't have some effect. Sure, most people who move there do so for jobs, but--especially as they get a bit older--most people will try pretty hard to have a job somewhere they actually like living.
drdeadringer 8y ago
My first job out of College University had me relocating around the USA about every 9-12 months for about 4 years. Not constant travel, constant relocation. Living out of luggage got bad and sad real quick; I stayed in much too long. Saying "I'm done with this" once I got to California turned out to be good; now, I've lived in the same location for longer than I have since graduating College University and I honestly can't complain. I still compulsively keep boxes because of the bad habits I picked up from continuous relocation... but at this point is a separate issue. Yes, California rent ever up and on toward morning. Yes, NIMBYs are ever up and on toward morning. Yes, all of the other "Ever Bad Stuff" the same. I don't know where my new next breaking point is, but when it's there I'll find it and I'll act on it; I'm trying really hard to get started on that now, but factors are making that difficult. My Point: The simple fact of moving to California is not necessarily vindictive of "everyone who does this is going to move around the globe for giggles as suggested or implied". Maybe I wanted California as a destination. Maybe you wanted California as a way-station. Maybe someone born in California wants to stay here ... or move out ... and/or move back eventually. I have a doubt regarding "You move to California, You'll move anywhere".

lotsofpulp 8y ago

CA has some good laws, such as regarding non competes, parental leave, sick leave, environmental laws, legal marijuana, assisted suicide. Nice weather and landscapes also help.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
Many other places have similar laws, and even in the places that don't, the tech companies there typically do those things regardless of whether it's a legal requirement.
- mostlysimilar 8y ago
  But do they do those things because they must compete with the Californian companies that are required by law?
  - chillacy 8y ago
    Yup. I don't work in CA but it's obvious that CA laws affect us too, for better or worse: CA emission standards, Prop 65 warnings, etc. And I know my salary and benefits are abnormally good because the HQ is in the bay area. Local companies don't give as much. I feel like I got the best draw by working for a CA company outside of CA.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > But do they do those things because they must compete with the Californian companies that are required by law? They do those things because they have to compete with everyone in general. If employees want parental leave and will choose the company that provides parental leave over the company that provides <savings from not providing parental leave> in additional salary, companies will offer parental leave regardless of what California requires. And likewise if employees preferred the additional salary over the parental leave, they would provide that in a place the law allows it, even if that isn't allowed in California. But tech employees frequently prefer the flexibility to the money (because the money is still pretty good regardless). The exception to this is things like CARB where companies will design a car to meet California's fuel economy requirements, but then that model exists and can be purchased by anyone regardless of whether they live in California. If something has a fixed cost, the law in one place requires it, and that place is important enough to justify paying it to operate there, it gets companies to pay the cost. But that doesn't really apply to variable costs like employee benefits.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

The Bay Area is a 'critical mass'. How it came to be is related to a variety of factors. But it has incumbency in some things and will be impossible to compete with in some ways. Better for regions to develop competencies in which they have some kind of advantage. Alberta makes some kind of specialized natural resources extraction tech. Makes sense!

adrr 8y ago

California doesn't enforce non-competes so it's very easy to for employees to start a new business with little risk of being sued. Eg: you could work for Google self-driving car division, and leave and start a competing company. It happens all the time.

ghaff 8y ago
Probably not the best example. You still can't steal trade secrets and can still have NDAs.
- illumin8 8y ago
  Of course, but the big difference is that Google can't prevent you from making a living using your skills as a technologist at a competitor, even if that competitor is your own startup.
DrScump 8y ago
We've already seen Apple's Self-driving division have multiple alleged trade-secret thefts.

tibyat 8y ago

I know I’m at the deepest pit in the heart of the like-button-coding monoculture here on HN, but if that’s really all you can come up with in support of living and working in california you need to step away from the blue light for a while. weather, geographical features, culture. or are we equating castro street to all of california?

roenxi 8y ago

This is a great opportunity to remind everyone that the less-known field of Economic Geography [0] exists. If California's state government mismanages things so badly that the costs imposed by being in California exceed the network benefits things could change very quickly. Until such a day, it is likely that they will enjoy a significant advantage in producing tech stuff. Location benefits are far greater than the pundits realise, some things are nearly impossible in practice if you aren't located in a key hub for your industry. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_geography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_geography

HillRat 8y ago

It’s the Dalton, GA effect — why do carpet companies set up their manufacturing in Dalton? Because that’s where people make carpets. To put it another way, current industrial capabilities contain historical path dependencies that are hard to replicate artificially. In the case of SV (+ Bay Area), the nexus of speculative capital, incumbent tech firms, a startup ecosystem, and top-tier technologists is basically impossible to develop artificially. While the geography of the area may expand — I’m no local, so it’s beyond me why East Bay hasn’t seen significant expansion — it’s hard to imagine SV being displaced as the center of American tech prowess.

DrScump 8y ago
that’s where people make carpets But you can make software anywhere -- there are no tools or materials supply chain to worry about... especially with Internet everywhere.
- 80386 8y ago
  You can make software anywhere, but can you hire twenty people to make software anywhere?
  - meowface 8y ago
    It's a lot easier if your company is fully distributed and remote. Then you can hire anyone, from any location in the world. It's certainly not for everyone, but more and more successful tech startups seem to be moving to that model, and many new ones are using it from the very beginning.
    - borski 8y ago
      This requires a lot of discipline and experience managing remote teams. It’s significantly harder in a lot of ways. That doesn’t make it not worthwhile, but I’d argue you’re simply trading one set of problems for another. Whether those new problems are worth more or less is entirely dependent on your individual calculus.
    - 8y ago

jldugger 8y ago

> Why do tech companies flock to California (LA/SF)? 1. California has laws surrounding non-compete, making it easier to poach from the Fairchild Semis, Hewlitt Packards, Intels, Sun Microsystems and Googles of the era. 2. It's easier to recruit out of Michigan than into it. California wisely keeps its snow in one place: Tahoe. 3. Diversity. As you point out, there's a ton of H1-B workers, and SF and LA have sizeable preexisting communities. It's just easier to be an immigrant or hyphenated-American in world class metro areas that can support a variety of ethnic and cultural clustering. 4. Public transit. Depressingly, the bay area still has better public transit than most other cities. Yes, the big companies still run coaches in the bay area, but that works in part because of density you won't see in cheaper, lower cost metros. And if you're recruiting internationally, the ability to commute to work without a drivers license or car kinda matters. 5. Access to money. There's a decent number of banks in SF's Financial district -- Wells Fargo and Charles Schwab are headquartered here. VISA is nearby in Foster City, and there's a number of VCs on Sand Hill Road you won't find in other cities.

juliansimioni 8y ago
> California wisely keeps its snow in one place: Tahoe Just wanted to say I love this line. I've always said that in California winter is opt-in, but that's even better :)
chrisco255 8y ago
3. Neither SF nor LA are particularly more diverse than many other major metro cities. SF has a lot of Asians (SF is 53% white and 35% Asian) and LA has a lot of Hispanics...but Atlanta has a lot of Black Americans (53%) and Dallas and Houston have large populations of Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. Miami is over 70% Hispanic. NYC may be more diverse than any of them.
- estebank 8y ago
  The GP said > _It's just easier to be an immigrant or hyphenated-American in world class metro areas that can support a variety of ethnic and cultural clustering._ The fact that there aren't as many african-americans in the bay area (outside of a handful of locales), doesn't make the GP's point invalid. I'm an immigrant in SF, and there are few places in the US where I would feel remotely as comfortable. Even being "white" (latin american of southern european ascent) I have a noticeable accent. That accent has triggered abuse by an elderly woman right after the past presidential elections in an ice cream shop in Hayes Valley, SF. And that is without going into the countless cases of "involuntary micro-agressions" ("oh, we don't mean you guys", "you're one of the good ones", etc.). Outside of the bay area the landscape very quickly changes to white picket fences with two large pick up trucks and white crosses in the lawn, towns with multiple churches of different christian denominations. All of this within an hour of driving from SF. I wouldn't feel at home, and likely not be accepted as part of the community in places like this. Because there are so many immigrants in the bay area, that gives exposure to the native-born citizenry making them less likely to treat immigrants like the feared "other", as well as immigrants treating other immigrants of different origin decently, for the most part. I think these points are what the GP was referring to. The problem of lack of systematic racism and unequal opportunities for african-americans are still a big problem in the US as a whole, and in the bay area as well, but that doesn't immediately affects the entirety of the immigrant population.

mattnewport 8y ago

I suspect we've already passed it but it will only be obvious when in retrospect.

Swizec 8y ago

For me personally this is the best place I could find where the environment pushes me to be better always. It’s the difference between launching something and making $8k in a week and people around you saying “Why so little? What went wrong? How can I help?” instead of “That’s not possible you must be lying” I for one find it easier to change my environment than to fight my environment.

TomVDB 8y ago

> If they're willing to move from their home to California for work, it's safe to assume they're willing to move from their home to almost anywhere else for work. Not at all: for me personally, California was a bit of the final destination. It's the place where you have the best chance of being at the forefront of technology. And where you have the highest chance of finding your next job if the first one doesn't work out. When I moved away from the East Coast to the Bay Area, it was already clear that it'd be hard finding another job in my field (chip design) if my current company would go under. That company has since gone under and over the past decade, a large part of our circle of friends there now lives here. Talk about Silicon Alleys or Silicon this or that somewhere else is nothing new. I remember such articles in the nineties. I do think things will slow down in general because of Moore's Law being close to the end. But that's going to be a problem for everyone, not just Silicon Valley.

bsder 8y ago
> When I moved away from the East Coast to the Bay Area, it was already clear that it'd be hard finding another job in my field (chip design) Yeah, diverse VLSI design is pretty much dead everywhere except California. Every other place tends to be a monoculture dominated by one company.

KorematsuFred 8y ago

Network effects matter a lot in startup world. You learn a lot about your own business by talking to other co-founders and business leaders. The lead generation is easy and talent is easily available. Indian and Chinese immigrants also play a big role. Stuck on backlog these are cheap employees who are desperate for employment because their H1b is tied to they having a job. These people will work for 60 hours a week for a salary of 20.

pascalxus 8y ago

People desperately want to escape CA but have no choice because that's where the jobs are. Jobs are there because companies are there. Companies are there because it's not their problem and they don't pay the full cost of their egregious location decisions. It all comes down to supply of jobs vs supply of homes: it's desperately out of balance. Voters think they can actually stop growth by stopping housing development. It's not the housing that brings people to CA, it's the jobs, especially jobs for immigrants and jobs for people outside of CA (in the US).

anonymous5133 8y ago
That used to be the case but it is changing now because potential employees are saying they aren't as interested in bay area because of the cost of living. I've seen more companies offering remote working arrangements. Work from home in vegas, reno, phoenix or some other small town within 1,000 miles from the bay area and then one day per month, fly into SF to attend the monthly meeting. That's why companies like wework and regus are becoming so popular these days. I've seen a decent amount of tech companies signing deals with these companies to basically be able to offer remote working as a work benefit. Of course, if employees don't want to use the remote working benefit then they can still live in the bay area.

baby 8y ago

I have one answer for you, the opportunities and the salaries are the greatest. Since all the great teams are in the bay, if you want to join one, you are forced to move to the bay now. It's a cycle.

borski 8y ago

It’s really quite simple; Silicon Valley is maybe the one place in which I have ever found nearly everyone I meet has a “pay it forward” attitude. It is infectious, and it means that as a “no name” startup founder, you have nearly infinite access to advice and capital, as long as you are convincing enough and tell a good story. There is no immediate expectation of return. I spent most of my life living in NYC, and I originally started Tinfoil in Boston (and went to school at MIT). Both cities are “startup hubs,” but the same attitude doesn’t exist. Boston was particularly bad about “what’s in it for me?” being the common theme of any conversation. The upshot is that now I volunteer my time often, and for free, to help others who are just starting out. I cannot predict who will be the next Google, but I enjoy helping smart founders, and I enjoy giving back in the same way I was given to. A few relevant essays: http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ronco.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ronco.html

mooreds 8y ago
I have found a similar ethic in Boulder, wonder if it arose separately or came from the valley?
- borski 8y ago
  I have heard great things about Boulder, but I've never been. This may very well be true.
ocschwar 8y ago
> Boston was particularly bad about “what’s in it for me?” being the common theme of any conversation. I'm really surprised to hear that said of the city where RMS wrote GNU while living in his car. Not my experience there at all.
- epistasis 8y ago
  The difference between GPL and BSD-like, to me , is that GPL says "what's in it for me?" Whereas BSD-like is "here you go take this for free, I may or may not got anything back for giving you my contribution."

creato 8y ago

> I often hear people credit the great technical universities. But that can't be, because most of the actual workers at these companies didn't go to Bay Area or even California universities [1]. Having great technical universities doesn't mean most workers will come from there. Obviously a majority of employees do not come from these schools. But a plurality? I wouldn't be surprised.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

simonh 8y ago

>So if there's nothing holding technology to SF/LA You just stated the reason why the tech companies are there. Feedback loops are a real thing that happens. As a result of all the tech companies being there, the tech VCs are there, the recruitment agencies are there, etc, etc. That’s just how this works. To see the original factors you’d need to look at the history of the region, but beyond a certain point these things become self sustaining. Sure there are forces in the other direction, and some individuals or companies might find them compelling, but specialisation works.

dalbasal 8y ago

The question of "clustering" is an old one in economics, and also politics and public discourse. PG addressed it a few times, for example. He also write about how to create new centers, fwiw. It's not a straightforward question, and I don't think any answer is entirely satisfying. A couple of cents though. 1¢ - Industries like tech are a cultural phenomenon, like a music industry or art industry. You can't just decide that Warsaw will have Seattle's grunge rock scene. It just grew there as a cultural outgrowth. It can't be planted elsewhere with predictable results. The thoughts and little decisions made by people are influenced by their cultural context. 2¢ - For the best (in business terms) tech companies, currently, costs like salaries mean nothing. Twitter and FB were Twitter and FB with 1% of their current visits and employees. The extremely profitable and businesses enabled them to hire tens of thousands of people and spend tens of billions per year. We're these people necessary to the ad part if the business that employs most of them? I suspect that they aren't. IE, if it turned out FB could only make $40bn or $8bn pa (currently making $80bn) from their site, they would manage to produce the same fb with few compromises on a much reduced budget. This isn't BMW, where operating costs and economic output (the number of cars) are tightly related to eachother. If google or FB want to increase profit margins, they can, easily, by a lot. They would if they needed to, but they don't. Capital markets like the idea that they are reinvesting for growth and capital markets don't have any better ideas for where to invest profits anyway. With no incentive to cut costs, why move somewhere cheaper?

C1sc0cat 8y ago

The Duke of Westminster owns huge chunks of real estate to this day :-)

Nasrudith 8y ago

I don't think the almost anywhere assumption holds for several reasons - a bad cultural climate can be a sure turn off (anti-intellecutalism and open bigotry), a "good" one can be a pleasure, and employees prefer to have plenty of alternative employers. There are multiple reasond - security from layoffs or bad workplaces, job-hopping is the defacto way to raise salary, and it also keeps them having to compete for them some. A middle of nowhere job sets off "it's a trap" alarm bells consciously or unconsciously as an isolating move. That said there is a lot of range between "most expensive areas in California" and "cheap one company towns". I suspect sprawling out to network edges would maximize benefits for costs similar to Palo Alto once being the cheap option.