6 ms·
Since cities thrive based on network effects, my question is: did everyone in past exoduses move to the same location? If not, is that not a good reason to bel
by fairity 6y ago
Since cities thrive based on network effects, my question is: did everyone in past exoduses move to the same location? If not, is that not a good reason to believe this time will be different?
Smart, ambitious people tend to congregate, and capital follows. If during past exoduses, people moved to random places, I can see why SV remained the primary magnet. But, this time everyone seems to be moving to Seattle and Austin (based on my anecdotal experience of ~20 SV startups that have moved to Austin in the past 6 months).
Other things that make this time different: remote work being generally acceptable & higher state income tax
Of course, "every time is different", but eventually SV will fall. The question is just when and what the right conditions are.
- dannyincolor 6y agoI imagine we will just have more innovation centers. Nothing wrong with that and certainly not deserving of the “California is dying” hype
- cameldrv 6y agoCA still has the advantage of no noncompetes. It's fairly standard for Texas companies to require an enforceable noncompete. These companies are sort of like mules -- born from perhaps many fertile companies, but produce no offspring.
- api 6y agoI've heard this and the general borderline unenforceability of "we own all your work, even during off hours" clauses in employment contracts as a major reason that the center of innovation shifted from Boston and the East Coast to Silicon Valley and California. Boston should have been Silicon Valley. It had all the education and a much deeper history of innovation. It also could have been down in New Jersey where Bell Labs was. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of where other states stand on this issue. I know Massachusetts implemented some similar reforms a decade or so ago, but that's a little late to the party.
- qppo 6y agoThe first thing that any state should do to make itself a new tech hub is create strong protections for workers so they can freely move to different companies or found their own. Pro-labor is not anti business, quite the opposite here. But it's never understood that way.
- api 6y agoThe fundamental problem is governments making laws to serve existing companies rather than to help create new things that don't exist yet. It's "hold on to what you have" vs creating something new.
- mamon 6y agoProblem is: most governments think of "pro-labor" laws as paid sick or maternity leave, labor unions privileges, or protections from being fired, e.g. mandating longer notice periods. This mostly benefit low wage workers, who lack bargaining power, but the needs of highly paid tech workers (such as no non-competes) go unnoticed.
- qppo 6y agoComprehensive labor reform could be a solid platform for any state representative or governor that wants to make a run in 2024, and I can see several states taking it on. There are many horses to be traded. Some things like banning non-competes, personal IP protections, corporate immunity from COVID lawsuits, police union reform, teachers union reform, pension reform, family and sick leave... there are so many things to attach one's name to its mind boggling. And there is wide support for some of these things on both sides of the aisle - and it doesn't touch guns or abortion!
- vmchale 6y ago> Boston should have been Silicon Valley. It had all the education Boston is a tech hub, just smaller.
- 6y ago