3 ms·

Silicon Valley had issues before the pandemic with many companies diversifying their locations across the US. Longer term I think we’ll see more diversification

by JCM9 6y ago

Silicon Valley had issues before the pandemic with many companies diversifying their locations across the US. Longer term I think we’ll see more diversification in where tech talent is concentrated, but I don’t think we’ll see this “global remote” model the article is suggesting. Humans thrive on in personal social interaction. There are exceptions of course, but by and large that’s key to our existence. The pandemic has shown remote work is feasible, but there are few in tech not itching to get back into in-person gatherings at least part time. I think the future will be more of a distributed hub model. People will often work remotely but will need to be able to be in person a few days a week in selected tech hubs. To avoid being left out one will need to be near a “hub” so you can be easily in person on those days when it makes sense to be in person. Some will say “but I can be fully productive 100% remote.” That may be somewhat true, but the practicalities of that fall apart real quick when your on zoom and the rest of your team is going to grab lunch together.

necrotic_comp 6y ago
I don't dispute the assertion that humans thrive on personal social interaction, but why do we seem to have this baked in assumption that that personal social interaction needs to be with our co-workers ? If we have a remote workforce, why wouldn't I want to move somewhere where I can find people of like mind and spirit and feed that need for social interaction with them rather than with my company ?
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Solidarity with your coworkers is not just a thing that benefits “your company.”
dcolkitt 6y ago
The central problem with this model is that any metro that graduates to "tech hub" becomes unlivable in short order. The Bay Area is the original example. But then it happened to Seattle, Portland, and NoVa. Most recently it happened to Denver and Austin, where housing prices have tripled in five years. It's starting to happen in Nashville, Atlanta, SLC, and Columbus. It's a combination of the immense wealth generated by the tech industry and the rigid supply inelasticity of America's NIMBY housing policies. Anywhere this unstoppable force meets this unmoveable rock, prices explode. The entire area quickly becomes unlivable for anyone who didn't get in on the property ladder early. Then the tech industry is forced to go out and find a new tech hub for all the junior engineers who are bid out of a house by the senior engineers who cashed out their RSUs. Full remote is the one opportunity the industry has to actually break this cycle. After all it's not just a problem for tech recruiters, it's also having all kinds of disastrous spillovers for the regular non-tech folk, who happen to be unlucky enough to live in the next metro targeted by the tech industry.
- redisman 6y ago
  There’s gotta be some limit to how many cities can maintain insane rents. High salaries spread across 10 cities instead of 1 should be a much saner equilibrium unless the tech workforce and salaries multiples in number too
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    I guess one issue is that most of the new tech hubs tend to be mid-sized cities that don't really have the capacity. Austin metro is 2.2 million. Denver is 2.9 million. Nashville is 1.9 million. In contrast the Bay Area has 10 million people, and even that struggles to absorb tech wealth. I think dissipation would happen if tech was actually expanding into a few large metros. Houston, Chicago, and Miami all have reasonable COL, but more importantly have way more population to absorb an influx of high wage earners. It's an interesting question, and one I don't really know the answer to. Why does the tech industry seem to consistently prefer mid-size metros like Austin to large metros like Miami.
ghaff 6y ago
> think the future will be more of a distributed hub model. What good does coming into an office do if most of the people you actually work with are in a different office. In normal times, I could come into an office, but relatively few of the people I interact with are actually in that office. So I'd be doing video calls from the desk in the office rather than my desk at home. Maybe I'd bump into one or two people I knew in the cafeteria.

by JCM9 6y ago

necrotic_comp 6y ago

I don't dispute the assertion that humans thrive on personal social interaction, but why do we seem to have this baked in assumption that that personal social interaction needs to be with our co-workers ? If we have a remote workforce, why wouldn't I want to move somewhere where I can find people of like mind and spirit and feed that need for social interaction with them rather than with my company ?

Robotbeat 6y ago
Solidarity with your coworkers is not just a thing that benefits “your company.”

dcolkitt 6y ago

The central problem with this model is that any metro that graduates to "tech hub" becomes unlivable in short order. The Bay Area is the original example. But then it happened to Seattle, Portland, and NoVa. Most recently it happened to Denver and Austin, where housing prices have tripled in five years. It's starting to happen in Nashville, Atlanta, SLC, and Columbus. It's a combination of the immense wealth generated by the tech industry and the rigid supply inelasticity of America's NIMBY housing policies. Anywhere this unstoppable force meets this unmoveable rock, prices explode. The entire area quickly becomes unlivable for anyone who didn't get in on the property ladder early. Then the tech industry is forced to go out and find a new tech hub for all the junior engineers who are bid out of a house by the senior engineers who cashed out their RSUs. Full remote is the one opportunity the industry has to actually break this cycle. After all it's not just a problem for tech recruiters, it's also having all kinds of disastrous spillovers for the regular non-tech folk, who happen to be unlucky enough to live in the next metro targeted by the tech industry.

redisman 6y ago
There’s gotta be some limit to how many cities can maintain insane rents. High salaries spread across 10 cities instead of 1 should be a much saner equilibrium unless the tech workforce and salaries multiples in number too
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  I guess one issue is that most of the new tech hubs tend to be mid-sized cities that don't really have the capacity. Austin metro is 2.2 million. Denver is 2.9 million. Nashville is 1.9 million. In contrast the Bay Area has 10 million people, and even that struggles to absorb tech wealth. I think dissipation would happen if tech was actually expanding into a few large metros. Houston, Chicago, and Miami all have reasonable COL, but more importantly have way more population to absorb an influx of high wage earners. It's an interesting question, and one I don't really know the answer to. Why does the tech industry seem to consistently prefer mid-size metros like Austin to large metros like Miami.

ghaff 6y ago

> think the future will be more of a distributed hub model. What good does coming into an office do if most of the people you actually work with are in a different office. In normal times, I could come into an office, but relatively few of the people I interact with are actually in that office. So I'd be doing video calls from the desk in the office rather than my desk at home. Maybe I'd bump into one or two people I knew in the cafeteria.