3 ms·

I think a lot of these types of articles make the mistake of overemphasizing the particular over the general. Here's a general way of putting it: Today, yes e

I think a lot of these types of articles make the mistake of overemphasizing the particular over the general. Here's a general way of putting it: Today, yes even in 2024, areas with concentrations of talent in [insert field] outperform those without those talent concentrations, despite higher costs. If you disagree, it's best to disagree with this thesis. If you don't disagree with the thesis, then it just becomes a matter of establishing 'does this area really have a concentration'. Example: media, NYC. Another example: AI startups, SF. I'll also mention that SF isn't fully standalone here. It's strength is largely due to the strength of the Bay Area as a whole and the companies with HQs there (Google, Meta, Apple, etc).

paxys 2y ago
Basically – the advantages of the Silicon Valley ecosystem that companies have enjoyed over the last 50+ years continue to be advantages. Covid didn't change the landscape as much as people think.
- ProfessorLayton 2y ago
  It's also worth pointing out that the literal landscape in the SFBAY remains quite amazing, and lots of people do indeed live here because of it. Nearly flawless weather and easy access to nature is not something that's taken for granted. I'd continue to live here even if I didn't work in tech.
brigadier132 2y ago
> areas with concentrations of talent in [insert field] outperform Outperform in terms of company performance? Company performance per person? I'd be curious to hear from someone on the hiring side, how hard is it to get someone talented to move out from the SF Bay Area assuming you match compensation?
- nine_k 2y ago
  To run a,startup, you need to run into co-founders, early employees with startup experience or with a right mindset and risk appetite, and into potential investors. This all works better with face-to-face meetings, weak personal connections that allow to reach the right-looking person you won't otherwise discover, and even serendipitous meetings in environments that tend to attract birds of a feather. SF, with all its bitter and needless shortcomings as a municipality, is still an excellent place to meet the right people for a startup. Even with the extreme ease of video calling these days, physical proximity has a certain edge.
bankcust08385 2y ago
Yep. It's really, really hard to meet other technical and entrepreneurial people virtually. The density in SV is a billion times more than tiny nowhere towns. What sucks about it is few people can afford to live there unless they work for MAANG or have $uccessfully exited one or more ventures.
epistasis 2y ago
Tech companies are already working slightly to solve this, but the high cost of living will be a huge drag on future agglomerative effects. Tech must stop accepting the NIMBY environment which has existed in California for 40-50 years and shift it to a YIMBY environment for housing, if the cost of living is ever going to get under control. Ironically, the local NIMBYs have been blaming tech for the mismatch between cost of living and wages (for those outside of the tech sector), but one only need look south to LA to see a place with even greater cost-of-living vs. wage mismatch. The days of working out of a garage to get a startup going are disappearing, because so few own garages, and so many garages are already converted to decrepit living spaces. Biotech is particularly at risk in the SF Bay area, due to generally lower salaries than tech, and longer riskier payoffs from startups. If Harris wins, I hope to see sweeping changes, as the NIMBY democrats in the area hopefully lose both influence locally, and are subject to some national policies to improve the housing situation.
- darepublic 2y ago
  > If Harris wins, I hope to see sweeping changes Any reason this is more realistic with Harris in charge?
  - epistasis 2y ago
    IMHO, surprisingly yes, for several reasons: 1) For the first time ever, national level Democratic politicians are speaking publicly about housing supply and adopting YIMBY language 2) Harris adopting YIMBY policies will have great influence over both the faux-progressive SF faction and the centrist-to-right-wing Peninsula NIMBY democrats. Their choice will be to defy a hugely popular national politician that originated in the Bay Area, or break from the Democratic infrastructure and lose influence. 3) The Biden administration has, in the past two months, really switched focus to hyping up YIMBY policies, with several announced policy changes on their blog. I believe this is the administration finally realizing that housing costs are the last big segment of inflation that has not been tamped down. With Harris' & Obama's & Walz's much more strident YIMBYism than Biden, I think this will increase, with lots more national level policy pushing local zoning decisions and code decisions towards more housing. 4) If Harris does lose, local politicians can blame her YIMBY policies in contrast to Trump's strident NIMBYism and anti-apartment politics. Generally, the voting populace in local elections is majority YIMBY, and the small number of hyper-motivated folks that organize and decide local elections are NIMBY, and the NIMBY faction will be paying attention to this loss. Overall, YIMBYism has crossed the party lines up until now. In highly Republican areas, like San Diego or Utah, Republican elected officials embrace YIMBYism. In Democratic strongholds, Democtratic elected officials embrace YIMBYism. There's a problem that with the Harris/Trump political split on YIMBY/NIMBY, this divide might get pushed towards the local level. In which case, blue cities will tend towards more YIMBYism, and redder cities (like San Diego) may go more NIMBY. Up until now, within California, I'd say that San Diego and Oakland have been the most YIMBY, with Berkeley starting to catch up. We will see what happens after the November election!

paxys 2y ago

Basically – the advantages of the Silicon Valley ecosystem that companies have enjoyed over the last 50+ years continue to be advantages. Covid didn't change the landscape as much as people think.

ProfessorLayton 2y ago
It's also worth pointing out that the literal landscape in the SFBAY remains quite amazing, and lots of people do indeed live here because of it. Nearly flawless weather and easy access to nature is not something that's taken for granted. I'd continue to live here even if I didn't work in tech.

brigadier132 2y ago

> areas with concentrations of talent in [insert field] outperform Outperform in terms of company performance? Company performance per person? I'd be curious to hear from someone on the hiring side, how hard is it to get someone talented to move out from the SF Bay Area assuming you match compensation?

nine_k 2y ago
To run a,startup, you need to run into co-founders, early employees with startup experience or with a right mindset and risk appetite, and into potential investors. This all works better with face-to-face meetings, weak personal connections that allow to reach the right-looking person you won't otherwise discover, and even serendipitous meetings in environments that tend to attract birds of a feather. SF, with all its bitter and needless shortcomings as a municipality, is still an excellent place to meet the right people for a startup. Even with the extreme ease of video calling these days, physical proximity has a certain edge.

bankcust08385 2y ago

Yep. It's really, really hard to meet other technical and entrepreneurial people virtually. The density in SV is a billion times more than tiny nowhere towns. What sucks about it is few people can afford to live there unless they work for MAANG or have $uccessfully exited one or more ventures.

epistasis 2y ago

Tech companies are already working slightly to solve this, but the high cost of living will be a huge drag on future agglomerative effects. Tech must stop accepting the NIMBY environment which has existed in California for 40-50 years and shift it to a YIMBY environment for housing, if the cost of living is ever going to get under control. Ironically, the local NIMBYs have been blaming tech for the mismatch between cost of living and wages (for those outside of the tech sector), but one only need look south to LA to see a place with even greater cost-of-living vs. wage mismatch. The days of working out of a garage to get a startup going are disappearing, because so few own garages, and so many garages are already converted to decrepit living spaces. Biotech is particularly at risk in the SF Bay area, due to generally lower salaries than tech, and longer riskier payoffs from startups. If Harris wins, I hope to see sweeping changes, as the NIMBY democrats in the area hopefully lose both influence locally, and are subject to some national policies to improve the housing situation.

darepublic 2y ago
> If Harris wins, I hope to see sweeping changes Any reason this is more realistic with Harris in charge?
- epistasis 2y ago
  IMHO, surprisingly yes, for several reasons: 1) For the first time ever, national level Democratic politicians are speaking publicly about housing supply and adopting YIMBY language 2) Harris adopting YIMBY policies will have great influence over both the faux-progressive SF faction and the centrist-to-right-wing Peninsula NIMBY democrats. Their choice will be to defy a hugely popular national politician that originated in the Bay Area, or break from the Democratic infrastructure and lose influence. 3) The Biden administration has, in the past two months, really switched focus to hyping up YIMBY policies, with several announced policy changes on their blog. I believe this is the administration finally realizing that housing costs are the last big segment of inflation that has not been tamped down. With Harris' & Obama's & Walz's much more strident YIMBYism than Biden, I think this will increase, with lots more national level policy pushing local zoning decisions and code decisions towards more housing. 4) If Harris does lose, local politicians can blame her YIMBY policies in contrast to Trump's strident NIMBYism and anti-apartment politics. Generally, the voting populace in local elections is majority YIMBY, and the small number of hyper-motivated folks that organize and decide local elections are NIMBY, and the NIMBY faction will be paying attention to this loss. Overall, YIMBYism has crossed the party lines up until now. In highly Republican areas, like San Diego or Utah, Republican elected officials embrace YIMBYism. In Democratic strongholds, Democtratic elected officials embrace YIMBYism. There's a problem that with the Harris/Trump political split on YIMBY/NIMBY, this divide might get pushed towards the local level. In which case, blue cities will tend towards more YIMBYism, and redder cities (like San Diego) may go more NIMBY. Up until now, within California, I'd say that San Diego and Oakland have been the most YIMBY, with Berkeley starting to catch up. We will see what happens after the November election!