4 ms·

It's 7am PST, and most of the comments here are "I don't understand you silicon valley people, that doesn't make sense". So, I'll share my two cents. I'm from

by brown 14y ago

It's 7am PST, and most of the comments here are "I don't understand you silicon valley people, that doesn't make sense". So, I'll share my two cents. I'm from a modest background in the Midwest. My first tech job was in Seattle (better than SV, but still not "cheap"). I then lived in Beijing, Boston, and Manila before coming to SV. I spent 1 year in Palo Alto, and now 2 years in San Francisco. I was originally VERY against it. My wife basically dragged me here kicking and screaming. I've always thought of Silicon Valley as this giant bug zapper, where people are lured in by the promise of extreme success, and then get zapped by a culture of 95% failure at startups. Now I'm a huge fan. Here are the main two reasons: 1) First, a mitigating factor. The salaries are actually pretty well adjusted for cost of living. You're getting a fair deal compared to other tech cities. Market forces are doing just fine. 2) The number of people in tech here is simply unparalleled. Head and shoulders better than any other city on the planet. That might not seem important, but it is surprisingly powerful. You have access to a huge network of people. Whether you're trying to get a job at big co, or doing a startup, access to a network of people turns out to be a significant contributor to success. PG's essay on SV is spot on. I scoffed when I first read it, but he is right. (http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html) The main problems as mentioned by the original article: 1) Homelessness – IMO, this is due to lack of proper institutions for mental illness and substance abuse, not housing. SF is a ridiculously liberal city, and there is plenty of low income housing. 2) Real estate prices – If you are buying a home today, it is very painful. However, due to CA's limited growth property taxes, it is quite affordable for the majority of residents who have been living here for life. That results in a clever form of progressive taxation.

akgerber 14y ago
2) Real estate prices – If you are buying a home today, it is very painful. However, due to CA's limited growth property taxes, it is quite affordable for the majority of residents who have been living here for life. That results in a clever form of progressive taxation. That's not progressive taxation. Most long-term homeowners in expensive areas of California do, in fact, own at least one extremely valuable asset, which makes them wealthy. Since these wealthy people are paying low property taxes, other people need to pick up the cost of city services: younger, poorer folks with less home equity (the form most middle-class wealth takes) or none at all. That sounds like regressive taxation to me.

by brown 14y ago

akgerber 14y ago

2) Real estate prices – If you are buying a home today, it is very painful. However, due to CA's limited growth property taxes, it is quite affordable for the majority of residents who have been living here for life. That results in a clever form of progressive taxation. That's not progressive taxation. Most long-term homeowners in expensive areas of California do, in fact, own at least one extremely valuable asset, which makes them wealthy. Since these wealthy people are paying low property taxes, other people need to pick up the cost of city services: younger, poorer folks with less home equity (the form most middle-class wealth takes) or none at all. That sounds like regressive taxation to me.