5 ms·
I agree with much of what you've said. I've lived in the bay area for 7 years, and SF for 3. I like a lot of the people here. I like a lot of the companies here
by ggreer 13y ago
I agree with much of what you've said. I've lived in the bay area for 7 years, and SF for 3. I like a lot of the people here. I like a lot of the companies here. I like the weather. But if I had no obligations, I would move tomorrow. I've lived in a half-dozen states and two countries. The state and local governments here are the second-worst I've lived under.[1] SF is unbelievable. There are insane violent vagrants roaming around Market street and the Tenderloin. MUNI is a nightmare, and BART is noisy enough to cause hearing damage.[2] Almost any public area is extremely dirty. One can't walk more than a block without encountering the smell of waste.
The biggest thing preventing tech workers from moving is that some interactions simply must be done in-person. Often this requirement is due to culture, not technological limitations. Still, there are significant advantages to in-person interactions. People are much more likely to pay attention to each other. There can be interesting and beneficial chance encounters. And of course, the likelihood of anything getting recorded or leaked is lower.
I think that as remote work becomes more feasible (both technologically and culturally), more tech workers will move out of the bay area. There are simply too many incentives to leave.
1. The worst being Guam, which couldn't keep electricity running for more than 12 hours a day. Great beaches, though.
2. Oh, and who had the bright idea to put cloth seats on BART? That person has probably caused the spread of more disease than Typhoid Mary.
- kijin 13y agoSpeaking of trains, the west coast really needs high-speed railways. After all, teleconferencing all the time is not the only alternative to everyone living in the same city. People could actually travel for important meetings from time to time. A best-of-the-class high-speed train (300mph+, not the pathetic 200mph version they're talking about) should be able to get you from Portland to SF, or from LA to SF, in two hours flat. Even better, you'll be able to work during those two hours.
- vacri 13y agoI was surprised to find out (in 2009, may have since changed) that there wasn't a daily train between SF (and surrounds, pop 8M) and LA (and surrounds, pop 20M). I had to get a bus to Bakersfield before I could hop on a train.
- leapinglemur55 13y agoThat's mostly a problem with the terrain geography in the area (trains can't easily cross the grapevine without a tunnel underneath it or a much longer travel time).
- selectodude 13y agoYou can take the train directly to Oakland, but not San Francisco.
- vacri 13y agoMy Bakersfield train ended up in Oakland, and I had to get the bus over the bridge to finish the journey. There didn't appear to be a train direct from LA to the same location. Again, this was a few years ago, so things may have changed. Or it may have been seasonal.
- zanny 13y agoI wonder what would happen if the tech industry giants pooled their resources to build a metropolis elsewhere, wherever they could found a county and just go to town without restrictions on building height or whatever. And then they could uproot their workforces (and if you took the combined employees of Yahoo, MS, Google, Apple, AOL, Facebook, etc, you would have moved the employee base) and move there, it would probably be the most futuristic city on the planet. I mean, they wouldn't - or they already would have - because it isn't economically feasible. But that always comes off as a buzz kill since we just end up trying to grow new businesses like cancer into the ancient ruins of lost revolutions we call "historical preservation".
- BadassFractal 13y agoYeah, there's nothing more appealing than creating a nation of geeky males in their 20s. You know what dating down in MV is like? Well, that'd be way worse.