4 ms·
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. That said, I think you're overstating the negatives of many cities. Seattle? Full of Amholes. I worked at Google, wh
by michaelochurch 12y ago
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. That said, I think you're overstating the negatives of many cities.
Seattle? Full of Amholes.
I worked at Google, which is similar to Amazon. Most people weren't assholes. A company can have a really negative culture (most large tech companies do, and I'd include Google insofar as it has stack-ranking, the 18-month rule, and internal-mobility issues) and still have 60-70% of the people be decent, admirable, even fun to be around. Trust me on this. Stop stereotyping people by their company; these "change the world" startups really aren't superior to Google or Amazon or even Goldman Sachs.
New York isn't ruined by Goldman Sachs and Seattle isn't going to be ruined by Amazon.
Chicago? Too cold.
Overstated. Today, it's beautiful. Actually, the average winter day is quite nice: slightly below freezing (great for cross-country skiing, winter running, etc.) but not unpleasantly cold. The coldest winter days require long johns. It really isn't bad if you know how to dress for it.
I won't claim that the climate here is as agreeable as San Diego's, but for a climate north of 40 degrees, it's fine. The coldest days are very cold, but the winter is not as cloudy as Seattle's, not as long as Europe's (mid-late March is actually spring), and not as stormy (in winter) as New York's.
North of 40 degrees, you're going to pay one way or another in winter, whether it's the clouds of Seattle (or Europe) or the cold/snow of Chicago or the 35-degree rain of the East Coast. Personally, I'd pick dry cold and semi-frequent sun.
San Francisco? Too poor, dirty, and it'll take them at least another 50 years to build out modern-day infrastructure (high density housing + transit). And that's only if current levels of local government corruption don't increase.
I'm not going to defend SF. It's a nice place to visit and its topography is incredible. The weather isn't bad. However, it's not a great place to live, and it's already been compromised by foreign money laundering. And, unlike in NYC, that has spread out to the suburbs (Silicon Valley) as well. There's a lot of scumbag money propping up Palo Alto.
All the other people who failed out of life and moved to Austin seem to like it just fine.
That's a crappy characterization of a place, if I've ever heard one. I found Austin to be alright. Remember that 50 years ago, California had the stigma of being where "people who failed out of life" ended up. Then they took over entertainment, technology, and agriculture.
- seiji 12y agoThat's a crappy characterization of a place, if I've ever heard one. It's a fine place, but nobody thinks "You know, I'm going to become a tech billionaire then live in Austin for the rest of my life." It's a fallback city. When you realize you can't make it in SF or NYC or other collapsing-under-wealth locales, Austin looks like a safer alternative.
- arbuge 12y agoWay too negative. Austin is a great city in many ways, and a better place to build some kinds of businesses than the big cities you mention. I don't know about your claim on how tech billionaires think - from your first post, it's safe to conclude you're not a tech billionaire so this is likely just your conjecture. I can tell you for a fact that some people have become tech billionaires in Austin. Michael Dell for instance.
- seiji 12y agoAbsolutely right. When I think success, I think Michael Dell.
- CyberDildonics 12y agoWhen I think success, I think venting frustrations with my own shortcomings on internet message boards.
- santaclaus 12y agoI'd take Austin of SF and NYC any day. Nice hot weather, delicious brisket, people are actually nice...