The upshot is that now I volunteer my time often, and for free, to help others who are just starting out. I cannot predict who will be the next Google, but I enjoy helping smart founders, and I enjoy giving back in the same way I was given to.
A few relevant essays: http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ronco.html
I would caveat that with the note that there is rather less appreciation of bullshitters, so startups with a lot of wank to them might have a harder time being taken seriously. But if you're serious, and you're nice, people will absolutely fall all over themselves to do you a solid.
FWIIW I've known Byrne for years, and was shocked when he moved to the Bay Area.
Some of these companies could never have started in Boston, because finding capital would have been impossible. It isn’t always technological advantage that wins, but UX or biz model, or any number of other things related to execution.
Outright knowing scams? I'd agree with you.
Startups with no plausible business model, a bunch of buzzwords and hopes and dreams and no clear elucidation of why anyone would become their customer? Seemingly endless fields of those in the valley.
Theranos
Bullshit abounds. And YC is supposed to be the smart-and-decent money.
TBH, one of the really nice things about living around here is that if I take a meeting with a funded company they almost certainly hit at least some bar of seriousness. All successful companies? Definitely not, but there is a lot less chaff for me to filter through.
You don't have to be running a scam to be a bullshitter. But you do have to have an undeserved and unwarranted sort of presentation, and you likely don't have much cattle to go with that hat.
Clinkle is a perfect example of this.
I'm really surprised to hear that said of the city where RMS wrote GNU while living in his car. Not my experience there at all.
(And if anyone who's reading this would like to chat--well, email's in my profile. Don't be shy.)
You don't even need to give me your contributions, just your users.
basically the opposite of what I've experienced in 15 years in tech in the UK, sadly.
Always thought Douglas Adams' "horrifyingly sunny" Ursa Minor Beta was based on California.
1. California has laws surrounding non-compete, making it easier to poach from the Fairchild Semis, Hewlitt Packards, Intels, Sun Microsystems and Googles of the era.
2. It's easier to recruit out of Michigan than into it. California wisely keeps its snow in one place: Tahoe.
3. Diversity. As you point out, there's a ton of H1-B workers, and SF and LA have sizeable preexisting communities. It's just easier to be an immigrant or hyphenated-American in world class metro areas that can support a variety of ethnic and cultural clustering.
4. Public transit. Depressingly, the bay area still has better public transit than most other cities. Yes, the big companies still run coaches in the bay area, but that works in part because of density you won't see in cheaper, lower cost metros. And if you're recruiting internationally, the ability to commute to work without a drivers license or car kinda matters.
5. Access to money. There's a decent number of banks in SF's Financial district -- Wells Fargo and Charles Schwab are headquartered here. VISA is nearby in Foster City, and there's a number of VCs on Sand Hill Road you won't find in other cities.
> _It's just easier to be an immigrant or hyphenated-American in world class metro areas that can support a variety of ethnic and cultural clustering._
The fact that there aren't as many african-americans in the bay area (outside of a handful of locales), doesn't make the GP's point invalid.
I'm an immigrant in SF, and there are few places in the US where I would feel remotely as comfortable. Even being "white" (latin american of southern european ascent) I have a noticeable accent. That accent has triggered abuse by an elderly woman right after the past presidential elections in an ice cream shop in Hayes Valley, SF. And that is without going into the countless cases of "involuntary micro-agressions" ("oh, we don't mean you guys", "you're one of the good ones", etc.).
Outside of the bay area the landscape very quickly changes to white picket fences with two large pick up trucks and white crosses in the lawn, towns with multiple churches of different christian denominations. All of this within an hour of driving from SF. I wouldn't feel at home, and likely not be accepted as part of the community in places like this.
Because there are so many immigrants in the bay area, that gives exposure to the native-born citizenry making them less likely to treat immigrants like the feared "other", as well as immigrants treating other immigrants of different origin decently, for the most part. I think these points are what the GP was referring to. The problem of lack of systematic racism and unequal opportunities for african-americans are still a big problem in the US as a whole, and in the bay area as well, but that doesn't immediately affects the entirety of the immigrant population.
At any rate, you should really try exploring and getting outside of the Silicon Valley bubble if you think the rest of the U.S. is just a bunch of racists ready to shout offensive things to you.
Even in rural areas in Texas and Florida, big portions of the population are Hispanic. It's not unusual at all. In many Texas honky tonks, you'll find quite a few Hispanics. Some of the top rodeo stars are Mexican and Brazilian. In fact, most of Southwestern culture, from cuisine to music to dance to fashion, is a blend of cultural elements from Mexican, German, Czech, and Pole immigrants.
I realize now that when I said "outside of the bay area" I didn't make it clear that I was talking about California in particular. People from outside the US, and even some inside the US too, have this image of California that is a pastiche of cliches, where the Golden Gate bridge is next to Venice Beach and the Central Valley doesn't exist. I've travelled throughout many rural areas in the US and have been treated in a lovely way. I remember a recent trip where my wife and I stopped for a quick snack in a rural bar, where we struck a conversation with the people working there were lovely. At the same time, on the walls there were plenty of "american patriot" paraphernalia in the vein of "we say merry christmas here, and if that offends you fuck you". That makes it harder to feel welcomed.
Why should that make you feel unwelcome?
I'm also an immigrant, and have spent a decent amount of time in rural America, and my point of view is that it's wrong to hold Americans to a different standard than you would people from whatever country you're from. My family is from Bangladesh. If there were people going around trying to remove "Eid Mubarak" from the public discourse, there would be a total shit storm. 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas--tolerance for immigrants does not mean that people don't get to publicly celebrate their own culture, their religious traditions, etc.
You have a point. The culture I grew up in has its own share of terrible things that _I didn't even notice_ until I traveled and lived in other countries. Which is why I critique much of my own culture as much as I'll critique parts of american culture.
Having lived in other countries I not only wouldn't be able to go back (because I find some pervasive things of the culture repulsive and unlikely to change any time soon), but it has also made it easier to notice the cliched patterns of hatred towards the "other", the same things that are said of mexicans in the US are said of the polish in the UK, people from some arab countries in France, the turks in The Netherlands (although they are far more "polite" about it), etc.
> _ If there were people going around trying to remove "Eid Mubarak" from the public discourse, there would be a total shit storm. 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas--tolerance for immigrants does not mean that people don't get to publicly celebrate their own culture, their religious traditions, etc._
Sure, there are plenty of sensitive subjects that can put you in the bad side of a culture, but the "Merry Christmas" crowd is the same as "Guns, God & Country" crowd which is in many occasions the "racism doesn't exist" crowd. I used that sign as an example because it's the one I remembered the most vividly, but it wasn't the _only_ sign.
That's an odd set of examples. The countries you named are just about the least racist places on the planet. I'm sure you can hear some racist things about Bangladeshis/Pakistanis in the U.K., but nothing compared to what you'd hear about various groups in Bangladesh or Pakistan! (I’ve lived in the US 30 years, and almost all the racism I’ve ever witnessed was when other Asian people would be like “oh it’s just us Asians here, let me tell you how I really feel about [people].”)
> Sure, there are plenty of sensitive subjects that can put you in the bad side of a culture, but the "Merry Christmas" crowd is the same as "Guns, God & Country" crowd which is in many occasions the "racism doesn't exist" crowd. I used that sign as an example because it's the one I remembered the most vividly, but it wasn't the _only_ sign.
Even the "guns, god & country" crowd in the U.S. is far more welcoming and tolerant than most people in the rest of the world. In the U.S., we fight over whether English should be the official language. In France, few people question French as the official language. (And can you even imagine suggesting in France that kids should learn Arabic in schools to accommodate immigrants? But that's very common in the U.S. with Spanish.) And the French are incredibly tolerant compared to Bangladeshis. Even among the "gods, guns & country" crowd I'm more welcomed (as a brown guy with a beard) than a white American would ever be welcomed into Bangladeshi society.
Your personal experience just doesn't square up with mine.
I lived in the US for 15 years and definitely got racist comments hurled at me. More so than my time in India and Sri Lanka.
Having said that, I do agree that in general, American's are fairly welcoming and tolerant. But people in South Asia are as well!
> than a white American would ever be welcomed into Bangladeshi society.
Never been there, but I do know that white Americans would be well received in many of the South Asian cities I've lived in/visited. They may not be treated the same way a local would but they would be accommodated and welcomed.
Perhaps it isn't "hatred towards the other" but rather love for their own citizens who share a similar cultural background, upbringing, and values...especially when "the other" comes off as ungrateful and in some cases even complains that the host country isn't doing more to make them feel more at home in a place that isn't their home...
> Sure, there are plenty of sensitive subjects that can put you in the bad side of a culture, but the "Merry Christmas" crowd is the same as "Guns, God & Country" crowd which is in many occasions the "racism doesn't exist" crowd
This is a very biased view.
I make a distinction between patriotism and nationalism, which gets conflated quite often. Criticizing something is something only done when wanting the target of criticism to be better.
> especially when "the other" comes off as ungrateful and in some cases even complains that the host country isn't doing more to make them feel more at home in a place that isn't their home...
What is the appropriate level of gratefulness to be accepted? What's the threshold to be considered part of the "host" society? When can I consider the place I chosen to live in and have my friends in "home"?
> This is a very biased view.
As stated, it is biased, stereotypical and cliched. There is a group of people that inhabit the center of that Venn diagram, the size of which I do not know.
During that time, I never once encountered a person who was angry or even remotely offended that I wished them Merry Christmas.
I have however encountered numerous people who were very upset that someone once wished them happy holidays.
And “happy holidays” is a passive aggressive thing to say. 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas. When people say happy holidays, they mean merry Christmas. “Happy holidays” is a form of erasure—a refusal to acknowledge Christianity without also acknowledging other religions in the same breath.
This is a bit much. I say “happy holidays” out of respect for the fact that a lot of people I know aren’t Christian, but still enjoy that time of year for whatever reason they choose, be it other religious reasons, nostalgia for family traditions they don’t believe in religiously, or just plain consumerism being fun.
That's technically true, but it's misleading. Religion is much more important in public life in the US than in most of Europe. For example, this kind of thing wouldn't happen in most European countries: https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/tonights-obam...
I say this as someone who doesn't believe that what most people describe as separation of church and state is required by the constitution btw.
>And “happy holidays” is a passive aggressive thing to say. 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas. When people say happy holidays, they mean merry Christmas. “Happy holidays” is a form of erasure—a refusal to acknowledge Christianity without also acknowledging other religions in the same breath.
Happy Holidays has existed since at least the middle of the 19th century, and has been popular since the 30s--long before people cared about recognizing other religions. Trump even said it publicly fairly often over the years.
The family members I know who have a problem with the "War on Christmas" literally think that globalists are trying to force people to stop celebrating Christmas because that's what their media tells them.
This is the stuff that people usually don't have the balls to say in the real world -- only when they're shielded by a computer screen.
For instance last night a friend of mine posted a photo on Facebook of the two of us being out for a drink.
A woman who I have worked with in the past immediately messaged me on Facebook and told me I looked fat in the photo. (I didn't, and I'm not.)
Wtf? I'm sure she never would have had the guts to say that in person.
I think a lot of the worst preachy PC behavior policing, like telling people it's insensitive to wish people a Merry Christmas, happens mostly online or in echo chambers. The majority of people live out their lives being reasonably restrained and trying to get along with other people, then on the Internet they turn into a dick.
They've never experienced said online dickery themselves, so they don't understand the context. If they happen to be the kind of person who says happy holidays, it can feel like an attack on them instead of a response to someone else.
Similarly if you walk into a restaurant and the owner has posters on the wall that all say things like "You'll never make me eat meat.", it might come across as a little hostile to you as a carnivore. Despite the fact that it's a reaction against some online troll, not you.
Also I'm absolutely certain that the reaction against the "War on Christmas" is 10,000 times larger than the actual "War on Christmas."
I had a relative tell me how nice it was to finally be able to say Merry Christmas again the Christmas after Trump was elected. Seriously? Who was stopping you? Obama said it every single year in an official White House Christmas greeting video.
For what is worth, the only places I've seen this entire "merry christmas" thing being a problem has been as a backlash against corporations trying to look more inclusive by saying happy holidays in a period where there are multiple holidays being celebrated by multiple religions, but might just be my own filter bubble.
Ironically some of the Ultra hard-line puritan sects that colonised America where violently against Christmas
Sadly, we can't run the experiment where you start wishing people Happy Hannukah and measure how that goes.
Patriotism and cosmopolitanism can be good friends. Nationalism and cosmopolitanism, not so much.
The "American paraphernalia" as described seems to have a high level of nationalism versus patriotism, which is very uncomfortable for outsiders.
My current definitions of patriotism and nationalism:
Patriotism -- love of country that most benevolent outsiders could approve of and admire.
Nationalism -- love of country (or tribe, "nation") that most benevolent outsiders would disapprove of and could not admire.
They need improvement, but the examples we're discussing seem to uphold these definitions.
They also fit with Macron's claim that nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. For example, using the flag to divide instead of unite. Or using love of country to pick fights, start wars and bring destruction upon all involved.
"We say Christmas here and if you don't like it, fuck you" is clearly not a patriotic statement. It debases itself, its speakers and its object. It picks a fight and intends to create division, but it has damaged itself from the start by morally degrading itself. That's nationalism, tribalism, chauvinism. It betrays patriotism because it debases the spirit of the country which it claims to love.
A widespread "pay it forward" attitude will be exceedingly difficult in such a society, it seems.
Bending over backwards to make big displays that everyone should "feel welcomed" is just the culture of the city you're used to. And lets be honest, it's all for show. That doesn't slow down any of the social interactions which make it obvious when someone is unwelcome.
Here's a recent story shared by a friend who moved from CA to TX: He took his son (who are Indians) and another bunch of kids, two were Indians and the rest white to a water park in Austin. One of the Indian kids cut the line and moved to the front of the line where my friend was. He asked him why did he do that and he should not cut the line; the Indian kid responded "We are Indians and we need to stick together". This is in the so called liberal oasis of Austin.
I doubt if this frequent in the Bay area; sure you can point to PC culture and all that but this story is a sobering reminder of how segregated Texas espcially when you have kids acting like this.
To be fair to you, the perception seems to be widespread among residents of the aforementioned mega-cities, as well as non-Americans, and is fueled by the popular media. But I would encourage you to view the idea that these parts of America are backwards and largely bigoted with the same amount of skepticism you would to anyone making sweeping claims about the supposed deficiencies of a group of "others".
But OP is asking about other major cities like Atlanta, Boston, Chicago etc. If you think those are anti immigrant racist homophobic etc hellholes, you might be stereotyping quite a bit yourself :)
Edit: I realize now that I didn't specify when I said "outside the bay area" I meant California, as in "rural america is very close geographically to metropolitan america".
Nothing left to argue about then I guess :)
Spare us the elitism.
SF has tons of problems, including epic homelessness. Other cities are trying to deal with their unique situations under their unique constraints.
And the rest of California is just as bad. LA somehow has a reputation for inclusiveness despite being home to some of the most serious racial conflicts and explosions of racial violence in the last century.
That California is somehow radically more inclusive than the rest of the country is a myth, but one they are exploiting very well.
If all you do is focus on tech its really easy to miss the massive immigrant enclaves that have formed in the Bay Area and won't be driven out so easily.
At the end of the day, the workers the tech companies are competing for do care and that's what matters.
They don't seem to particularly care about the resulting demographics and occasionally get caught with insensitive assumptions like algorithms that fail to detect dark skinned people due to bad assumptions about how light reflects but they don't like the close-mindedness of xenophobes and homophobes.
> There's more to diversity than skin color. Immigrants from other countries look for people who can speak their own language, eat the same food, worship the same gods etc, and given that the bulk of SF's immigrants (in the tech industry) come from across the Pacific, these communities are much larger in SF (33% Asian) than Atlanta (3%).
It's not that people don't mix, it's more that they define their identities by multiple tribal affiliations. And "tribal" doesn't just mean race, it means anything from Mac vs PC vs Linux, to frat houses, to financial traders, to progressive academics, to LARPers, to indie musicians, to YC applicants.
Plus the usual political camps.
There's a patchwork of scenes and monocultures which don't seem to have much to do with each other - which is a different and less permeable dynamic to just being interested in something, or working in some field.
It seems like we're all playing the same game, just with different pieces.
You wouldn’t start the next big startup in Houston, because who will leave a fat gig at the oil company? NYC is a little different because it’s historically more diverse from a business POV. SF is different because tech spans industries.
Anyways, just kind of ranting, but yeah. SV's problems in tech somehow always branch out to be everyone else's problems that are in tech, at least media and high profile twitter accounts and bloggers would have you think that, but it isn't really so.
On a different note, there are two major reasons why you might consider Asians and Jews overrepresented in SV. Jews have historically had major populations in NY, California, Florida and Massachusetts and Chicago[1]. Similarly, Asians have historically clustered in California, NY, Seattle. Asian populations have historically been much more spread out across the US, but some of the largest populations are in California, NY and Boston[2]. Additionally, Asians and Jews have high proportions of individuals working in STEM fields (doctors, engineers, etc) because if you're being discriminated against, in math/science you are either right or you are wrong whereas if you choose a liberal art field like english, there's much more room for teachers/professors to discriminate intentionally or not.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_Jewish_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Asian_American...
Just wanted to say I love this line. I've always said that in California winter is opt-in, but that's even better :)
Yes but Michigan is also not known for widespread mudslides, wildfires, and earthquakes.
While that doesn’t seem like something that _has_ to be in California, it is already here and that’s not something you can just move.
As for why other cities have a hard time competing, it’s the same thing. If CA is perceived as “where innovation happens” then people will look for jobs here. They won’t even look at e.g. Kansas City or Charlotte or wherever, even if there are open roles there.
It doesn’t have to be this way and probably won’t be in ten or twenty years. Especially after this wave of IPOs, SF will likely be unlivable for most. If companies can continue to raise enough money to pay equivalently higher salaries, then the boom can continue a while longer. Otherwise, the numbers don’t make sense.
Regarding weather .. very hard to find same easy weather elsewhere in the USA. Seattle comes close .. and that’s why it’s also impacted, just to a lesser extent.
* most people will move somewhere because of a job, not because of the weather
* most people don't want even want to move to another city in the first place.
It's not a choice. 99% MUST move somewhere or STAY somewhere because of a job. Without a job, most people can't live.
Albuquerque NM, is every bit as good (i'm told) as the bay area, with 8 times cheaper housing. there are many more examples you can find in the US that have nearly as good weather.
*Albuquerque is a mile high, so its climate is much more like Denver than like Phoenix.
What's not so great are a somewhat dysfunctional and corrupt state government, second-class health care and public schools, and a high-tech community that revolves almost entirely around defense work that requires a security clearance. Many of these would be remedied if Albuquerque somehow got a significant influx of startups.
When a scene gets hot, there's always the danger of grouthink. There is far too much groupthink here. Much of it now is even the toxic kind. "Fear is the mind-killer." However, fear is only the start, only the beachhead. Groupthink is the main body, and it's the mechanism whereby the mind-killing starts to result in real world consequences.
When a scene gets hot, and there's real money and power to be had, it also attracts the sociopaths.
You could never get an exit if you were based in Chicago or St. Louis or Montana, etc.
Seems like what you are saying is no startups in Montana ever get exits - personally I think that's because startups seeking an exit end of moving to The Bay Area because of all the factors being mentioned here.
that’s where people make carpets
It's certainly not for everyone, but more and more successful tech startups seem to be moving to that model, and many new ones are using it from the very beginning.
It's a lot easier to hire, but operate and retain that talents is VERY different.
Not sure. I moved to the Bay Area from Germany, and while the primary factor was of course the job that was offered to me, the nice weather and the really quite stunning landscape were a factor. I'm still pretty happy if I'm on a hilly street in SF and see the bay, the Golden Gate Bridge, all that jazz. And SF itself is still quite a pretty city, despite its problems.
Yes, California rent ever up and on toward morning. Yes, NIMBYs are ever up and on toward morning. Yes, all of the other "Ever Bad Stuff" the same. I don't know where my new next breaking point is, but when it's there I'll find it and I'll act on it; I'm trying really hard to get started on that now, but factors are making that difficult.
My Point: The simple fact of moving to California is not necessarily vindictive of "everyone who does this is going to move around the globe for giggles as suggested or implied". Maybe I wanted California as a destination. Maybe you wanted California as a way-station. Maybe someone born in California wants to stay here ... or move out ... and/or move back eventually.
I have a doubt regarding "You move to California, You'll move anywhere".
Seattle is too dreary, slightly too white. Austin is way too white and you are still in Texas (state politics don’t sound like a feels good) New York is too crowded, but in my network this is the obvious next choice: we are told stories in sf that the homelessness is better, techies are in demand and treated well, dating is better for men. LA is where a lot of my network wants to be but companies aren’t growth oriented, we would be stuck in traffic more of our lives, which is why a lot of us left jobs in the valley. My network is primarily techies 24-32 years old, so I’d imagine “growth oriented” may mean less to us in 5-10 years.
Of course this all anecdotal but still relevant and indicative that a certain portion of people who live in California (even transplants) will not just live any where.
Expected cons: prices and homeless, artificial buildings, landscapes and often face/bodies
Unexpected pros:every one was super nice, Julio’s, cool airplanes
Unexpected cons: as a person who has always biked and walked. So cal is made for cars. To get from one part of town to another it seemed like in some cases it was just a hw cutting through a valley. Strip malls everywhere - the price you pay for so many options (consumer wise) seems to be paving over some of the most beautiful land on earth - additionally - the juxtaposition of all the luxury stores, boutique hipster shops w army of homeless is just depressing to look at. Not really California’s fault, but SD kind of just made me get down on humanity
vindictive
Not at all: for me personally, California was a bit of the final destination. It's the place where you have the best chance of being at the forefront of technology. And where you have the highest chance of finding your next job if the first one doesn't work out.
When I moved away from the East Coast to the Bay Area, it was already clear that it'd be hard finding another job in my field (chip design) if my current company would go under. That company has since gone under and over the past decade, a large part of our circle of friends there now lives here.
Talk about Silicon Alleys or Silicon this or that somewhere else is nothing new. I remember such articles in the nineties.
I do think things will slow down in general because of Moore's Law being close to the end. But that's going to be a problem for everyone, not just Silicon Valley.
Yeah, diverse VLSI design is pretty much dead everywhere except California.
Every other place tends to be a monoculture dominated by one company.
If California's state government mismanages things so badly that the costs imposed by being in California exceed the network benefits things could change very quickly. Until such a day, it is likely that they will enjoy a significant advantage in producing tech stuff. Location benefits are far greater than the pundits realise, some things are nearly impossible in practice if you aren't located in a key hub for your industry.
Sure take a job in MA or NYC as an engineer, but come back in 2 years when your employer is preventing you from working or building a company.
Microsoft, at least used to, aggressively enforce non-competes. I worked on an enterprise product at Microsoft in the 2000s and left to go work at Google, but I could not work on Drive/Docs etc
1.) Massachusetts recently passed a law significantly limiting non-competes
2.) I've never been able to find specific numbers, but my experience in Massachusetts is that they're far from universal. I've only had one in my career and that one was quite narrow. (That was EMC which was one of the local employers who fought hardest against the weakening of non-competes.)
I don't like non-competes and personally think the new law should have been stronger than it was. But, historically people jumped around employers like the Route 128 computer companies all the time.
even for an exempt employee, the MA law now requires 50% salary to be paid for the period the employee can't work.
i don't know if existing agreements are enforceable or not though.
A few high profile sackings of HR directors or General Counsels might help.
Someone without the latitude to hire, fire and delegate as necessary should NOT be exempt.
Voters think they can actually stop growth by stopping housing development. It's not the housing that brings people to CA, it's the jobs, especially jobs for immigrants and jobs for people outside of CA (in the US).
That's why companies like wework and regus are becoming so popular these days. I've seen a decent amount of tech companies signing deals with these companies to basically be able to offer remote working as a work benefit.
Of course, if employees don't want to use the remote working benefit then they can still live in the bay area.
They do those things because they have to compete with everyone in general. If employees want parental leave and will choose the company that provides parental leave over the company that provides <savings from not providing parental leave> in additional salary, companies will offer parental leave regardless of what California requires. And likewise if employees preferred the additional salary over the parental leave, they would provide that in a place the law allows it, even if that isn't allowed in California. But tech employees frequently prefer the flexibility to the money (because the money is still pretty good regardless).
The exception to this is things like CARB where companies will design a car to meet California's fuel economy requirements, but then that model exists and can be purchased by anyone regardless of whether they live in California. If something has a fixed cost, the law in one place requires it, and that place is important enough to justify paying it to operate there, it gets companies to pay the cost. But that doesn't really apply to variable costs like employee benefits.
And I know my salary and benefits are abnormally good because the HQ is in the bay area. Local companies don't give as much.
I feel like I got the best draw by working for a CA company outside of CA.
You just stated the reason why the tech companies are there. Feedback loops are a real thing that happens.
As a result of all the tech companies being there, the tech VCs are there, the recruitment agencies are there, etc, etc. That’s just how this works. To see the original factors you’d need to look at the history of the region, but beyond a certain point these things become self sustaining.
Sure there are forces in the other direction, and some individuals or companies might find them compelling, but specialisation works.
I for one find it easier to change my environment than to fight my environment.
2 flaws here:
1. The majority of those h1b workers are at like tcs Wipro and Infosys, not conventional sv companies.
2. Being close to technical universities is good if it gives you a recruiting edge, even if only some of your employees come from that school.
Who do you think those companies contract out to?
It's not a straightforward question, and I don't think any answer is entirely satisfying. A couple of cents though.
1¢ - Industries like tech are a cultural phenomenon, like a music industry or art industry. You can't just decide that Warsaw will have Seattle's grunge rock scene. It just grew there as a cultural outgrowth. It can't be planted elsewhere with predictable results. The thoughts and little decisions made by people are influenced by their cultural context.
2¢ - For the best (in business terms) tech companies, currently, costs like salaries mean nothing.
Twitter and FB were Twitter and FB with 1% of their current visits and employees. The extremely profitable and businesses enabled them to hire tens of thousands of people and spend tens of billions per year. We're these people necessary to the ad part if the business that employs most of them?
I suspect that they aren't. IE, if it turned out FB could only make $40bn or $8bn pa (currently making $80bn) from their site, they would manage to produce the same fb with few compromises on a much reduced budget. This isn't BMW, where operating costs and economic output (the number of cars) are tightly related to eachother.
If google or FB want to increase profit margins, they can, easily, by a lot. They would if they needed to, but they don't. Capital markets like the idea that they are reinvesting for growth and capital markets don't have any better ideas for where to invest profits anyway.
With no incentive to cut costs, why move somewhere cheaper?
There are multiple reasond - security from layoffs or bad workplaces, job-hopping is the defacto way to raise salary, and it also keeps them having to compete for them some.
A middle of nowhere job sets off "it's a trap" alarm bells consciously or unconsciously as an isolating move.
That said there is a lot of range between "most expensive areas in California" and "cheap one company towns".
I suspect sprawling out to network edges would maximize benefits for costs similar to Palo Alto once being the cheap option.
Having great technical universities doesn't mean most workers will come from there. Obviously a majority of employees do not come from these schools. But a plurality? I wouldn't be surprised.
How it came to be is related to a variety of factors.
But it has incumbency in some things and will be impossible to compete with in some ways.
Better for regions to develop competencies in which they have some kind of advantage. Alberta makes some kind of specialized natural resources extraction tech. Makes sense!
Indian and Chinese immigrants also play a big role. Stuck on backlog these are cheap employees who are desperate for employment because their H1b is tied to they having a job. These people will work for 60 hours a week for a salary of 20.
"Californians will end up like the landed gentry in interwar England. Lovely houses, illustrious history, and no conceivable way to pay their bills."
Why do tech companies flock to California (LA/SF)? I often hear people credit the great technical universities. But that can't be, because most of the actual workers at these companies didn't go to Bay Area or even California universities [1]. If they're willing to move from their home to California for work, it's safe to assume they're willing to move from their home to almost anywhere else for work. It's not due to cheap housing or even available housing. It's not due to the great commute into work. It's not due to the low cost of living. The only argument I hear is that tech companies move to SF/LA because lots of tech workers are there, and lots of tech workers are there because lots of tech companies are there.
So if there's nothing holding technology to SF/LA, when does it become a competitive advantage to have your offices anywhere but California? At some point it will. And it will be long overdue.
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/h-1b-foreign-citizens...