This won't happen, and Oklahoma/Tulsa needs to fess up to that reality and make a real plan for their economic future.

If we're honest, DC/AZ/OR are the "third tech hubs" after SF and then Seattle/Boston/NYC.

The ambition for a midwest tech hub to join those ranks is not insane in general. Pittsburgh could make a reasonable play because, unlike Tulsa, in Carnegie Mellon it actually does have a continuous pipeline of world-class talent. Milwaukee, MSP, KC, sure, worth a long shot (with Madison <-> Milwaukee <-> Chicago HSR it'd be the short short, but, well...). Heck, why shouldn't St. Louis's Central West End be the Kendall Square of midwest biotech?!

But not Tulsa. That's just not the right play, and time is not on the region's side.

Oklahoma is heading the way of Venezuela -- a horribly mismanaged and ultimately failed oil state dependent on handouts from its primary trading partners (in this case via the US federal government). It can burst forth from the ashes, but it doesn't have Carnegie Mellon or UW-Madison or the U Chicago & the CME or Wash U. It won't succeed at the "Midwest Tech Hub" play. It needs a different play. IDK what that play is, which is why I'm not betting my mortgage payments on the future of that particular region. But I do sincerely hope they eventually figure it out.

DC/AZ/OR seems like an odd choice for third-tier tech hubs.

If I had to rank U.S. metro areas in terms of favorability for tech, I would do:

Tier 1: Bay Area

Tier 2: NYC, Seattle, Boston

Tier 3: Research Triangle, Pittsburg, Chicago

Tier 4: Austin, Boulder, Portland, LA/Santa Monica, Ann Arbor

Tier 5: Everywhere else.

There's some industry-specific tech support in various other cities (eg. oil in Houston, automotive in Detroit), but in terms of a general tech industry, they don't really register.

How can Chicago be below Austin? Chicago has Groupon, 1871, and Lightbank. Austin's downtown doesn't even compare to Chicago's downtown. It's horrible.

You're right; Chicago should be Tier 3. Editing the list a bit. There's a bit of a per-capita effect, though, where Chicago has a much larger population and many more other industries than say Austin, Boulder, or Portland, which makes them seem more tech-based even though the absolute number of firms & VC dollars is less.

It just depends. Plenty of great fintech in Chicago because of CME. Also plenty of great biotech in Chicago.

The SFBA B2C thing is not great in Chicago. IMO that's a retired man's game, but I thought bitcoin was dumb in 2010 so wtf do I know.

Lived in one, now a resident in the other, Austin's downtown doesn't even compare to the downtown of the other major cities in its own state, if you even only talked about public transit. Going east to west is a nightmare of transfers, going north to south (in non-COVID times) is a nightmare of sitting on either Guadalupe for an hour to go two miles or sitting on Lamar for an hour to go two miles. And that's IF your CapMetro bus is running on time that day.

You'll do marginally better driving your own car if you catch that section of Guadalupe going south right at the perfect time when the lights slowly cascade to green as you approach Riverside.

(Course the tradeoff here in Chicago is looping the block endlessly looking for a parking spot, but in non pandemic times, I'd trade the CTA for CapMetro in a heartbeat)

I'm not anti-Austin. I would live there for a year if the cost of living was cut in half. I just don't think the value is there.

Oh my apologies, I was hoping to concur but not paint you as anti-Austin as an individual. Sorry if my eagerness to agree gave the wrong impression.

And I even agree with you hear, now: I'd very likely move back for the same reason and if the council would stop caving to vocal minorities representing "neighborhood councils" who seem quite effective at derailing transportation planning.

Don't be so quick to push AZ out of the running.. we have (off the top of my head): Intel, Paypal, Zelle, American Express, Wells Fargo, Iridium, and supposedly a $26 Billion TSMC fab coming in the next few years. Tempe has offices for MS, KPMG, Norton/Lifelock, Netskope - and those were just what I could see from our LimeLight offices. That's on top of a pretty decent start-up/small biz scene.

I'm always surprised by how much tech. we have here now. So much more opportunity then back in 2000s..

I think the greater Salt Lake City area is making a somewhat successfull play so far to become "the silicon slopes".

There are plenty of successful states that aren't focused on tech. I moved to one of them, and I'm enjoying my life a lot more.

I was miserable in California – it's not for everyone. I'm betting that tech won't come to my area any time soon and that's a great thing.

I was careful to hedge that becoming a tech hub is not an inherent boon. It "could" be great, but I'm pretty sympathetic to locals being resistant to a bunch of tech cos and workers coming to their area and dramatically changing the fabric of the local culture without providing any benefits (or even a voice) to those who had lived there for the previous decades

There are literally dozens of places around the world trying to be the next Silicon Valley, and they have been trying for years.

Silicon Bayou (Louisiana) Silicon prairie (Des Moines) Silicon Slopes (Salt Lake) Silicon Alley (New York) Silicon Beach (LA) Silicon Forest (Portland)

It takes much more than some tax breaks and a $10,000 moving credit.

I hope Oklahoma figures something out, but this is hardly a differentiator.

Oklahoma income tax is basically 5%. The $10k pales in comparison to the tax saved from moving to a no income tax state, especially for a dual and/or high family.

I feel like there are chances that the next big startup scene ends up not being in the US, but in Berlin or ChiangMai

The "new silicon valley" is already Phoenix, AZ.

Based on what? Not disputing you, legitimately curious. I am considering moving to Phoenix. Thanks!

The semiconductor industry has an huge presence here. Here's a new (major) fab going in:

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2020/10/20/semicond...

Intel also has fabs here. Semiconductor manufacturing is a major industry in Phoenix.

"Has tech industry" is not the same as "new Silicon Valley." As defined by an insatiable need for new programmer blood. Phoenix is laughably far from having that. Seattle (mostly Amazon) and Austin in the last decade have come closest to that, and are still a far cry.

Silicon Valley is called that because it’s where all of the chip fabs were. They’ve not anymore, and with TSMC coming to Phoenix, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Phoenix is becoming the center of the microprocessor manufacturing industry in the US. The existing infrastructure here with machine shops, contractors, etc that build and maintain the fab equipment is an obvious reason why they chose this City.

Oh boy. I mean yes in the literal sense. But Intel's been in Phoenix forever, that doesn't mean Phoenix has long been another Silicon Valley.

The change is TSMC, and they specifically cited the existing size of the semiconductor industry in Phoenix as a reason.

See my comment above - there's really been a ton of stuff spring up over the last 20 years. TMSC is supposed to be spending $26 billion on a new fab here in the next 5ish years or so. I'm hoping that breaks ground soon to help boost the economy after covid.

Any place that wants to be the new Mecca for tech has to be pro tech worker and not pro tech company.

It takes a critical mass of tech companies that are well funded and regularly hiring, so government can't be squeezing them too hard.

Fairchild showed the critical mass is one, as long as employees of that one business are free to go spawn their own. Being pro-worker is not being anti-business, but it is an explicit reframing of policy initiative.

One company can slowly crystalize a Silicon Valley, but maybe not if your economy already has one.