jvproject

there is no such thing as a good time to short bonds :)

This seems like a common point in this thread with which I respectfully disagree.

While I'm sure we all support the notion that there is social good in reducing income inequality in the U.S. and improving quality of life for all, consumers in lower tax brackets will tend to spend additional income on staples, marginal quality-of-life improvements and servicing past debt. While this spending (increased aggregate demand) can't be bad, it doesn't necessarily distribute the capital _efficiently_.

Meanwhile, as you put, the high earners who "save" (read: invest) their excess income are precisely those who stimulate the economy effectively, as they are typically more able to efficiently allocate investments. I make this broad-brush assumption based on personal experience and some research I read years ago I don't have the time to look up right now. But basically think about this: if you had $100 to invest, would you rather ask a hobo on the street or Bill Gates (let alone Ray Dalio)? This "sophistication factor" is relevant, I believe. Add in the fact that lower-income consumers are almost certain to spend the excess capital in a predictable but not necessarily efficient way, and it's fairly easy to make the argument that aggregate demand would best be created by a.) efficiently distributing capital to b.) create new and profitable enterprises that c.) create demand both domestically and internationally, and d.) purchases are made (demand is created) for those innovative new products/services using e.) the money earned by workers paid by the companies that just created them. (f. what a mouthful.)

Now we've not only increased demand but added to the whole pie via foreign trade. And gets us back to the point mentioned above that the quality of what we create directly impacts demand for it -- and you can't really get around that fact either.

Since the comments thus far are quite inflammatory -- which I find odd, considering this is a subject almost all of us most have thought about -- I'll throw in my $0.02.

I am an ex-finance guy (who has programmed computers forever) who recently quit "the business" and moved to SF to work at a startup. This gives me some perspective.

I can say a few things for sure. First, there are more tech-related opportunities here. You just can't deny it -- once you're in it, you see it. Everybody everywhere is talking about tech... all the time. It's like going to the bar outside Goldman. Everyone's talking about the stock/bond/FX/whatever market or the topic du jour.

Similarly, getting a true finance job outside the greater NY area would be extremely difficult. The main reason for this is because in places like California, you mostly find either a.) satellite offices of big firms, which are no good for a young person, or b.) hedge funds on the beach with two guys and a dog (no room for a young person). So I can say for NY, the point rings true.

In terms of tech in SF, being in the hub seems to matter -- if you're making some kind of career move. I can tell you for certain I've been getting more job hits (from tech firms) living out here. When I lived in NY, the only one who'd interview me was Google -- first at the NY office, then in Mountain View, for a position in San Bruno. It was very difficult to make the horizontal shift directly from Wall Street to tech -- for geographic and cultural reasons.

But the real "blame" I'd like to place is on automatic screening mechanisms. All too often I've been screened out of candidacy at smaller companies because it's just too much effort to fly out a candidate for an interview, put them up at a hotel with a car, all so you can (maybe) hire them and have to pay relocation. Not many companies are willing to do that... it's just life.

That said, people who are driven and committed will (I believe) have A+ careers (in a much more liberal sense of the term than used here) regardless of where they live. But, if a particular goal has your attention -- go where the fish are biting. There's nothing about that that doesn't make sense to me.

PS - on the flip-side, I once worked for a big bank headquartered in L.A. I elected not to move there for exactly these reasons -- I don't want to be an actor, so I stayed in NY. But when I wanted to horizontal into true-pure-tech, I did make a point to get myself to SF, whatever it took.