Five cities account for vast majority of growth in U.S. tech jobs: study(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Five cities account for vast majority of growth in U.S. tech jobs: study
https://www.wsj.com/articles/five-cities-account-for-vast-majority-of-growth-in-tech-jobs-study-finds-11575867660
162 comments
Those are Census metropolitan statistical areas.
> The U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines a set of core based statistical areas (CBSAs) throughout the country. CBSAs are delineated on the basis of a central urban area or urban cluster – in other words: a contiguous area of relatively high population density. CBSAs are composed of counties and county equivalents.[3] The counties containing the core urban area are known as the central counties of the CBSA. A central county is a county in which 50% of its population lives in urban areas of at least 10,000 in population, or where a population of 5,000 are located in a single urban area of at least 10,000 in population where that urban area is split between more than one county.[4] Additional surrounding counties, known as outlying counties, can be included in the CBSA if these counties have strong social and economic ties to the central counties as measured by commuting and employment. Outlying counties are included in the CBSA if 25% of the workers living in the county work in the central county or counties or, conversely, 25% of the employment in the county is held by workers who live in the central county or counties. All counties in a CBSA must be contiguous, and a county can only be included within one CBSA.[4] In New England, towns have precedence over counties, so statistically similar areas are defined in terms of town-based units known as New England city and town areas (NECTAs).
> Adjacent CBSAs are merged into a single CBSA when the central county or counties of one CBSA qualify as an outlying county or counties to the other CBSAs.[4] One or more CBSAs may be grouped together or combined to form a larger statistical entity known as a combined statistical area (CSA) when the employment interchange measure (EIM) reaches 15% or more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area
San Jose and SF are combined in a combined statistical area, but the linkages are not strong enough to consider them a single metropolitan statistical area.
> The U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines a set of core based statistical areas (CBSAs) throughout the country. CBSAs are delineated on the basis of a central urban area or urban cluster – in other words: a contiguous area of relatively high population density. CBSAs are composed of counties and county equivalents.[3] The counties containing the core urban area are known as the central counties of the CBSA. A central county is a county in which 50% of its population lives in urban areas of at least 10,000 in population, or where a population of 5,000 are located in a single urban area of at least 10,000 in population where that urban area is split between more than one county.[4] Additional surrounding counties, known as outlying counties, can be included in the CBSA if these counties have strong social and economic ties to the central counties as measured by commuting and employment. Outlying counties are included in the CBSA if 25% of the workers living in the county work in the central county or counties or, conversely, 25% of the employment in the county is held by workers who live in the central county or counties. All counties in a CBSA must be contiguous, and a county can only be included within one CBSA.[4] In New England, towns have precedence over counties, so statistically similar areas are defined in terms of town-based units known as New England city and town areas (NECTAs).
> Adjacent CBSAs are merged into a single CBSA when the central county or counties of one CBSA qualify as an outlying county or counties to the other CBSAs.[4] One or more CBSAs may be grouped together or combined to form a larger statistical entity known as a combined statistical area (CSA) when the employment interchange measure (EIM) reaches 15% or more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area
San Jose and SF are combined in a combined statistical area, but the linkages are not strong enough to consider them a single metropolitan statistical area.
This is interesting when compared to Los Angeles, I think the Bay Area and LA are similar in terms of the sprawl but one is thought of as a single city and the other is not.
Oakland is to SF as Anaheim/Orange County is to LA
Unlike the Bay Area, LA-OC is a continuous sprawl of habitation and commerce.
The only parts of the Bay Area that don't match that description are Marin and Monterey.
Unlike LA-OC I can take a train from SF to San Jose (the souther tip of the Bay Area) within 1 hour and 30 minutes. (LA-OC takes over 6 hours).
This is false. LA to OC by train is 30 to 45 min. LA trains to San Diego or Santa Barbara are only 2 hours and both are much farther from LA than SJ is from SF.
Ok you're right I must have been looking at late night options.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Los+Angeles,+CA/orange+count...
It's almost twice as long as SF to San Jose: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/San+Francisco,+CA/San+Jose,+...
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Los+Angeles,+CA/orange+count...
It's almost twice as long as SF to San Jose: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/San+Francisco,+CA/San+Jose,+...
That’s a weird way to describe things. You can drive from downtown LA to Orange County in less than an hour in rush hour traffic.
>Separating San Jose and San Francisco obscures how much the Bay Area is dominating this data
Sort of...
Have you ever tried to commute to San Jose/Cupertino/Sunnyvale from, say, Walnut Creek, Pleasant hill, Richmond, etc..??
While they are all still in the greater SV orbit - commuting between many of the greater SV cities is a fucking nightmare.
BART, Caltrin, LightRails, Freeways, buses, etc -- are all disconnected and fucking suck.
I have turned down multiple positions in the south bay due to commuting and housing cost issues.
And if you don't think I know what I am talking about, my family is 5th generation San Franciscan, with family in Saratoga since 1959. I lived in San Jose an commuted to San Francisco from San Jose for over a decade - and lived all over.
My best commute ever was a bike+bus commute from Alameda Island to SF for almost a decade.
Worst commute was from Alameda to Sunnyvale.
The biggest problem with SV is transit first, housing second.
So to treat San Jose and San Francisco as if they were different freaking states, is to me, fair play.
Sort of...
Have you ever tried to commute to San Jose/Cupertino/Sunnyvale from, say, Walnut Creek, Pleasant hill, Richmond, etc..??
While they are all still in the greater SV orbit - commuting between many of the greater SV cities is a fucking nightmare.
BART, Caltrin, LightRails, Freeways, buses, etc -- are all disconnected and fucking suck.
I have turned down multiple positions in the south bay due to commuting and housing cost issues.
And if you don't think I know what I am talking about, my family is 5th generation San Franciscan, with family in Saratoga since 1959. I lived in San Jose an commuted to San Francisco from San Jose for over a decade - and lived all over.
My best commute ever was a bike+bus commute from Alameda Island to SF for almost a decade.
Worst commute was from Alameda to Sunnyvale.
The biggest problem with SV is transit first, housing second.
So to treat San Jose and San Francisco as if they were different freaking states, is to me, fair play.
> While they are all still in the greater SV orbit - commuting between many of the greater SV cities is a fucking nightmare.
The same could be said about commuting across opposite sides of LA.
The same could be said about commuting across opposite sides of LA.
I can't disagree -- I couldn't imagine working in Beverly Hills and having to make it to group therapy at noon on a Wednesday in Agoura Hills.
But I think it's asinine to think of San Francisco and San Jose as two markets in this context. To me, the top five (four) markets are no surprise.
I'd love to hear stories about the next five and the next five after that. It's far more interesting to understand how code and technology are being advanced by those outside the mainstream.
But I think it's asinine to think of San Francisco and San Jose as two markets in this context. To me, the top five (four) markets are no surprise.
I'd love to hear stories about the next five and the next five after that. It's far more interesting to understand how code and technology are being advanced by those outside the mainstream.
Those splits are probably based on census metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)
[deleted]
Thanks! After digging around the various Wikipedia pages I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose%E2%80%93San_Francisco..., whose table seems to make it clear that the peninsula is all included in either the SJ or the SF MSAs. So they're not leaving out PA or MV or anything like that.
I'll bet if you dig deeper into the data, you'll also find that most of the growth was driven by a handful of companies, and the cities were along for the ride.
These cities have the companies where people want to work at. They also pay handsomely. Seattle, for instance, is expensive, sure - but a grad a couple years after college can be making $200K easy in Seattle vs maybe just north of $100K in a place like OKC for a more senior role.
I would recommend techies go work at one of these big tech companies, at least for several years and save up for your future. Then move to the Midwest if your goal is to live in a suburb in a several thousand square foot home.
I would recommend techies go work at one of these big tech companies, at least for several years and save up for your future. Then move to the Midwest if your goal is to live in a suburb in a several thousand square foot home.
Senior Facebook engineers in the Seattle area make $180k, where are you getting your information?
You’re probably looking at Glassdoor, which is 100% incorrect. A fresh grad with a bachelors working in Seattle as a dev will earn $110K base (and quite a bit higher) not counting equity. After a couple years, you should be at $200K. Even Amazon on the low end compared to Google and Facebook pays SDE 2s around $200. Senior devs will make between $250k-350k depending on years of experience, whether they’re getting screwed on compensation. I’m a senior dev myself.
180k? Fresh grads make that
[deleted]
Glassdoor has the average software engineer salary in Seattle at 124k with 149k as the upper bound on their chart. I’m speaking about the Seattle area in general. Facebook is the highest salary I’ve seen where a former coworker moved on to a 180k salary.
I have no idea where you guys are working and getting those salaries in the Seattle area, which is what I’m talking about.
I have no idea where you guys are working and getting those salaries in the Seattle area, which is what I’m talking about.
Glassdoor is 100% wrong...
Plus that isn’t including stock and bonus
Go to levels.fyi
Plus that isn’t including stock and bonus
Go to levels.fyi
Stock bonuses usually vest over several years, so I’m not convinced that that’s appropriate to call it a single year’s compensation. The 50k+ you get as a new hire at Microsoft (or got) took 4 years to vest, so it was only a salary increase of around 15k per year, not 50k in compensation.
Look you’re wrong. Senior engineer at Facebook makes 350-500k
Levels.fyi
Senior FB engineers make more than double that at E5.
Senior FB engineers make more than double that at E5.
One call out - senior engineers at FB are a different breed and caliber altogether vs a “senior developer” at your typical insurance company or someone contracting AngularJS development in a senior role for an oil and gas company.
People see the word senior and think it’s an apples to apples comparison. I’m not saying the FB engineers are “better”, but I am saying the level of ownership, design, code quality, etc is day and night different... an environment like FB, Amazon, Google etc will force you to become a great developer (rigorous code reviews, various levels or owning what you wrote, supporting your services, developing run books, etc etc.
My 2 cents from my experience on both sides (working in non tech companies and big tech companies).
People see the word senior and think it’s an apples to apples comparison. I’m not saying the FB engineers are “better”, but I am saying the level of ownership, design, code quality, etc is day and night different... an environment like FB, Amazon, Google etc will force you to become a great developer (rigorous code reviews, various levels or owning what you wrote, supporting your services, developing run books, etc etc.
My 2 cents from my experience on both sides (working in non tech companies and big tech companies).
> I’m not saying the FB engineers are “better”, but I am saying the level of ownership, design, code quality, etc is day and night different... an environment like FB, Amazon, Google etc will force you to become a great developer (rigorous code reviews, various levels or owning what you wrote, supporting your services, developing run books, etc etc.
That is actually exactly what you're saying... but I agree, and thanks for including Amazon in this. Usually people don't, I've noticed.
That is actually exactly what you're saying... but I agree, and thanks for including Amazon in this. Usually people don't, I've noticed.
Why did you get downvoted?
[deleted]
The NYT coverage of the study is at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/business/economy/innovati... .
Quoting the paywalled WSJ story: "Just five metropolitan areas—Boston; San Diego; San Francisco; Seattle; and San Jose, Calif.—accounted for 90% of all U.S. high-tech job growth between 2005 to 2017, according to the research by think-tank scholars Mark Muro and Jacob Whiton of the Brookings Institution and Rob Atkinson of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
The nation’s 377 other metro areas accounted for 10% of the 256,063 jobs created during that period in 13 high-tech industries such as software publishing, pharmaceutical manufacturing and semiconductor production. Among the smaller cities that gained tech jobs were Madison, Wis.; Albany, N.Y.; Provo, Utah; and Pittsburgh."
Quoting the paywalled WSJ story: "Just five metropolitan areas—Boston; San Diego; San Francisco; Seattle; and San Jose, Calif.—accounted for 90% of all U.S. high-tech job growth between 2005 to 2017, according to the research by think-tank scholars Mark Muro and Jacob Whiton of the Brookings Institution and Rob Atkinson of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
The nation’s 377 other metro areas accounted for 10% of the 256,063 jobs created during that period in 13 high-tech industries such as software publishing, pharmaceutical manufacturing and semiconductor production. Among the smaller cities that gained tech jobs were Madison, Wis.; Albany, N.Y.; Provo, Utah; and Pittsburgh."
The study itself is at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Full-Re...
The surprise for me is the cities that were not part of it: NYC, Washington DC area, some tech cities in Colorado and Austin.
It just goes to show you that our intuitions about some of these things are flat out wrong.
It just goes to show you that our intuitions about some of these things are flat out wrong.
Austin isn't really a growth driver in tech as much as a place to go for the companies that are priced out of California. Come for the low taxes, stay for the non-existent labor law!
The NYTimes article on the study has more numbers. What's odd about DC is the number of losses seems high but it's hard to tell how big that is in proportion.
For example, Silicon Valley and San Francisco gained a huge number. However, Madison Wisconsin was in the top ten and is a much smaller metro area. Washington lost 7k but it's a big metro - especially compared to Wichita.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/business/economy/innovati...
And North Carolina is just weird - Durham lost 6k but Raleigh gained 12k? Are people just moving from Durham County to Wake County?
For example, Silicon Valley and San Francisco gained a huge number. However, Madison Wisconsin was in the top ten and is a much smaller metro area. Washington lost 7k but it's a big metro - especially compared to Wichita.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/business/economy/innovati...
And North Carolina is just weird - Durham lost 6k but Raleigh gained 12k? Are people just moving from Durham County to Wake County?
yeah, I had similar thoughts. Using absolute numbers makes sense of some cities, using the expansion over a tech base for others, and expansion over total base for yet others.
From the NYtimes piece it looks like they use absolute numbers but the study itself seems to run a mix of analyses including absolute, % change etc.
Their definition of an innovation job might have something to do with it, too.
From the NYtimes piece it looks like they use absolute numbers but the study itself seems to run a mix of analyses including absolute, % change etc.
Their definition of an innovation job might have something to do with it, too.
In this case, I wouldn't be so quick to label your intuition "flat out wrong." I've seen multiple sources citing comparable "tech" job growth in NYC to SF (the city, not the region), with more than double Boston's job growth in the last decade(ish). I'd question the reliability of this data that NYC isn't even in the top 5.
I'm also partially surprised Austin isn't on the list... but then the majority of "tech jobs" in the area seem to be back-office work like sales, support, and HR... so maybe that's why it doesn't show up?
The tech culture in Austin is way overhyped. I came up in it, and the critical mass of investors just isn't there. There are a handful (like 10 at most) of serial founders in town who can reliably get VC funding. I worked for one of them at a couple companies, and while he was good at what he did, his relationships from being a trust fund kid hobnobbing with investors were absolutely the reason we had funding and traction. Everyone else competes for the local / regional VC network, which can't handle anything beyond A rounds.
Even Apple's huge new campus in Austin is going to be manufacturing, sales and customer support; the actual tech jobs are staying in Cupertino. It's just cheaper to hire for non-tech positions outside the bay area. So tech companies from the bay area use Austin as a tax haven to cut the costs of non-technical work, but the jobs aren't tech jobs.
Even Apple's huge new campus in Austin is going to be manufacturing, sales and customer support; the actual tech jobs are staying in Cupertino. It's just cheaper to hire for non-tech positions outside the bay area. So tech companies from the bay area use Austin as a tax haven to cut the costs of non-technical work, but the jobs aren't tech jobs.
Here is my guess for other 4 : #6: NYC , #7 DC Metro #8 Greater LA #9 Austin
The Washington DC area might be doing better now, give this data is from 2005-2017 before all the HQ-2 drama happened.
I also wonder what that graph looks like. DC was a tech powerhouse for a while with dulles corridor and the likes of AOL et al. But I'm not exactly sure when that really dwindled. I could see something resembling a U shape from that going down but DC growing if you changed the starting date a little later. Just throwing it out there, and Amazon will probably increase those numbers. The city's tech growth may not be stunning but the city itself is growing and there's definitely no shortage of money.
Also LA too
I think for LA and NYC they start from a much bigger employment base and there are different trends in "tech", some going up, some going down. Like in LA a lot less manufacturing and aerospace (did you know LA county was #1 in both for a while?) and more VC style tech. NYC probably has similar trends I wouldn't know as well.
Can never get this site to load for some reason
Upvoted, can you remind me of the current steps for bypassing a paywall these days?
And, it's doubly ironic that those are the places where it's citizens want the least amount of growth. In SF for example, there's a lot of tech hate.
I think it's time to create incentives for companies to move to cities that actually want to grow. where jobs go, people WILL follow.
I think it's time to create incentives for companies to move to cities that actually want to grow. where jobs go, people WILL follow.
The people who don't want rapid growth are the people who have experienced it. The people who do want growth are the ones who haven't experienced it. This seems unlikely to be a coincidence.
Job growth without commensurate growth in housing stock is a recipe for misery. The NIMBYs did it to themselves.
If the majority of people in an area experienced the negative effects of rapid growth -- doesn't that imply most of them caused the growth by moving there in the first place?
Talk about locking the door behind you on the way in.
Talk about locking the door behind you on the way in.
>I think it's time to create incentives for companies to move to cities that actually want to grow. where jobs go, people WILL follow.
Nothing is stopping other cities from creating incentives. Some cities have even tried. Of course, some cities have certain undesirable features that make in infeasible to attract companies without going to ridiculous lengths which local voters would not approve of.
Nothing is stopping other cities from creating incentives. Some cities have even tried. Of course, some cities have certain undesirable features that make in infeasible to attract companies without going to ridiculous lengths which local voters would not approve of.
For a lot of us, the only undesirable aspect of SF bay area would be rent and housing costs.
Everything else in the area is of the highest quality. SF bay area scores high on weather, food, pollution, average quality of schools, average quality of people, crimelessness, lively cities, international educated people, jobs, vibrant societies, vibrant economies etc.
Housing is a major cause of all remaining evils there. Besides that, life is pretty good tbh.
Everything else in the area is of the highest quality. SF bay area scores high on weather, food, pollution, average quality of schools, average quality of people, crimelessness, lively cities, international educated people, jobs, vibrant societies, vibrant economies etc.
Housing is a major cause of all remaining evils there. Besides that, life is pretty good tbh.
I'm not sure I agree with quite a few of those points when you look at the "SF" part of "SF Bay Area". Sure, Woodside and Moraga are top tier quality of life if you can afford it, but half of SF is essentially Gotham city.
YMMV, but the local culture is a lot less friendly than some other places. Not that NYC is necessarily better.
I think that the problem is that people don't want to live in many of America's cities and I'm not sure that there's much the cities can do to change that.
- They cannot force their population to have more progressive attitudes towards different types of people.
- There's not much they can do to make themselves culturally important in the way that cities like SF, LA, and New York are.
- It's unlikely that they will be willing to spend what it would cost to build public transportation.
The only way I could see cities getting tech workers to want to live there is if they did something that resulted in the workers having significantly higher salaries. Something like having no state or local income tax and paying part of their federal income tax.
- They cannot force their population to have more progressive attitudes towards different types of people.
- There's not much they can do to make themselves culturally important in the way that cities like SF, LA, and New York are.
- It's unlikely that they will be willing to spend what it would cost to build public transportation.
The only way I could see cities getting tech workers to want to live there is if they did something that resulted in the workers having significantly higher salaries. Something like having no state or local income tax and paying part of their federal income tax.
I would literally move to nearly anywhere in the midwest, in a heartbeat if they paid real salaries. I see it now, the hundreds of HN comments from years past talking about COL differences.The salaries I've seen in the midwest are what would have been reasonable in 2006, even adjusting for CoL differences. These companies are just not keeping pace with the market. This "oh the CoL differences" line was valid in the past, and still is valid in the few tech cities that have kept pace properly like Austin, but for most places it is a excuse to trick people into accepting lower salaries than people are worth regardless of what local rent costs.
Ever notice how everybody here knows Austin even though it is flyover small town? I feel like I repeat myself a hundred thousand times. Almost EVERY city in the midwest, every city, would be as viable a location as Austin is, if the companies there weren't cheapskates and paid people what they were worth.
Ever notice how everybody here knows Austin even though it is flyover small town? I feel like I repeat myself a hundred thousand times. Almost EVERY city in the midwest, every city, would be as viable a location as Austin is, if the companies there weren't cheapskates and paid people what they were worth.
It's pretty disingenuous to call Austin a "flyover small town".
> Austin is the capital of Texas and the 11th largest city in the United States, and the 3rd largest state capital. The population of Austin is estimated at 964,254, which is an increase of more than 3% over the last census in 2010. [1]
Midwest cities are not viable Austin replacements. One of the many reasons for it's success is the University of Texas. It's a research university and one of the largest in the world. Add to that the fact that Austin has a pretty rich culture, temperate climate, and plenty to do; and now you have a place that people want to relocate to.
[1]: http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/austin-population...
> Austin is the capital of Texas and the 11th largest city in the United States, and the 3rd largest state capital. The population of Austin is estimated at 964,254, which is an increase of more than 3% over the last census in 2010. [1]
Midwest cities are not viable Austin replacements. One of the many reasons for it's success is the University of Texas. It's a research university and one of the largest in the world. Add to that the fact that Austin has a pretty rich culture, temperate climate, and plenty to do; and now you have a place that people want to relocate to.
[1]: http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/austin-population...
That’s all true. I’m not from the midwest, nor do I have a big allegiance to it, but the places I’ve visited, explored extensively, and have friends living in (Indy, Minneapolis, St. Louis) I find would be a very pleasant place to live and work. I can imagine that several other mid west cities also have much to offer as well. Perhaps not all at Austin’s “weird” level, but I’ve found plenty of culture (and counter culture), interesting food, and decent housing, in any big mid west city I’ve been around enough.
that's a small fly over town in my book. You can walk from one side to the other in an hour. first time I went to Austin I was shocked at how small it is. Drove in , 14 blocks and a few minutes later drove out. It might be #11 in the USA but it's still small compared Tokyo, Shanghai, Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles, Istanbul, Hong Kong, Nanjing, Hanzhou, Bejing etc...
> It might be #11 in the USA but it's still small compared Tokyo, Shanghai, Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles, Istanbul, Hong Kong, Nanjing, Hanzhou, Bejing etc...
I wonder if that's because American cities tend to have much of the population in surrounding suburbs and towns that are often separate municipalities. For example the city of Atlanta is pretty small, with a population of under 500,000, but the metropolitan area has about 6 million in total spanning a number of counties
I wonder if that's because American cities tend to have much of the population in surrounding suburbs and towns that are often separate municipalities. For example the city of Atlanta is pretty small, with a population of under 500,000, but the metropolitan area has about 6 million in total spanning a number of counties
The list doesn't change a lot when you measure by metropolitan area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities breaks down the list across several measurement methods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities breaks down the list across several measurement methods.
Temperate climate is a bit of a stretch. Maybe “not as bad as Houston.” But, yeah, Austin has a lot going for it relative to a lot of other cities in that general area of the country.
Austin's weather is just fantastic. Not as bad as Houston, or NYC, or DC, or anywhere on the eastern seabord in the summer -- it's hot, yes, but dry-ish (not dry like Phoenix), and unlike the eastern cities, there's A/C aplenty. In the winter it doesn't get very cold, there's no snow, occasionally some ice, and some times it gets very warm in the winter. The summer heat you get used to, unlike Houston or NYC.
To each their own I guess. I've been in Austin for a fairly typical weekend during the summer and found it pretty awful. But, then, I don't deal with heat very well generally. and I don't like being confined to A/C. That's one of the things I like about living in the North. Outside of the cities you don't even really need to have A/C.
Of course, there's snow in the winter.
Of course, there's snow in the winter.
As someone who moved out of the Midwest for higher-paying work, this comment is 100.01% accurate. I had to move to Chicago for my first real job--one which went away a little bit after after the early 2000s dot-com crash--and then eventually moved out of Madison, Wisconsin, when an east coast company bought my employer out and fired nearly everyone. That last time around, I was apparently making way more than the local median salary, and really needed to replace all of it and then some.
Every time I think about going back, I say "minimum $120k," and they say "ope, that's a bit much for us, dere" and never call me again. It saves time, I'm sure, but very disappointing nonetheless.
From Minneapolis-St.Paul to Pittsburgh is the Midwestern megacity, with zero serious geographical limits on densifying, or adding to suburban sprawl. And every company in it would happily offer $70k/year to someone with 20 years of experience, and still believe it to be "extremely generous".
At first, I thought they were all lowballing for the purposes of negotiation, but it turns out that they're all uniformly miserly.
Every time I think about going back, I say "minimum $120k," and they say "ope, that's a bit much for us, dere" and never call me again. It saves time, I'm sure, but very disappointing nonetheless.
From Minneapolis-St.Paul to Pittsburgh is the Midwestern megacity, with zero serious geographical limits on densifying, or adding to suburban sprawl. And every company in it would happily offer $70k/year to someone with 20 years of experience, and still believe it to be "extremely generous".
At first, I thought they were all lowballing for the purposes of negotiation, but it turns out that they're all uniformly miserly.
Agreed. I also moved from Chicago to the West coast for similar reasons. Doubled my salary overnight and have since more than doubled that again when counting my total income. The other thing is that the tech jobs in Chicago were all pretty bland enterprise jobs which didn't interest me. I moved away from family and friends (although many of my friends were headed out here anyway), and while it was a difficult decision, it was by far the best one I could have made. I might move back after retirement when I'm more cost-conscious and less active.
Not disagreeing with you, but outside of enterprise there seems to be a pretty good amount of finance jobs in Chicago. Some of the quant firms pay competitively with the bay area for software engineers / "quant devs"
This doesn't seem to make sense. I worked at a company with a Minneapolis office once and everyone there made $150-200k+
I know an intermediate-senior level guy who's entertaining a few $120k+ offers in Minneapolis as well. Blows my mind, I never thought of Minneapolis offering that much.
[deleted]
> one which went away a little bit after after the early 2000s dot-com crash
You have at least 15 years of experience and can't get an offer of 120K in Chicago? I don't believe that it’s plausible. Well, unless it's not a "high-tech" job you are talking about, meaning that your comment is not relevant to the article or discussion at all?
If you are a software developer (or data-scientist, or anything that qualifies as "high-tech"), it is very strange that after 15 years your skills did not appreciate or improved enough to qualify for a 120K offer.
You have at least 15 years of experience and can't get an offer of 120K in Chicago? I don't believe that it’s plausible. Well, unless it's not a "high-tech" job you are talking about, meaning that your comment is not relevant to the article or discussion at all?
If you are a software developer (or data-scientist, or anything that qualifies as "high-tech"), it is very strange that after 15 years your skills did not appreciate or improved enough to qualify for a 120K offer.
I haven't looked in Chicago since 2004, and I'm unlikely to try again until 2024. There's more to moving than just the job.
Your post came across as vaguely insulting. A company that maxes out under my minimum isn't looking for someone with a higher level of skill--or even a median level of skill. A lot of these companies ask for the Moon, and want to pay for river rocks, then don't list salary range in their advertisements. If I can't weed them out quickly, they will waste more of my time than I care to give up.
It's not about securing an offer, it's about finding a company that isn't both tight-fisted and greedy. Now that I have left already, why would I expend the extra effort to find a Midwestern-based job that pays well, when other regions are falling over themselves to make even new graduates rich?
Midwestern companies can only attract local talent, and that talent is fleeing to cities that don't pay peanuts. I would move back, if companies there could raise the average pay of their tech employees, and maybe also get a bit more sun during the winter.
Your post came across as vaguely insulting. A company that maxes out under my minimum isn't looking for someone with a higher level of skill--or even a median level of skill. A lot of these companies ask for the Moon, and want to pay for river rocks, then don't list salary range in their advertisements. If I can't weed them out quickly, they will waste more of my time than I care to give up.
It's not about securing an offer, it's about finding a company that isn't both tight-fisted and greedy. Now that I have left already, why would I expend the extra effort to find a Midwestern-based job that pays well, when other regions are falling over themselves to make even new graduates rich?
Midwestern companies can only attract local talent, and that talent is fleeing to cities that don't pay peanuts. I would move back, if companies there could raise the average pay of their tech employees, and maybe also get a bit more sun during the winter.
I think the difference is that, despite its size, Austin has a culture that leads to people wanting to live there. In particular if one is a fan of live music.
The live music is in danger. There's lots of tall condos downtown now, filled with people who moved there for the vibe, yet file complaints about the noise from the bars & clubs on Sixth & Rainey Streets. So there's a sound level ordinance now.
https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/code_of_ordinan...
https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/code_of_ordinan...
I find it sad that people move to a location because of nightlife and then proceed to drive that nightlife out of business.
The "weird" is almost gone. All the downtown bars and clubs are gone or almost gone. All the new construction got rid of those spaces and provided no replacements. Austin's on the verge of being boring.
Couldn't agree more. I moved to a small city from NYC and what they're paying here for a senior developer is about what I made when I was 19. Why even bother? I rather just live cheap, not work at all and enjoy my life to the fullest. Then they have the nerve to complain that they can't hire anyone, lol.
Then explain San Diego. Salaries here are notoriously low, even in the tech industry. I know nurses in the Bay Area that pull down 2x what an experienced tech worker makes here. And while housing is cheaper, you still can't get anything reasonable for under 600k.
I'm baffled that SD made it on the list.
I'm baffled that SD made it on the list.
I'd argue that SF falls down on a couple of those points. It has pretty mediocre public transit and I'd argue is not especially culturally important. Certainly not to the degree that NYC and LA are. (But then I don't think any other city in the US is at that level.)
But I don't really disagree with the broader point. In addition to being the center for at least a certain segment of the tech industry, it has progressive attitudes that are important for many, has what perhaps most would consider one of the best climates in the country, and has easy access to some of the best recreational opportunities in the country.
Detroit may have significantly cheaper housing but it's going to be a tough sell for a lot of Californians--and therefore for companies that want at least a local core of tech talent--i.e. not 100% distributed. [ADDED: Although as the other comment says, very generous salaries relative to the local norms may not convince everyone to move, but they'll sure convince some.]
But I don't really disagree with the broader point. In addition to being the center for at least a certain segment of the tech industry, it has progressive attitudes that are important for many, has what perhaps most would consider one of the best climates in the country, and has easy access to some of the best recreational opportunities in the country.
Detroit may have significantly cheaper housing but it's going to be a tough sell for a lot of Californians--and therefore for companies that want at least a local core of tech talent--i.e. not 100% distributed. [ADDED: Although as the other comment says, very generous salaries relative to the local norms may not convince everyone to move, but they'll sure convince some.]
> But then I don't think any other city in the US is at that level.
Nashville is more important than HN readers probably appreciate. Dunno how to rank cultural impact, but it's culturally strong enough to be well into the plus column.
Nashville is more important than HN readers probably appreciate. Dunno how to rank cultural impact, but it's culturally strong enough to be well into the plus column.
I'd argue SF is more culturally important than New York City. New York is important economically and politically and historically, but culturally speaking, today it's a bit of a drag. Other than broadway (which is really a minority of culture anyway), I'm not sure what important thing happens there. LA is probably the most culturally important city in the US, followed by San Francisco. Nashville or New Orleans is probably a more important city culturally than New York. This is in terms of production of culture, rather a place where one may consume it, for which New York would win easily.
New York has a lot of culture, diversity, and history, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't really define American culture in the way Californian cities do.
New York has a lot of culture, diversity, and history, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't really define American culture in the way Californian cities do.
> SF is more culturally important than New York City
I lived in SF for 25 years and this isn't remotely true. Indeed, it might have been remotely true 20 years ago when artists could afford to live there. There used to be dance studios everywhere. SF Carnival was huge. Burning Man got its start at Baker Beach. No more. Anything cultural in SF now is store bought.
Anyways, that's what I think. How do you think SF defines American culture now in 2019? What is it that we export more web presences?
I lived in SF for 25 years and this isn't remotely true. Indeed, it might have been remotely true 20 years ago when artists could afford to live there. There used to be dance studios everywhere. SF Carnival was huge. Burning Man got its start at Baker Beach. No more. Anything cultural in SF now is store bought.
Anyways, that's what I think. How do you think SF defines American culture now in 2019? What is it that we export more web presences?
> Anyways, that's what I think. How do you think SF defines American culture now in 2019? What is it that we export more web presences?
Almost every American 'culture war' issue has been centered in SF. This is incredibly important, more so than movies, plays, or art. It's one thing to produce a popular play. It is something completely different to be so influential that you manage to convince an entire nation to give up on their tens of thousands of years old definition of marriage. And yes, SF was the center of that. It was the center of the 'sexual revolution', arguably the kick off to all the culture war issues we see today. Regardless of how you feel about them, it is incredibly difficult to argue that the values often espoused in and around SF are not winning.
Almost every American 'culture war' issue has been centered in SF. This is incredibly important, more so than movies, plays, or art. It's one thing to produce a popular play. It is something completely different to be so influential that you manage to convince an entire nation to give up on their tens of thousands of years old definition of marriage. And yes, SF was the center of that. It was the center of the 'sexual revolution', arguably the kick off to all the culture war issues we see today. Regardless of how you feel about them, it is incredibly difficult to argue that the values often espoused in and around SF are not winning.
That culture war nonsense is projected by media onto SF (or CA). It isn’t SF defining American culture. Again, SF may have had some cultural leadership back in the 60s but no one walks around in bell bottoms anymore. SF isn’t that different from other major cities. It has the same problems. Maybe I’m missing something but this place is way too busy to care about culture.
I disagree... Things don't get projected by the media arbitrarily.
The issue is that you are assuming culture means cultural products -- movies, songs, books, etc. I'm talking about culture as fundamental values. In my opinion, the cultural products are a product of culture. In the grand arc of history, cultural artifacts are influenced in design by the culture that made them, not vice versa.
> no one walks around in bell bottoms anymore
Right, that's because the bell bottom wearers all became really rich selling you the phone you're always on. The idea that this is not also part of culture is some kind of weird double think.
The issue is that you are assuming culture means cultural products -- movies, songs, books, etc. I'm talking about culture as fundamental values. In my opinion, the cultural products are a product of culture. In the grand arc of history, cultural artifacts are influenced in design by the culture that made them, not vice versa.
> no one walks around in bell bottoms anymore
Right, that's because the bell bottom wearers all became really rich selling you the phone you're always on. The idea that this is not also part of culture is some kind of weird double think.
The three most important cultural cities on the planet at the moment are NYC, Tokyo, and Paris. Those are followed by London and L.A. After that there's probably a good fight among a dozen other places (Rome, Shanghai, Seoul, etc.). San Francisco probably arrives in the tier after that one. It's influential, and arguably #1 for tech, but it's on nobody's list as a top tier producer of cultural output.
Lived in SF for a decade. Beautiful city, and I loved it (before tech), but it’s not even close.
NYC has half of the US TV and film industry. Pick a random movie or TV show, and it’s probably set in New York, if not filmed there. Turn on a talking head on cable TV...it’s probably coming from a studio in Manhattan. I encounter film productions literally every day while walking around the city.
The global finance industry. The global fashion industry. Essentially all theater. Art production and sales. Sothebys and Christie’s. The Tony awards and The Thanksgiving day parade. The Yankees, Mets, Rangers, etc. The Met, MOMA, Whitney, Guggenheim and about a dozen others. All of these are either based in NYC, or split the honor with LA.
Like I said, I love SF, but culturally, outside of tech it’s a backwater.
NYC has half of the US TV and film industry. Pick a random movie or TV show, and it’s probably set in New York, if not filmed there. Turn on a talking head on cable TV...it’s probably coming from a studio in Manhattan. I encounter film productions literally every day while walking around the city.
The global finance industry. The global fashion industry. Essentially all theater. Art production and sales. Sothebys and Christie’s. The Tony awards and The Thanksgiving day parade. The Yankees, Mets, Rangers, etc. The Met, MOMA, Whitney, Guggenheim and about a dozen others. All of these are either based in NYC, or split the honor with LA.
Like I said, I love SF, but culturally, outside of tech it’s a backwater.
Any other cities besides NYC and LA that aren't "cultural backwaters"? Or just 2?
Impacts: American standup culture, the Apollo, Madison Square Garden, major sports town, U.S. Open, haute cuisine, hipster cuisine, disproportionately popular setting for American stories, Sesame Street, fashion, Brooklyn, hip hop, punk, architecture, historical sites, world class museums, ballet, opera, film festivals, The New York Times, the New Yorker, etc.
It's not hard to make a top twenty ranking of films set in NYC, regardless of what you pick in what order. Same for TV shows. How many cities get to say that?
But, yeah, other than that there is not much of a cultural impact.
I'm not making the case that it had the biggest or best cultural impact, but it's definitely important, even if you think it is a drag, which I guess you're allowed to think that, but it's subjective at best.
It's not hard to make a top twenty ranking of films set in NYC, regardless of what you pick in what order. Same for TV shows. How many cities get to say that?
But, yeah, other than that there is not much of a cultural impact.
I'm not making the case that it had the biggest or best cultural impact, but it's definitely important, even if you think it is a drag, which I guess you're allowed to think that, but it's subjective at best.
curious to why you state SF is culturally important?
It doesn't seem to have a lot of production of note in the arts or media (TV, movies, games, music, books, etc).
It also doesn't seem culturally aligned with the rest of the USA, so I think that would be evidence to point to it not having a big influence or impact on US culture.
It doesn't seem to have a lot of production of note in the arts or media (TV, movies, games, music, books, etc).
It also doesn't seem culturally aligned with the rest of the USA, so I think that would be evidence to point to it not having a big influence or impact on US culture.
SF has produced important musicians (Janis Joplin, Train, Journey, Jon Fogerty) and authors (Jack London, Kerouac, Steinbeck arguably, if you consider Salinas part of the bay area). While not as populated as NYC, the effect of SF is disproportionately large. Whether you agree or disagree with its morals, the summer of love, the hippie movement, the LGBT activism, the tech scene, etc has disproportionately affected not only America, but the entire world.
> It also doesn't seem culturally aligned with the rest of the USA, so I think that would be evidence to point to it not having a big influence or impact on US culture.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you explain? I would actually argue the opposite. Almost all modern American culture wars have been centered around San Francisco in some way, shape, or form.
Speaking as someone who has spent their entire life on the West Coast, I almost never even think about New York or the East Coast. To me, it's the east coast that seems disconnected from reality.
> It also doesn't seem culturally aligned with the rest of the USA, so I think that would be evidence to point to it not having a big influence or impact on US culture.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you explain? I would actually argue the opposite. Almost all modern American culture wars have been centered around San Francisco in some way, shape, or form.
Speaking as someone who has spent their entire life on the West Coast, I almost never even think about New York or the East Coast. To me, it's the east coast that seems disconnected from reality.
Lucasfilm? Pixar? EA? It's not exactly hard to spot the impact on pop culture.
Not everyone has your local knowledge. Thanks for sharing information in a non condescending way.
I always thought Pixar was close to Oakland, not SF. Lucasfilm is a pretty good pick. But there are a lot of other higher impact studios in SoCal.
EA's talent is spread all over the globe. What games are developed in SF? I don't see how a corp HQ that mostly buys studios after they make a breakout game as a center of culture (center of power, yes. culture, no)
I always thought Pixar was close to Oakland, not SF. Lucasfilm is a pretty good pick. But there are a lot of other higher impact studios in SoCal.
EA's talent is spread all over the globe. What games are developed in SF? I don't see how a corp HQ that mostly buys studios after they make a breakout game as a center of culture (center of power, yes. culture, no)
For what it's worth, I'm including Oakland and San Jose as part of SF, because they are part of the Bay Area. This is fair. People include NYC as one city, even though Manhattan is arguable the center of NYC and NYC spans five counties. Same with LA -- people include cultural centers in LA that are not in LA city proper. Greater LA is absolutely huge compared to the bay.
Suggesting there is more culture in Los Angeles is enough to cause a heart attack amongst the San Francisco gentry.
It really comes down to the money.
I don't want to live in the Bay Area, I find almost nothing I like about it--with one exception: 2-5x what you are going to make in most other cities for work that is often easier.
Almost any city in the Northeast and large parts of the Midwest have better transportation and housing.
I don't want to live in the Bay Area, I find almost nothing I like about it--with one exception: 2-5x what you are going to make in most other cities for work that is often easier.
Almost any city in the Northeast and large parts of the Midwest have better transportation and housing.
>> And, it's doubly ironic that those are the places where it's citizens want the least amount of growth.
I would add those are some areas where the cost of living is insanely high. Getting a "hi-tech" job in any of those metro areas is one thing, figuring how to live with in your budget is something completely different.
I've had a myriad of friends who've gone out west and moved back after a few years because the cost of living is so high, even when they're clearing well over 100K in salary, its not enough.
I would add those are some areas where the cost of living is insanely high. Getting a "hi-tech" job in any of those metro areas is one thing, figuring how to live with in your budget is something completely different.
I've had a myriad of friends who've gone out west and moved back after a few years because the cost of living is so high, even when they're clearing well over 100K in salary, its not enough.
Or decentivice (is that a word?) places that have had enough growth for now (is that even possible under capitalism?). This could be federally arranged. Sure freedom, but the govt also has an allocation function, and some of these towns are said to suffer under the load of the new jobs.
I think you meant "disincentivize". I agree that there should be strong incentives to spread prosperity to smaller towns. Japan has an interesting tax program that boosts the small towns in the country: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2018/10/19/japanese-hometown-tax/
> ...is that even possible under capitalism?
I don't get why people throw around the word "capitalism" like that. The U.S. legal system isn't organized around "capitalism" in any real way.
The U.S. historically was a liberal republic, though lately the republicanism had given way to a stronger administrative state on all levels.
And it's that that really influences how things are influenced with respect to urban development: regulators, HUD, local zoning boards, transportation planning, transportation energy regulations, etc. Not much of that screams "private control of the means of production" or even "free market".
I don't get why people throw around the word "capitalism" like that. The U.S. legal system isn't organized around "capitalism" in any real way.
The U.S. historically was a liberal republic, though lately the republicanism had given way to a stronger administrative state on all levels.
And it's that that really influences how things are influenced with respect to urban development: regulators, HUD, local zoning boards, transportation planning, transportation energy regulations, etc. Not much of that screams "private control of the means of production" or even "free market".
Capitalism is, in my opinion, any system that allows for capitalists to keep their capital.
Free market has, in my opinion, very little to do with capitalism; contrary to popular belief.
Free market has, in my opinion, very little to do with capitalism; contrary to popular belief.
Um no its not that simple in a democracy people have to want to live there or have reasonable public transport.
that is why you create incentives. grand parent was not implying that you force someone to move or companies to relocate.
You use incentives to relocate people or encourage companies to support remote work. Can you imagine how much people years are being wasted on workers paying landlords or mortgage bond holders for inflated housing assets just to be in a certain spot? For knowledge work? Where you're just moving bits? It's almost as bad as the collective time spent working to pay for the depreciation of personal vehicles that sit idle 95% of the time.
Make Existence Less Expensive. Or, keep paying exorbitant real estate rents and mortgage payments while complaining, and being permanently behind financially unless you strike it rich with RSUs or some sort of liquidity event.
Make Existence Less Expensive. Or, keep paying exorbitant real estate rents and mortgage payments while complaining, and being permanently behind financially unless you strike it rich with RSUs or some sort of liquidity event.
Male? This abbreviation doesn't make much sense.
It's an overarching thesis, not an abbreviation.
That would be MELE, not MALE.
There's nothing ironic about this. The people who don't want growth are rich techies with a 'screw you, I have mine' attitude, or aren't working tech jobs, and the only growth they are enjoying is of the rent they pay for their shoebox apartments.
The former don't want growth in the form of more housing (It devalues theirs), and the latter don't want growth in the form of more jobs (Because that just means more rich people to bid up the cost of their housing.)
The former don't want growth in the form of more housing (It devalues theirs), and the latter don't want growth in the form of more jobs (Because that just means more rich people to bid up the cost of their housing.)
My experience about SF isn't that. All the wealthy startup CEOs want more homes in SF. And it bothers them that they're funneling runway into rent on their newer startups.
Keep in mind they're measuring "growth", which is probably why NYC is notably absent as it has long had a large tech sector for a long time (if you count tech in financial services as "tech jobs"). From what I gleaned this is not a measure of the absolute size of the job market.
Additionally, I'm guessing they probably don't even count traditional tech jobs (i.e., those at big companies doing boring things).
Additionally, I'm guessing they probably don't even count traditional tech jobs (i.e., those at big companies doing boring things).
Finance does not seem to be included which is probably the main explanation for NYC not being on the list. It seems a biy idiosyncratic from the perspective of someone in what HN readers tend to think of as "tech" but I'm sure there's some methodology behind the choices.
Here's the list from the report: • Basic chemical manufacturing • Pesticide, fertilizer, and agricultural chemical manufacturing • Pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing • Computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing • Communications equipment manufacturing • Semiconductor and other electronic components manufacturing • Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments manufacturing • Aerospace product and parts manufacturing • Software publishers • Satellite telecommunications • Data processing, hosting, and related services • Other information services • Scientific research and development services
Here's the list from the report: • Basic chemical manufacturing • Pesticide, fertilizer, and agricultural chemical manufacturing • Pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing • Computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing • Communications equipment manufacturing • Semiconductor and other electronic components manufacturing • Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments manufacturing • Aerospace product and parts manufacturing • Software publishers • Satellite telecommunications • Data processing, hosting, and related services • Other information services • Scientific research and development services
The measurement is (city jobs growth count)/(national jobs growth count).
If NYC had captured an absolute numeric count of tech jobs, even if it were a small fraction of its existing tech or total jobs, it would have made the list.
It did not.
If NYC had captured an absolute numeric count of tech jobs, even if it were a small fraction of its existing tech or total jobs, it would have made the list.
It did not.
Good point, but doesn't it make you wonder why there hasn't been much growth in NYC?
This article says NYC has by far the most number of STEM jobs. So as %age growth is harder to be the highest, but I'm guessing number wise it would be in the top few.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2017/03/16/technolog...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2017/03/16/technolog...
Not sure exactly, but a general truism is that the larger something gets, the harder growth becomes.
I would expect that to effect the big 3 as well: San Fran, San Jose and Seattle
The study covered the time period 2005-2017, which coincides with the rapid growth of tech in the Bay Area (particularly SF) so it makes more sense in that context.
Yeah, I guess the top 3 have so much momentum.
I was just surprised to see that Boston, San Diego, Raleigh, Madison beat out Austin and NYC in absolute numbers.
I was just surprised to see that Boston, San Diego, Raleigh, Madison beat out Austin and NYC in absolute numbers.
The numbers don't include finance which is probably why no NYC. San Diego is a bit surprising but Boston presumably counts all the biotech in Cambridge in addition to the satellite offices of the various West Coast "tech" companies and other high-tech.
This; the "satellite effect" is huge in NYC -- sometimes the NYC satellite campuses are bigger than the main ones. If a company has a second location, it's usually NYC.
They're big, but nowhere near as big as NYC. NYC alone is larger than the whole SF Bay Area combined (around ~8.6m vs ~7.75m).
I would look at the base of tech jobs, not the population of the city as a whole.
Perhaps I misread the study, but it also looks like they were counting the absolute number of new jobs, not the percentage over the population.
Perhaps I misread the study, but it also looks like they were counting the absolute number of new jobs, not the percentage over the population.
The conclusion of the article seems to be backwards.
It's likely that growth concentrating in few cities is outcome from agglomeration effects, not some random fluke or error. Cities have more growth per capita than non-urban areas. Big cities have more growth than smaller cities. Largest cities have even more growth.
It's likely that you can't spread the growth more evenly without slowing it down, but you can reduce the negative externalizes. Help big cities grow even larger and help smaller places to prosper as much as they can.
It's likely that growth concentrating in few cities is outcome from agglomeration effects, not some random fluke or error. Cities have more growth per capita than non-urban areas. Big cities have more growth than smaller cities. Largest cities have even more growth.
It's likely that you can't spread the growth more evenly without slowing it down, but you can reduce the negative externalizes. Help big cities grow even larger and help smaller places to prosper as much as they can.
For some reason we can't "spread the load" of economic activity so that we are not all crammed into dots on the map.
I suspect this is partially due to the specialization needed to globally compete. You have to hire lots of specialists to compete and put them in the same building so they are collaborating efficiently. Tele-work hasn't yet lived up to the promise, perhaps because office politics matter, and tele-work hides one from the real going-ons.
I suspect this is partially due to the specialization needed to globally compete. You have to hire lots of specialists to compete and put them in the same building so they are collaborating efficiently. Tele-work hasn't yet lived up to the promise, perhaps because office politics matter, and tele-work hides one from the real going-ons.
You should look up the term "agglomeration effects" or "agglomeration economiies" This is the stuff that urban economists study and very interesting subject.
Cities are like hivemind. The mind works better when things bump together constantly. Network theory can be used to explain some of that. There is more edges between nodes and more integration.
Some of the effects is just accidental information transfer when people are more likely to meet by accident. Other are knowledge spillovers like intellectual connections among inventors and diffusing useful knowledge. There are returns to scale, clustering effects. Labor market pooling is important. The easiest to understand is reducing the costs of moving goods over space (Pizza delivery has higher productivity when distances are shorter).
Cities are like hivemind. The mind works better when things bump together constantly. Network theory can be used to explain some of that. There is more edges between nodes and more integration.
Some of the effects is just accidental information transfer when people are more likely to meet by accident. Other are knowledge spillovers like intellectual connections among inventors and diffusing useful knowledge. There are returns to scale, clustering effects. Labor market pooling is important. The easiest to understand is reducing the costs of moving goods over space (Pizza delivery has higher productivity when distances are shorter).
It really depends. I mostly work remote--technically I'm assigned to an office but don't even have a desk there--but am in a very distributed group within a relatively distributed company. Most of the external people we work with (and our customers) are very distributed anyway. But, yes, on-site is still the default for both good and bad reasons.
I can see that working once everyone knows the systems and each other's tendencies and habits, but a new person pretty much needs to be embedded to absorb unwritten information.
This trend renders the high wages of high tech meaningless, since it all goes to real estate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent
It's really complicated.
Living in SF, with a family, what I would observe is that people mostly just live in housing units / arrangements that their peers in other cities would find "unacceptable," for the "percentage of budget" reason mentioned in a sibling comment.
I know some married couples that still have "roommates" to cut costs. I know a lot of families with one or more kids in apartments < 1000sqft. The majority of single folks I know have 4-5 roommates in small apartments, some sharing bedrooms.
None of that is, in and of itself, that unusual or problematic. What's unusual is that the people who do this often earn somewhere from $200-$500k/yr.
It's pretty difficult to explain to people who live elsewhere why you'd be willing to live in a small apartment and pay $4k/mo... unless you're willing to break out your budget spreadsheet and show them that by putting up with the housing, you get to have a very interesting job and that you are putting six figures a year into savings.
When you know that you only have to put up with it for 5-10 years to be able to semi "retire" to anywhere else in the country, it's much easier to put up with.
See also places like the North Slope in Alaska, where living conditions are rather harsh but people take the work because of the extraordinary pay.
Living in SF, with a family, what I would observe is that people mostly just live in housing units / arrangements that their peers in other cities would find "unacceptable," for the "percentage of budget" reason mentioned in a sibling comment.
I know some married couples that still have "roommates" to cut costs. I know a lot of families with one or more kids in apartments < 1000sqft. The majority of single folks I know have 4-5 roommates in small apartments, some sharing bedrooms.
None of that is, in and of itself, that unusual or problematic. What's unusual is that the people who do this often earn somewhere from $200-$500k/yr.
It's pretty difficult to explain to people who live elsewhere why you'd be willing to live in a small apartment and pay $4k/mo... unless you're willing to break out your budget spreadsheet and show them that by putting up with the housing, you get to have a very interesting job and that you are putting six figures a year into savings.
When you know that you only have to put up with it for 5-10 years to be able to semi "retire" to anywhere else in the country, it's much easier to put up with.
See also places like the North Slope in Alaska, where living conditions are rather harsh but people take the work because of the extraordinary pay.
>See also places like the North Slope in Alaska, where living conditions are rather harsh but people take the work because of the extraordinary pay.
There certainly are jobs that some mostly younger people take with the expectation that they come with sort of a lousy lifestyle but they'll put away lots of money and they'll do them for a fairly limited length of time. (A lot of these jobs are in the oil business but it arguably also applies to things like investment banking and Big Law where you pay your dues for a few years and either make partner or get out.)
I'm not sure how many people working for big tech companies in the Bay Area have that sort of mindset though. [And, as root_axis notes, I'm not sure the numbers work for most developers starting out. One difference with the North Slope, etc. example is that you don't have a lot of expenses with those kinds of jobs.]
There certainly are jobs that some mostly younger people take with the expectation that they come with sort of a lousy lifestyle but they'll put away lots of money and they'll do them for a fairly limited length of time. (A lot of these jobs are in the oil business but it arguably also applies to things like investment banking and Big Law where you pay your dues for a few years and either make partner or get out.)
I'm not sure how many people working for big tech companies in the Bay Area have that sort of mindset though. [And, as root_axis notes, I'm not sure the numbers work for most developers starting out. One difference with the North Slope, etc. example is that you don't have a lot of expenses with those kinds of jobs.]
Totally anecdota, but working at <bigcorp> I would say it's close to 100% of new grad hires here, and probably 60-70% of older (35+) engineers? Many people come here even at age 32-35 because they realized working in <midwestern city> that they were never going to get the big break that even 5 years in the Bay Area would give them. So they arrive with a 5-year plan to shovel away savings, then return to <midwestern city> where they'll be able to pay cash for a really nice house and return to their old life but with a much nicer lifestyle and economic base to live on from there on out.
Interesting. It's not an attitude I've ever seen in the Boston area but salaries aren't generally at Bay Area levels either. (And although metro Boston/Cambridge housing has gone up quite a bit, the area as a whole is quite a bit more affordable than the Bay Area.)
What? I'm in Cambridge, TC is identical at the Big4 here.
(Of course, I pay more in rent than my SF and Seattle friends..)
(Of course, I pay more in rent than my SF and Seattle friends..)
Anecdotally, a lot of people in big tech do have that mindset.
I think the funnier part is that anecdotally, a lot more people think they're going to do 5 years and bounce than actually do. Because they end up getting romantically involved with and having kids with someone who also values their career, or they get a big break (e.g. promoted quickly or rsu/options exploding... try walking away from $500k/y at 28 to move somewhere where the most you could make is $100k/y). So while a lot of people have that mindset, adherence is less.
I think the differences regarding expenses aren't that much. Yes, you have to pay for rent and utilities. But you'll probably get some food at work (I get 15 meals a week). You might have a gym at work. You might have entertainment options arranged through and paid for by work. Work might pay for your public transportation or have a private transportation network. They might even pay for your internet bill and give you a phone with an unlimited plan (caveat usor).
I think the funnier part is that anecdotally, a lot more people think they're going to do 5 years and bounce than actually do. Because they end up getting romantically involved with and having kids with someone who also values their career, or they get a big break (e.g. promoted quickly or rsu/options exploding... try walking away from $500k/y at 28 to move somewhere where the most you could make is $100k/y). So while a lot of people have that mindset, adherence is less.
I think the differences regarding expenses aren't that much. Yes, you have to pay for rent and utilities. But you'll probably get some food at work (I get 15 meals a week). You might have a gym at work. You might have entertainment options arranged through and paid for by work. Work might pay for your public transportation or have a private transportation network. They might even pay for your internet bill and give you a phone with an unlimited plan (caveat usor).
Loads of people I know live frugally but it's absolutely just great financial management. They're aiming for long-term wealth. No one pays more than $2.5k in rent (I'm the extreme near the end because I moved out to a different apartment).
We're talking people being millionaires in their twenties and tons of earning potential for the future carrying a three year old smartphone.
I think it's because tech folk are good at min-maxing and at focusing on specific goals. It's nothing at all like the nonsense you see on /r/personalfinance. It's all ruthless optimization.
We're talking people being millionaires in their twenties and tons of earning potential for the future carrying a three year old smartphone.
I think it's because tech folk are good at min-maxing and at focusing on specific goals. It's nothing at all like the nonsense you see on /r/personalfinance. It's all ruthless optimization.
Sounds about right. For years I've called Silicon Valley the "world's only six figure slum."
It wouldn't be this way if we figured out how to use this Internet thing for communication.
It wouldn't be this way if we figured out how to use this Internet thing for communication.
> $200-$500k
Anything over 250k is not a typical salary though, even in SV land. It is definitely attainable, but most engineers will never see that type of salary.
Anything over 250k is not a typical salary though, even in SV land. It is definitely attainable, but most engineers will never see that type of salary.
Not salary, but total compensation. At public companies, total comp is a mix of Salary, Bonus, and RSU. In most cases I've heard it's something like 50%, 15%, 35% of your total compensation.
The difference tends to come from RSUs or ISOs, not salary.
> I know a lot of families with one or more kids in apartments < 1000sqft.
This is pretty common in most of the world. Only in America is 1000sqft "small".
This is pretty common in most of the world. Only in America is 1000sqft "small".
That's a good thing? Excessively cramped living spaces create anxiety and reduce ability to concentrate among other things.
BTW I think the real problem is the hyper-concentration of all opportunity in only a few cities. The US is enormous. There is no housing shortage unless we decide that we must cram all economic activity into five cities.
BTW I think the real problem is the hyper-concentration of all opportunity in only a few cities. The US is enormous. There is no housing shortage unless we decide that we must cram all economic activity into five cities.
Only part of this is true. Rent is a percentage of a budget. If you're playing with bigger numbers, the absolute dollar amount is still much higher after the rent percentage is taken out.
When I bring home 20k a month and only 7.5k goes to rent, I still have 12.5k remaining, which is more than most of the country's entire take home pay.
When I travel the world, everywhere else feels so inexpensive.
When I bring home 20k a month and only 7.5k goes to rent, I still have 12.5k remaining, which is more than most of the country's entire take home pay.
When I travel the world, everywhere else feels so inexpensive.
Rents in SF are crazy and unsustainable for long-term living. It's like people who pickup bottles for recycling or are Uber drivers to live in SF without a $300k/USD job. Nearly everyone there is living beyond their means (housing >30% of net income) because "it's SF." Also, the oost-of-living is much higher too.
Of course, exchange rates--which depend on a lot of factors--have a lot to do with that. But, yeah, with some exceptions like the Nordics, Europe seems pretty inexpensive these days for a traveler from the US. Hotels are much cheaper than expensive cities like SF of course. (Which has gotten pretty much out of control over the past year; one can trivially spend $1,000/night during a big conference.)
But even London and Paris are often pretty reasonable compared to random mid-tier business hotels around the US.
But even London and Paris are often pretty reasonable compared to random mid-tier business hotels around the US.
It seems unlikely it all goes to real estate. However, extremely high geographic concentrations of growth will tend to mean that, even given the political will to do so, getting building ahead of housing prices/long commute times/etc. is going to be very challenging and the results probably won't make anyone very happy.
Not necessarily. I’ve been working full time remote for SF companies and getting SF wages since 2010.
I'm assuming you're not counted in the SF growth numbers though. For that matter, Boston is one of the listed cities but I live far enough out of Boston that I may not be counted in the Boston numbers and I'm also far enough out that property values haven't inflated nearly as much as in the city proper.
> Boston, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, and San Diego—accounted for more than 90% of the nation’s innovation-sector growth during the years 2005 to 2017
Why 2005 and why'd it drop off post-2017?
Also surprised DC and NYC aren't on the list. Lots of new companies and growth in those areas, but I guess they may not qualify as "innovation-sector growth".
Why 2005 and why'd it drop off post-2017?
Also surprised DC and NYC aren't on the list. Lots of new companies and growth in those areas, but I guess they may not qualify as "innovation-sector growth".
> To that end, the present paper proposes that Congress assemble and award to a select set of metropolitan areas a major package of federal innovation inputs and supports that would accelerate their innovation-sector scale-up. Along these lines, we envision Congress establishing a rigorous competitive process by which the most promising eight to 10 potential growth centers would receive substantial financial and regulatory support for 10 years to become self-sustaining new innovation centers. Such an initiative would not only bring significant economic opportunity to more parts of the nation, but also boost U.S. competitiveness on the global stage.
"Potential growth centers" sounds promising.
"Potential growth centers" sounds promising.
I'd be more interested in seeing just the past few years to see how the trends are shifting.
Interesting, Boulder is not on that list according to WSJ; but in BusinessInsider its #1 on the tech hub list with data from Bloomberg:
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/top-12-tech-...
It just goes to show just how unreliable the data can be used depending on the desired effect.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/top-12-tech-...
It just goes to show just how unreliable the data can be used depending on the desired effect.
Except the Business Insider list has nothing to do with job growth, which is the topic of this WSJ list?
Correlate this with cities with the most single women to see why Boston is number one on this list.
Edit: the report seems to define the areas as "San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward" and "San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara", so it looks like they're including more than just SF and SJ. But the strange way they draw those lines seems arbitrary, making me wonder why they split up the Bay Area to begin with. And again: are they leaving other parts of the SF Bay Area out? and how much bigger would the total get if so? Edit: they're not. See below.