Silicon Valley job seekers are increasingly looking for work elsewhere(blog.indeed.com)
blog.indeed.com
Silicon Valley job seekers are increasingly looking for work elsewhere
http://blog.indeed.com/2017/04/03/silicon-valley-tech-job-migration/
102 comments
San Francisco is not silicon valley.
Culturally, silicon valley is dramatically different from San Francisco; almost everyone who has experienced both has a strong opinion about which one they prefer.
Culturally, silicon valley is dramatically different from San Francisco; almost everyone who has experienced both has a strong opinion about which one they prefer.
As far as I can tell, SF is in SV. To someone who has never been/worked there, everything I've read makes it seem like "Silicon Valley" is often used interchangeably with the Bay Area in general (though Wikipedia seems to specify that SV refers to the southern bay area in particular).
> As far as I can tell, SF is in SV. To someone who has never been/worked there..
Which is most reporters. They get sent out to Silicon Valley, land at the SF airport, and of course go to San Francisco. There's little to see in the valley, while SF has great views and also (recently -- last 15 or so years) companies to visit.
Reporters with deep roots here (e.g. Markoff, who grew up in Palo Alto and lives in SF) write about the difference, but if the Bay Area is a foreign place to you, the distinction is invisible. It reminds me of a cabby I had in Berlin: "Oh, you're flying to the USA? I know it very well -- I've been to Miami four times!"
Most coarsely, SV is more tech heavy, SF much less so. There are many exceptions of course.
Which is most reporters. They get sent out to Silicon Valley, land at the SF airport, and of course go to San Francisco. There's little to see in the valley, while SF has great views and also (recently -- last 15 or so years) companies to visit.
Reporters with deep roots here (e.g. Markoff, who grew up in Palo Alto and lives in SF) write about the difference, but if the Bay Area is a foreign place to you, the distinction is invisible. It reminds me of a cabby I had in Berlin: "Oh, you're flying to the USA? I know it very well -- I've been to Miami four times!"
Most coarsely, SV is more tech heavy, SF much less so. There are many exceptions of course.
Geographically, Silicon Valley is about an hour south of San Francisco proper on highways, depending on traffic. The concentration of tech startups there was seeded by Stanford University (in Palo Alto), and by a lot of defense contractors who had facilities in the area. Many workers commuted from San Francisco because they preferred to live in the city (most of the Valley is very bland suburbia); companies started actually locating in the city maybe ten or fifteen years ago.
That was the most surprising thing for me when I went to check out the Silicon Valley area a couple of years ago. I have no idea why so many people choose to work there. It looks like suburbia mixed in with a bit of industrial wasteland. I really enjoyed San Francisco but the commute must be hell every morning if you choose to live there.
You choose to work in SV because you get a job at a SV company doing things that you're interested in, or you're accepted at Stanford. That's basically it. The first wave of migrants came for transistors (Shockley/Fairchild/Intel), ballistic missiles (Lockheed), or nuclear weapons (Lawrence Livermore). The next wave came for personal computers (Apple etc.), workstations (SGI, Sun, Xerox PARC, Western Digital), databases (Postgres, Oracle), or networking (Cisco). The wave after that was all Internet, and then mobile, and now it's started to branch out again.
If you're not working on something that is currently hot in Silicon Valley, there is little reason to be here. It's not like Portland, where you decide that you want to live there first and then decide what you'll do for a living. But if you do want to work in one of those hot sectors, there really is no place to do so other than Silicon Valley; nowhere else do you get the same combination of talent, capital, experience, open-mindedness, and risk-taking.
It doesn't surprise me that people are moving out (even beyond personal experience, where basically all of my friends have remarked that they're considering moving to Colorado, or Seattle, or Portland, or North Carolina, and my wife & I are considering it too). We're at the end of a technology cycle, so nobody really knows what the next one will be or if it's something that'll interest them. But there are a lot of fascinating things going on with drones, robotics, self-driving cars, AI, satellites, and hardware, so if any of them seem interesting, Silicon Valley might be a good place to check out.
If you're not working on something that is currently hot in Silicon Valley, there is little reason to be here. It's not like Portland, where you decide that you want to live there first and then decide what you'll do for a living. But if you do want to work in one of those hot sectors, there really is no place to do so other than Silicon Valley; nowhere else do you get the same combination of talent, capital, experience, open-mindedness, and risk-taking.
It doesn't surprise me that people are moving out (even beyond personal experience, where basically all of my friends have remarked that they're considering moving to Colorado, or Seattle, or Portland, or North Carolina, and my wife & I are considering it too). We're at the end of a technology cycle, so nobody really knows what the next one will be or if it's something that'll interest them. But there are a lot of fascinating things going on with drones, robotics, self-driving cars, AI, satellites, and hardware, so if any of them seem interesting, Silicon Valley might be a good place to check out.
I've met a ton of people who don't like cities. They like cars and big houses and backyards and filling their homes with big box shopping. It's a bit unfair to say that people only work in SV because they have some attractive opportunity there. Some people just like living in the suburbs. And if you live there, why not work there too. Plus the weather is nice.
Ah yes, because big houses and with backyards are just so affordable in silicon valley ;P
(/s)
(/s)
This is why I'm in SV rather than SF, but it's a poor reason to come to SV over the rest of the country. Outside of Atherton & Los Altos Hills (where you're looking at $15M for a house), maximum lot size in most of SV is a quarter-acre. You don't really get much in the way of big houses and backyards here.
I grew up in the Boston suburbs and my parents owned an acre of land. My mom just sold it for a quarter of what my in-laws house (1/4 acre) in Cupertino is worth.
I grew up in the Boston suburbs and my parents owned an acre of land. My mom just sold it for a quarter of what my in-laws house (1/4 acre) in Cupertino is worth.
Are you considering RTP in North Carolina? How's the software scene in NC?
Friend of mine is considering the Asheville area - she wants a more rural setting, and Asheville is a liberal outpost in the middle of what would otherwise be very conservative country. She's thinking of getting out of software entirely and becoming a teacher, so the tech scene is irrelevant.
I've considered the RTP area and idly talked it over with my wife. The big plus is that we could buy a gigantic house on 5 acres of land free-and-clear, with no mortgage. My brother-in-law's family also lives there, and my mom is up in New England, so family reunions would become simpler. The big minus is that I think the work culture in NC is a bit more conservative than I've gotten used to in the Bay Area; I doubt that they'd appreciate me rolling into work at 2 PM, or trying out new programming languages, or openly challenging my VP on product strategy. Plus, my wife works in philanthropy and there are fewer rich people with money to manage there. So it'd really only be an option once we cash out & retire.
I've considered the RTP area and idly talked it over with my wife. The big plus is that we could buy a gigantic house on 5 acres of land free-and-clear, with no mortgage. My brother-in-law's family also lives there, and my mom is up in New England, so family reunions would become simpler. The big minus is that I think the work culture in NC is a bit more conservative than I've gotten used to in the Bay Area; I doubt that they'd appreciate me rolling into work at 2 PM, or trying out new programming languages, or openly challenging my VP on product strategy. Plus, my wife works in philanthropy and there are fewer rich people with money to manage there. So it'd really only be an option once we cash out & retire.
Have you considered Atlanta? It would at least get you closer to family. And we've got rich people. (We also have poor people.)
I vacationed in North Carolina and have some input. The research triangle has a decent tech scene and a pretty alright nightlife. While NC has some stigma as a pretty conservative state (drive through rural NC and you'll see confederate flags flapping in the breeze) the major cities are fairly liberal - if that matters to you.
There are Code for America chapters in Raleigh and Durham so there is that. I enjoyed the cities and NC is definitely a contender for escaping the insane rental prices of the Bay Area.
There are Code for America chapters in Raleigh and Durham so there is that. I enjoyed the cities and NC is definitely a contender for escaping the insane rental prices of the Bay Area.
Seems to skew more towards bigger companies - Red Hat, SAS, Epic, I think IBM and Cisco have some offices in the Triangle too. When I checked like a year ago Durham seemed to be getting some smaller startup action, and is a surprisingly fun town for its size.
It's really just a matter of preference. Some people like the density and excitement of cities, while others like the space and privacy of sprawl.
They both have advantages and disadvantages. As for myself, I tried living in SF for a few years and was convinced that the appeal of city life just did not resonate with me; however many good friends could not do without the amenities and convenience that the city offers. We all just pick what is best for us given who we are and what we value for ourselves.
They both have advantages and disadvantages. As for myself, I tried living in SF for a few years and was convinced that the appeal of city life just did not resonate with me; however many good friends could not do without the amenities and convenience that the city offers. We all just pick what is best for us given who we are and what we value for ourselves.
Silicon Valley has a pretty drastically different feel from San Francisco at both an industry level (lots of large companies there vs. largely smaller startups in SF) and culturally (San Jose is a largely suburban community while SF is an urban center).
SV seems to have migrated a bit North.
At one time, Scotts Valley (other side of Highway 17) was considered part of Silicon Valley (Borland and Seagate).
At one time, Scotts Valley (other side of Highway 17) was considered part of Silicon Valley (Borland and Seagate).
Wonder if tech will return to Santa Cruz in huge numbers. Silicon Beach North!
I would take a 20% pay cut if it made that happen.
SF is in SV insofar sometime between the inception of the dot-com bubble and the great recession it became the place for many, many tech startups to relocate to. But culturally there's still a difference between the two.
[deleted]
the bay area is being absorbed into it, but SV is like, disney world 'burbs.
"SV is a state of mind". Only semi-joking.
There's an important distinction here: tech culture versus local culture. The tech cultures of SF and the Peninsula/South Bay have more or less merged. The local cultures are very, very different.
I think in the context of business, it's safe to say that SF is in Silicon Valley, culturally speaking.
I think in the context of business, it's safe to say that SF is in Silicon Valley, culturally speaking.
My experience is way different. Technical individual contributors in San Francisco are expected to be way younger and expected to be way more stylish than the expectations in silicon valley proper. At least that is the impression I get at nearly every interview I go to up north.
My experience is that if I interview up north, I get rejected on cultural fit grounds. If I interview south of San Carlos, if I get rejected, it is because I did not do well enough on the technical portion of the interview.
Just my experience, your mileage may vary.
My experience is that if I interview up north, I get rejected on cultural fit grounds. If I interview south of San Carlos, if I get rejected, it is because I did not do well enough on the technical portion of the interview.
Just my experience, your mileage may vary.
"As more high-tech companies were established across the Santa Clara Valley, and then north towards the Bay Area's two other major cities, San Francisco and Oakland, the "Silicon Valley" name eventually came to refer to all high-tech businesses in the region. The term is now generally used as a synecdoche for the American high-technology economic sector. The name also became a global synonym for leading high-tech research and enterprises, and thus inspired similar named locations, as well as research parks and technology centers with a comparable structure all around the world."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley
I hear people refer to Oakland as being in Silicon Valley...
As a native, I would say that Silicon Valley used to mean the area south of SF and around Stanford which includes the headquarters of Google and Facebook - but as tech has expanded North all the way into Oakland and SF it increasingly means everything.
Sometimes I joke it's only a matter of time before there are startups in Richmond and Vallejo property prices start rising.
Considering that decades ago we wouldn't have thought that Fremont would have the property prices they do now, I don't think that's unfathomable.
> almost everyone who has experienced both has a strong opinion about which one they prefer
That's an excellent point.
That's an excellent point.
This is correct. They have dramatically different cultures and attract drastically different personalities.
no cheek, who on earth would prefer the south bay to SF?
Now I've spent decades in silicon valley; I've interviewed a lot in San Francisco, and I've gone to SF for the 'better' nightlife, and I think that the cultural differences are dramatic there, too.
When I interview in San Francisco? I'm often the oldest technical individual contributor, and I'm often the fattest person in the building. I also am the least stylish. I'm 35 or so, and have BMI in the neighborhood of 30; I mean, I'm fat, no argument, and I don't put much effort into dressing, but in Silicon Valley? I am pretty normal on all of those axis.
My experience with the nightlife is similar. I mean, well, most of SF still makes me feel fat, socially and stylistically awkward and slightly foreign. Most of the time when I go out in SF, I get the stink-eye for not knowing how, or not putting in the effort to figure out how to dress myself properly.
When I go out in silicon valley? I see other people in free t shirts still wearing work badges. Everyone treats me well, as long as I make a basic effort towards politeness. Nobody expects me to be stylistically or socially skilled, as long as I put out that basic effort. I go to my favorite bar, and not only are there no tv screens, I am not the only one reading.
Essentially, silicon valley is for people like me. This is both why people like me like it, and also why people in San Francisco look down on it.
When I go out in silicon valley? I see other people in free t shirts still wearing work badges. Everyone treats me well, as long as I make a basic effort towards politeness. Nobody expects me to be stylistically or socially skilled, as long as I put out that basic effort. I go to my favorite bar, and not only are there no tv screens, I am not the only one reading.
Essentially, silicon valley is for people like me. This is both why people like me like it, and also why people in San Francisco look down on it.
Thanks for an insightful comment. I think it's spot on, SF is young and hip and snooty about its hipness. Hacker culture is much more accepting... I think even the startups are differentiated along those lines, SF is super snooty about stack choices too (and yet largely Rails, go figure!)
I think silicon valley is much more accepting of me or rather, of people like me. I'm not trying to say that silicon valley is more accepting in general. I suspect that if I were different in other ways, I might feel like San Francisco is more accepting. There are certainly ways in which silicon valley is quite exclusionary, too.
My point here isn't that one is more exclusionary than the other; just that they are very different, and likely will work well for very different people.
I think the explanatory principle is that most folks understand other folks through the use of archetypes; Silicon Valley is the only place/culture that has an archetype that matches me closely enough to be a useful model. Outside of Silicon Valley, I am pretty far off from any of the established archetypes, so people don't come with the pre-built ruleset for dealing with me that they have here in silicon valley. I can only really relate to people who are willing to step outside that archetype model. I mean, that's absolutely necessary for a close relationship; your friends and lovers don't think of you as an archetype, they've taken the time to actually know you. But your bartender? the person interviewing you? Someone deciding if they want to put in enough effort to actually get to know the real you in a friendship (or romantic) kind of relationship? All of those people are often operating on that archetype model, at least until they get to actually know you, if they get to know you.
Now, there's something to be said for having that filter; in the absence of an archetype, the only people who can become close to you are the people who are open to foreignness, and I personally like those people better than people who don't have that trait, but even if you are willing to take that as a pre-filter, it is kind of neat to live in a place where people who only meet you in passing seem to kind of know you.
For me, being that archetype was a really novel experience; honestly, I think I need to travel more and spend more time in places that are open minded but where I don't fit into any archetype sometimes, but I think silicon valley has given me a really interesting experience in that here I'm... normal.
I suspect the problem in San Francisco, for me (and a lot of people who are comfortable in silicon valley) is that they have an archetype that almost fits me, but it is off enough to be non-predictive and uncomfortable for all involved. I think that being that close to a archetype that doesn't fit you is in many ways worse than being clearly outside of any established archetype, especially in a place that seems to be as accepting of foreigners as San Francisco.
Really, I think foreignness is a reasonable model here; when I lived and worked in the central valley, sure, that's where I spent most of my childhood, and most people looked like me, but I always felt like I was a foreigner. My values, my personality, and my expectations just don't mesh with that area. I felt like I was on the wrong planet, and my impression is that the central valley just doesn't tolerate foreignness the way that places like San Francisco or Silicon Valley do.
The short list of places I need to try next is New York, Seattle and Portland. I suspect that the models that people in those places will be sufficiently off from, you know, me that I won't fit into any archetype, but I think that those places are sufficiently open minded that I could be a "foreigner" and still be able to operate socially, but that theory has yet to be experimentally proven, except for a few weeks in Seattle.
My point here isn't that one is more exclusionary than the other; just that they are very different, and likely will work well for very different people.
I think the explanatory principle is that most folks understand other folks through the use of archetypes; Silicon Valley is the only place/culture that has an archetype that matches me closely enough to be a useful model. Outside of Silicon Valley, I am pretty far off from any of the established archetypes, so people don't come with the pre-built ruleset for dealing with me that they have here in silicon valley. I can only really relate to people who are willing to step outside that archetype model. I mean, that's absolutely necessary for a close relationship; your friends and lovers don't think of you as an archetype, they've taken the time to actually know you. But your bartender? the person interviewing you? Someone deciding if they want to put in enough effort to actually get to know the real you in a friendship (or romantic) kind of relationship? All of those people are often operating on that archetype model, at least until they get to actually know you, if they get to know you.
Now, there's something to be said for having that filter; in the absence of an archetype, the only people who can become close to you are the people who are open to foreignness, and I personally like those people better than people who don't have that trait, but even if you are willing to take that as a pre-filter, it is kind of neat to live in a place where people who only meet you in passing seem to kind of know you.
For me, being that archetype was a really novel experience; honestly, I think I need to travel more and spend more time in places that are open minded but where I don't fit into any archetype sometimes, but I think silicon valley has given me a really interesting experience in that here I'm... normal.
I suspect the problem in San Francisco, for me (and a lot of people who are comfortable in silicon valley) is that they have an archetype that almost fits me, but it is off enough to be non-predictive and uncomfortable for all involved. I think that being that close to a archetype that doesn't fit you is in many ways worse than being clearly outside of any established archetype, especially in a place that seems to be as accepting of foreigners as San Francisco.
Really, I think foreignness is a reasonable model here; when I lived and worked in the central valley, sure, that's where I spent most of my childhood, and most people looked like me, but I always felt like I was a foreigner. My values, my personality, and my expectations just don't mesh with that area. I felt like I was on the wrong planet, and my impression is that the central valley just doesn't tolerate foreignness the way that places like San Francisco or Silicon Valley do.
The short list of places I need to try next is New York, Seattle and Portland. I suspect that the models that people in those places will be sufficiently off from, you know, me that I won't fit into any archetype, but I think that those places are sufficiently open minded that I could be a "foreigner" and still be able to operate socially, but that theory has yet to be experimentally proven, except for a few weeks in Seattle.
SF's a great place to visit and a terrible place to live. Among the reasons I've chosen to stay in South Bay:
1) My rent is half as much.
2) I don't get stuck on a shuttle bus on 101 for 3 hours/day. Commuting eats up all the time that you'd use to take advantage of SF's (admittedly superior) nightlife & cultural scene.
3) There's greenery in my apartment complex.
4) There's no shit on the streets.
5) I can walk outside and it will be warm and sunny. None of this crazy fog or "the coldest winter ever was a San Francisco summer".
6) It doesn't take a half hour to find a parking spot. (For those who say "Don't own a car in SF" - you're right, but this doesn't solve any problems. Public transportation outside the BART corridor in SF sucks, it takes as long to get from the Sunset District to downtown as it takes to get from the South Bay to Downtown, and the only reason you need to spring for Instacart/DoorDash/Uber is because you don't have a car.)
1) My rent is half as much.
2) I don't get stuck on a shuttle bus on 101 for 3 hours/day. Commuting eats up all the time that you'd use to take advantage of SF's (admittedly superior) nightlife & cultural scene.
3) There's greenery in my apartment complex.
4) There's no shit on the streets.
5) I can walk outside and it will be warm and sunny. None of this crazy fog or "the coldest winter ever was a San Francisco summer".
6) It doesn't take a half hour to find a parking spot. (For those who say "Don't own a car in SF" - you're right, but this doesn't solve any problems. Public transportation outside the BART corridor in SF sucks, it takes as long to get from the Sunset District to downtown as it takes to get from the South Bay to Downtown, and the only reason you need to spring for Instacart/DoorDash/Uber is because you don't have a car.)
I think this is one of the long term problems that San Francisco has. It is too dense to comfortably drive, but without the privately subsidized ride sharing system, it doesn't have a transit system that makes it comfortable to be without a car.
If uber figures it out, then everything is fine. The problem is that nobody knows if an unsubsidized system can provide acceptable wait times in a place like San Francisco.
People talk like it is a super dense city, but it is really more of an in between, and without the privately subsidized ride sharing, it is in an awkward place.
If uber figures it out, then everything is fine. The problem is that nobody knows if an unsubsidized system can provide acceptable wait times in a place like San Francisco.
People talk like it is a super dense city, but it is really more of an in between, and without the privately subsidized ride sharing, it is in an awkward place.
You're mostly right. You definitely haven't lived in SF for long.
3. SF has plenty of parks.
4. SF has a few odd neighborhoods where you'd see shit on the street. It's not everywhere.
5. It's really nice to have not too hot summer and not too chilly winter. I absolutely love it.
6. People who live in San Francisco and own car know when to take the car and when to Uber. I don't take my car when I'm going to Tenderloin. I'd totally take my car if I'm driving to Golden Gate Park.
3. SF has plenty of parks.
4. SF has a few odd neighborhoods where you'd see shit on the street. It's not everywhere.
5. It's really nice to have not too hot summer and not too chilly winter. I absolutely love it.
6. People who live in San Francisco and own car know when to take the car and when to Uber. I don't take my car when I'm going to Tenderloin. I'd totally take my car if I'm driving to Golden Gate Park.
As a Chicago-to-SV transplant for whom Silicon Valley was mecca, SF often felt lightweight, almost like a parody or cargo-cult version of what companies in Silicon Valley were doing.
I realize that that's not fair, but not more unfair than imagining that SF's culture is objectively better.
I realize that that's not fair, but not more unfair than imagining that SF's culture is objectively better.
A very apt description. Cargo-cult is right.
SF is horrible. Junkies and fog and cold. Never again.
I've never been to a city that I've felt comfortable in. I'd need to be convinced that SF was somehow different.
South Bay is far larger, and thus inevitably has more housing than SF, and one would hope marginally cheaper places to live.
Ay yi yi. Maybe we could give this point a rest, y'all.
[deleted]
It is important, I think, for outsiders to understand. The sort of person who is happy in San Francisco might not be happy in silicon valley, and the person who is happy in silicon valley might not be happy in San Francisco. In fact, I suspect most people that are happy in one would not be happy in the other.
This isn't to say one is better than the other, but one is almost certainly better than the other for you.
This isn't to say one is better than the other, but one is almost certainly better than the other for you.
I grew up here, looked up to the old HP Way as an adolescent, and very much dislike modern SV culture.
I still live here because this is home to me. But I am not a fan of who we have largely become.
I still live here because this is home to me. But I am not a fan of who we have largely become.
What elements of the attitude did you dislike?
I can't speak for the OP but his perspective is quite similar to my own and I can offer my thoughts on the SV attitude.
I felt it to be a strong culture of comparison. Comparing job position, comparing employer, comparing income by implication. Ugh. Just not my ethos. I lived my 20s in that mindset and it's a zero sum game.
I also felt like it was so damn expensive to live there that even people making great salaries were constantly under pressure. To me, a pretty relaxed Midwesterner, it just seems like everyone is on edge.
The other thing that grated on me was the "funding equals success" mentality. So you got funded. Big. Effing. Deal. Go turn a profit.
It just isn't my kind of vibe. Like I said I'm a Midwesterner, the culture I grew up in is one of frugal living and understated successes.
I felt it to be a strong culture of comparison. Comparing job position, comparing employer, comparing income by implication. Ugh. Just not my ethos. I lived my 20s in that mindset and it's a zero sum game.
I also felt like it was so damn expensive to live there that even people making great salaries were constantly under pressure. To me, a pretty relaxed Midwesterner, it just seems like everyone is on edge.
The other thing that grated on me was the "funding equals success" mentality. So you got funded. Big. Effing. Deal. Go turn a profit.
It just isn't my kind of vibe. Like I said I'm a Midwesterner, the culture I grew up in is one of frugal living and understated successes.
There's also this whole vibe of everyone needs to make a statement and change the world. It's what the hippies do (with license plates that say "BIODIESEL" on their truck, etc), and it's what the SV tech bros do ("we're changing the world with our illegal taxi app")
> I felt it to be a strong culture of comparison.
My biggest problem with SV. It's like a rat race. It's all about doing the cool new thing.
My biggest problem with SV. It's like a rat race. It's all about doing the cool new thing.
Couldn't dig up more recent data[0], but tech job growth in absolute numbers, from 2014 -> 2015:
San Francisco: +21% 59,600 -> 72,200
Silicon Valley: +7.2% 229,200 -> 245,800
Oakland/East-Bay: +11.8% 50,600 ->56,600
SF Mid-Peninsula: +5.0% 45,600 -> 47,900
Boston: +3.1% 149,700 -> 156,000
Austin: +7.8% 74,400 -> 80,200
[0] page 4: http://www.us.jll.com/united-states/en-us/Research/US-Tech-E...
Edit: Added Mid-Peninsula and East Bay to complete SF Bay Area. Total Bay Area Tech Jobs in 2015: 444,500
Edit 2: Corrected typo, as pointed out, my bad. SF 72,200
San Francisco: +21% 59,600 -> 72,200
Silicon Valley: +7.2% 229,200 -> 245,800
Oakland/East-Bay: +11.8% 50,600 ->56,600
SF Mid-Peninsula: +5.0% 45,600 -> 47,900
Boston: +3.1% 149,700 -> 156,000
Austin: +7.8% 74,400 -> 80,200
[0] page 4: http://www.us.jll.com/united-states/en-us/Research/US-Tech-E...
Edit: Added Mid-Peninsula and East Bay to complete SF Bay Area. Total Bay Area Tech Jobs in 2015: 444,500
Edit 2: Corrected typo, as pointed out, my bad. SF 72,200
Thanks for the hard data.
I'm a bit confused because the study counts SF, Silicon Valley and SF Mid-Peninsula without defining them well, and there's no mention of South Bay at all, unless that's what they're referring to as SV.
EDIT: It doesn't seem like SV is being used as an aggregate term, since there's more absolute growth happening in SF and SF Mid-Peninsula than in SV.
EDIT2: Unless I'm terrible at reading charts and tables, it looks a lot like San Francisco hit 72,205 in 2015, not 76,200.
I'm a bit confused because the study counts SF, Silicon Valley and SF Mid-Peninsula without defining them well, and there's no mention of South Bay at all, unless that's what they're referring to as SV.
EDIT: It doesn't seem like SV is being used as an aggregate term, since there's more absolute growth happening in SF and SF Mid-Peninsula than in SV.
EDIT2: Unless I'm terrible at reading charts and tables, it looks a lot like San Francisco hit 72,205 in 2015, not 76,200.
Typo on my part, thanks for pointing it out, corrected.
Wow. So Boston only had 7% of the tech job-growth in 2015. That explains a lot.
If I understand correctly, you misread that. (Alternately, I misread it.) I think it said that Boston had 7% year-on-year growth of tech jobs, not that Boston had 7% of the country's tech job growth.
I checked the report and read the chart for 2015 job growth, absolute numbers, then normalized the Boston portion.
I'm still a big fan of "work in Silicon Valley for 1-4 years, once", but there isn't a day I wake up in the Seattle area not happy to have moved.
This should be retitled "Silicon Valley job seekers are increasingly willing to consider working elsewhere."
There is no data in this post about where people actually end up working. Given job growth in the major tech hubs, it is implausible and/or mathematically unlikely that SF is no longer as attractive to job seekers as places like Austin. Nothing against Austin, but the tech industry there is still an order of magnitude smaller than SF, and the gap is not shrinking.
There is no data in this post about where people actually end up working. Given job growth in the major tech hubs, it is implausible and/or mathematically unlikely that SF is no longer as attractive to job seekers as places like Austin. Nothing against Austin, but the tech industry there is still an order of magnitude smaller than SF, and the gap is not shrinking.
Some reasons why you may want to move out of San Francisco:
- You want to live around real people and not around people who talk to computers all day, while making up stories about real people in their mind.
- You don't think that waiting for an hour to get into a restaurant is a good way to spend your one hour off work.
- You want a yard.
- You're tired of people constantly being offended by everything.
- You like commitment and people who can make up their mind.
- You want to live around real people and not around people who talk to computers all day, while making up stories about real people in their mind.
- You don't think that waiting for an hour to get into a restaurant is a good way to spend your one hour off work.
- You want a yard.
- You're tired of people constantly being offended by everything.
- You like commitment and people who can make up their mind.
- You're tired of people constantly being offended by everything.
- You like commitment and people who can make up their mind.
I hear these a lot, but this hasn't been my experience at all. The people I meet are rarely offended and don't flake out on me.
- You like commitment and people who can make up their mind.
I hear these a lot, but this hasn't been my experience at all. The people I meet are rarely offended and don't flake out on me.
Generally the people who are upset about "people constantly being offended by everything" are the ones saying the really offensive stuff.
Anecdata: I've noticed both of these pervasively across circles of people I've met. My guess is that for
1) There is a strong group think culture here that expects everyone to conform to their definition of "normal" and if you dont, then you'll get shamed and
2) Most people dont notice how flakey/late they are because most people are flakey and late and just assume they're "normal". But for those of us who are comitted and on time, its mind boggling and drives one mad.
Regarding 1, I guess that is true about politics. Regarding 2, I just don't see it except for a few asshat VC's I've only dealt with once (after the first meeting I had no interest in working with them).
Do you live in SF?
What I tell folk about NYC is that unlike SF, we techies can't be blamed for ruining the city.
Finance folk got in first and have ruined New York about a dozen times at this point. There's relatively little left to ruin.
Finance folk got in first and have ruined New York about a dozen times at this point. There's relatively little left to ruin.
How does one measure the ruination of a city? Or know if it is ruined?
This seems semi-related:
http://journal.burningman.org/2016/10/philosophical-center/t...
http://journal.burningman.org/2016/10/philosophical-center/t...
Hard to ask someone to sell their house, move their employed spouse and children to the most expensive patch of land in the country and also hire-fast-fire-fast. Seems like moving to the Bay optimizes for people with no relationships or dependents, generally keeping the age range pretty low. Not saying it should change, SV can't be everything for everybody, but that's the current state.
SV might fire fast, but it doesn't seem to hire fast.
Having visited Austin, I almost feel like a huge amount of the population is made of transplants, whether tech or not. Plenty of UT students, as well. That could explain lack of outbound searches, since many of the techies only recently moved to there.
That is true of almost anywhere. In the US, overseas, big cities, small cities. At least in the US, the current migration pattern is back toward cities, after the move to the suburbs of the past couple of generations.
That's 100% nonsense. Some urban cores are seeing gentrification. Inner suburbs are going ghetto, and people with kids are moving further out.
Until you start hearing about urban schools doing great, anything you hear about the resurgence of the city is due to your personal overexposure to dink couples and gay people without families.
Until you start hearing about urban schools doing great, anything you hear about the resurgence of the city is due to your personal overexposure to dink couples and gay people without families.
Definitely don't hear about urban schools doing great.
What I do hear is pretty much everyone I know (and who can afford it, which in tech isn't a small amount) moving closer to the city and sending their kids to expensive private schools (which in turn, probably makes the problem worse).
What I do hear is pretty much everyone I know (and who can afford it, which in tech isn't a small amount) moving closer to the city and sending their kids to expensive private schools (which in turn, probably makes the problem worse).
Check this out.
http://www.greatschools.org/california/san-francisco/
SFUSD has a large number of very high performing public schools, though there are also still a lot of middling and severely underperforming schools.
Test scores aren't everything, but I don't think it's accurate to say SF has bad schools. I'd say it's more of a a mixed bag.
That's the case for the suburbs as well, the difference is that you can convert a high mortgage payment into priority access to a 9 or 10 in the burbs, whereas in SF, there's a much greater element of randomness to it.
http://www.greatschools.org/california/san-francisco/
SFUSD has a large number of very high performing public schools, though there are also still a lot of middling and severely underperforming schools.
Test scores aren't everything, but I don't think it's accurate to say SF has bad schools. I'd say it's more of a a mixed bag.
That's the case for the suburbs as well, the difference is that you can convert a high mortgage payment into priority access to a 9 or 10 in the burbs, whereas in SF, there's a much greater element of randomness to it.
this is extremely wrong. I watched the city I grew up rapidly gentrify, and I have seen my new city(nyc) rapidly gentrify over the past decade. I think your opinion is due to personal underexposure and perhaps some bias toward urban lifestyles.
Actually, I live in the middle of my city. I grew up in NYC and a rural town and settled in a mid sized city.
The pattern is pretty clear, people stick around until kindergarten or middle school. At that point, 50% leave, 25% catholic school, 25% stick around.
The pattern is pretty clear, people stick around until kindergarten or middle school. At that point, 50% leave, 25% catholic school, 25% stick around.
[deleted]
I don't know anyone in the Bay Area that uses Indeed for Job Search. So this survey may be a little skewed
What do you/they use?
LinkedIn, Glassdoor, AngelList, HN, referrals, recruiters, Hired etc
Also, companies like Google, Apple, Facebook have thousands of job openings which mostly can be found only in their career pages
Yeah. I honestly just reply to some of the recruiters that are flooding my inbox (that's how I got my current job); if I'm feeling ambitious I poke around AngelList, and ask friends if their companies are hiring.
Indeed seems as old and busted as Monster.com or... what was that one? Cube? Dice? Something like that.
Indeed seems as old and busted as Monster.com or... what was that one? Cube? Dice? Something like that.
Perhaps worth noting that Indeed is based in Austin and may have a bias.
What's really interesting is comparing the outbound job search percentages of various cities. I'm surprised SF/SJ were at 44% versus only 2% for NYC and Seattle.
I have no idea how real estate can maintain its value, clearly a lot of people are considering moving.
BTW, The data in this article could have been presented a lot more effectively.
I have no idea how real estate can maintain its value, clearly a lot of people are considering moving.
BTW, The data in this article could have been presented a lot more effectively.
There may be a skew in the data on the pure basis of "who's using Indeed for their job hunt".
For example – it's not a popular job-search platform amongst SF startups, as far as I'm aware.
(I personally still buy the overall conclusion, fwiw).
For example – it's not a popular job-search platform amongst SF startups, as far as I'm aware.
(I personally still buy the overall conclusion, fwiw).
I'm actually looking forward to the day when the outflux of workers balances out the influx. As it is right now, influx > outflux, so the population in SV is still growing which actually contributes to the housing crisis. Because the difference, or the growth of population is greater than the growth of housing. Influx - Outflux > Housing Growth.
Once outflux > influx, we might actually see some sanity to housing prices.
Once outflux > influx, we might actually see some sanity to housing prices.
Or, you know, we could build housing... maybe at a rate comparable to the rate we build office space?
Could this also be because a huge %age of these job seekers are high skilled immigrants and they are unable to secure work visas in time?
Also, has anyone noticed that the HN "Who is hiring?" threads are predominantly from outside of SV, these days?
They're still mostly in tech hubs, though. Just that they are leaving SV doesn't mean the wealth concentration problems we're seeing are going to reverse itself. Those cities will likely have the same or similar problems SV did.
It's still dominated by SV, which is surprising given the number of European startups that post. I think NYC and London are #2 and #3 on the list.
i just looked yesterday at the whoishiring thread and SF still had the most jobs for any particular city. do you have any hard data to back up your claim?
No, it just seemed to be that there used to be more SF companies in threads I saw from months or a year ago.
This reminds me of the old Yogi Berra quip "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
Ive noticed since moving to SF that it seems that complaining about the city is one of the city's favorite pastimes.
I guess I can't blame SV for that - I am just clearly not a fit for it - but I can't help but wonder whether there are people out there now who are more like me than they realize, and might be happier elsewehere (or would go elsewhere if they reasonably thought they could).