San Francisco Poaching Tech Talent From Silicon Valley 282
jfruh writes "Silicon Valley, including San Jose and the chain of suburbs running north from it along the San Francisco Peninsula, has long been the epicenter of the tech business and startup scene. San Francisco itself, just a few miles to the north, has always been in the Valley's orbit — but now, more and more, the center of gravity is shifting to San Francisco, and the move seems to be hitting a tipping point. The reason: the young talent companies want to attract would rather live in a hip city than in suburban sprawl, and don't want to commute 45 minutes to work."
the business has changed, too (Score:5, Insightful)
Issues of sprawl and crappy commutes notwithstanding, the people developing cool apps for smartphones want to live in SF because they are hipsters. These are not the same kinds of folks that "made" silicon valley. They were far nerdier, more interested in hardware, chip design, etc -- basically infrastructure stuff and they were NOT hip. They weren't quite as drawn to SF.
SF also has girls.
I still think the Peninsula and South Bay are far superior if you like outdoor activities: running, hiking, climbing, biking.
Psh. I like the old farts better than the new kids.
Re:Hip City? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what? In ancient Rome, they called Rome, "the city" and in England, they call London "the city", and it's similarly true elsewhere in history and the world. The condescension is imagined on your part.
Can we stop using the term 'poaching'? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem I have with the term is that it suggests that there's something morally wrong with offering somebody more salary / benefits / perks to change jobs, or with that somebody choosing to make the move to greener pastures.
Employment is a 2-way street: My boss can choose to fire me at any time, I can choose to quit and do something else at any time. I understand that many employers would not like employees to be able to do that, but they can, and that's because they're your employees rather than your slaves.
Re:And the cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Only fucked up and crazy people live San Francisco, If I were a start up and the only thing I needed was an internet connection, I would setup in Riverside --- Palm Springs or any where in the Coachella Valley--- where office space and housing is dirt cheap. Fuck paying to live in a "hip" city, it not hip is is just disgusting and expensive.
If you want to employ gun-toting rednecks then by all means set up in Hicksville. If you want the brightest and the best then you have to go where they want to live whether you like it or not.
Re:the business has changed, too (Score:5, Insightful)
The gay city, right?
Right. There's still a better male:female ratio in SF than in "Man Jose". Subtract the gay guys from that and it gets even better. Trust me on this. For every girl that walks into a Silicon Valley bar there's at least ten guys with her. Your odds are much better in the city.
Re:Can we stop using the term 'poaching'? (Score:4, Insightful)
and there's nothing that's going to stop your boss from firing you once you get to a certain age and replace you with some younger, cooler, but most definitely cheaper wage-slave anyway, and then you'll realise the whole thing is a bit of a sham.
Not a lot that can be done about it really, the boss wants cheap labour and you want more money. I think the end result is a huge programmer shortage and a large benefit to off-shoring IT workers.
Of course, your company and yourself could adopt a more progressive policy of long-term tenure of employment where people grow with a company, are trained to keep up with new technology and increase experience with the company's systems and business. But no-one's going to do that when there are short-term profits to be made!
Not Really (Score:4, Insightful)
the "Young Talent" companies only make up a small part of the tech industry out here. Silicon valley still has the largest and most successful of the tech industry at the moment in Software (Apple, Google) and even the older struggling giants (Yahoo), which represent a MAJOR force for employment, Apple's new campus in cupertino will hire and bring in more bodies to the valley then the next 100 SF startups (even assuming that by the time 100 startups have formed 50 of them haven't flopped).
Years ago when I moved to Silicon Valley the ratio and rate was the same. There were "artsy" or "fun" gaming startup jobs (a few) available in SF, and there were startup jobs available here in SV. But the real hiring was being done by the big players, and those guys will never move to SF. The hub will remain. There is no "tipping point". Article is an opinion puff piece by a hipster looking San Francisco dweller - https://twitter.com/cscott_idg [twitter.com] who is obviously as biased about the subject as I am.
Moving on.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Problems with small towns.
1. relative poverty, and very few professional job opportunities..
2. Large portion of population lack perspective
3. Small towns have strong identities but have equally strong Inferiority complexes
1. Not true, I've had 2 high tech jobs out of small towns. I don't know what else to say about that.
2. Bald assertion about the people who live there. Completely unjustified from where I'm sitting too.
3. Again, painfully bald assertion of psychology of a LOT of people
problems with the suburbs
1. Poor planning regarding zoning distribution and transportation. -Everything just takes so freaking long to do compared to a small town.
2. Lack of identity
3. Feels very isolating for people who didn't grow up in one.
1. Not necessarily, but people are separated from everything. From their neighbors by fences, from different subdivisions by artificially twisty roads. From commerce by driving required distances. From industry by frequently hours by car.
2. Not just a lack of identity, but an facade of one, along with an enforced sterility.
3. I don't see what growing up in one has to do with anything. It is isolating, there's all sorts of elements that seem to exist only to isolate.
Problems with cities
1. Crime
2. Its Loud
3. bad schools
4. Neighborhoods with extreme poverty and toxic culture.
5. Hipsters inhabit the nice affordable neighborhoods
6. Have to deal with people shouting out angry profanity on an almost daily basis.
7. The city dynamic gets boring.
1. Not really anymore, crime rates have fallen dramatically since the 1980s, with numerous social mechanisms behind those drops, only some of which are politically reversible.
2. Not all parts of cities are loud, that's an impression people get from fiction more than reality. Suburbs tend to be near high velocity roads with constant traffic that is actually worse in some ways. Rural areas are quiet.
3. A self-fulfilling prophecy as wealthy people with kids move to places with "good schools". Of note, some cities have exceptional schools. Not the one I live in, but that's another story.
4. I can't interpret this as anything other than "Oh no minorities". Clarify this point.
5. As opposed to who? What paragon artificial slice of humanity do you interact with daily that is so non-annoying.
6. Never had to even once. Not even ONCE. Again seems like a stereotype out of fiction rather than something you've actually experienced.
7. I never asserted it to be exciting or constantly novel. It's a bit healthier for the human psyche, the environment, and in the long run, the economy. I'm not sure what amazing, non-boring things you think happen in the suburbs.
Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah...the other answer is bars.
Driving to bars sucks...you have to stay sober enough to get home. So there's fewer bars in the suburbs and less bar culture. Bars are important because it's where single people in the city go to get laid. People like getting laid. And they like going to bars where there are new people they haven't met before for that purpose.
Hence the reason many people want to live in the city. More inebriated potential sexual partners.