If we were having a gold rush we'd be complaining about miners driving up prices. The tech sector is no different in that regard. I like the correlations they've drawn to the performance of individual companies, etc. but to promote the idea that these companies are any different from any other company in any other industry that would be going through the same growth is a bit off target in my opinion.
What would be interesting to me though would be data along the lines of "What is different when technologists come to town vs. [insert some other group]"
- What does it do to supporting industries/economies?
- Do schools start performing better?
- Do the local municipalities fare better because of the group that is coming in?
- Do maker labs start springing up?
- Does the level of poverty decrease?
That's the kind of stuff I'd be interested in learning about. I guess I'm asking what ACTUALLY happens when technologists come to town that's different than when doctors come to town or garbage men, etc.
Exactly the same phenomenon happens when hydro fracturing comes to town. Except the ramp up is much faster and incurs much more disruption and, unfortunately, so far, is far more short lived. By the time municipalities catch up with the demand the industry goes into a bust.
Technology on the other hand brings, so far, long term prosperity to previously declining areas. The problem I see is that municipalities want the prosperity without the consequences. They want the tasty burger without the cholesterol. Western economies, or rather, societies, have this strange unease with rapid urban expansion. An unease I have not encountered so much in Eastern economies and societies. In the east, progress is seen as generally good, whereas the west has greater suspicion of it.
> When I bought my first house, using money earned from co-founding a software company, I couldn’t believe that such abstract work could be exchanged for something so big and tangible, hewn from forests and rocks by people sweating in the sun.
I've been writing software for years, and it still feels like magic. People work 3x as hard as me and I make 3x as much as them. Many make real, physical things; i just type away on a keyboard. With the right incantations, you can build something that's worth millions. Just you, in your free time, creating something that can be used by the entire world.
I definitely had the eureka moment when I was younger. When I was in high school I worked with my sister to sell t-shirts that we designed online. The shirts were designed in photoshop, designs given to our supplier who printed them on demand to ship directly to our customers. Shirts were listed on eBay, payment made through paypal or direct deposit, and all communication with customers and suppliers was through email. At no point did we touch the product or even have a phone call with anyone.
After a couple of months we took out our first profit, which I think I spent some of it on an ipod classic. I was 14, and through clicking buttons and moving my mouse I now had an ipod in my hands that was all mine. That was magic.
It embarrasses me that less physical effort grants me a more valuable reward. This probably just reflects my laborer upbringing.
I put together a few lines today that automates a 5-minute process. Across the scope of a few thousand servers, this obviates about 6.25 weeks of labor. It really does feel magical.
The product of your work does more than 3x what you could do by yourself though, that's why it's valued more / differently. A similar argument would be made for effective organizers and the force multiplication of coordinated work.
It's still an open question as to whether this will cause San Francisco level problems. It may turn out to be a very good thing in moderation.
I think people forget that until very recently, San Francisco was actually rather fond of its tech industry. It was viewed as a creative, slightly quirky, and generally positive culture that fit right in.
Tech is actually a pretty good industry to have around. Supposedly tech jobs create wealth and, as a result, stimulate more non-tech job creation around it. The problem isn't necessarily tech, it's too much of a good thing[1]
There's also a secondary issue, which is that pacific northwestern cities have a middle-to-recent history of not really wanting Californians around, so you might be getting a more negative response from Portland or Seattle to "silicon valley moving north" than you would from Baltimore or St Louis. An occupational poll I read recently suggests that the computer industry is still looked on positively [2].
Overall, though? If this just means that tech is finally spreading out a bit, so that people can earn a programmer salary in SF (about 114k according to US news best jobs) in a place where this means they can now buy a house, raise a family, and stimulate the local economy (and perhaps an anemic housing market), I see this as a good thing.
[1] Perhaps. There is an argument to be made that tech culture has gotten much uglier with the amount of money that poured in. Also, we spend a lot of time and mathematical talent getting people to click on ads now.
> It's still an open question as to whether this will cause San Francisco level problems
SF's (SV's) problem is that it refuses to build houses commensurate to the number of people who move there. Any number of well paid jobs from any industry would have caused the same problem. High paying (middle class) jobs (outside of manufacturing) are not a problem.
> If this just means that tech is finally spreading out a bit
For better or worse, the exodus of tech companies out of SV could have been prevented. The valley could have captured nearly the entire industry if it just built more houses. Billions (likely trillions over the course of a few decades) of dollars will not flow into the local economy.
People in Austin are saying it's a bubble. But it isn't - a significant number of homes are being paid for in cash. Often $10-20k over the asking price. Those that are being financed have fairly solid support behind them (20% or more being put down). It's not a bubble - it's supply + demand in action.
Which means that housing will be tight until the builders can catch up. Unfortunately, Austin's roads and other infrastructure weren't designed for this influx and are overwhelmed. The city leadership recognizes it's a problem, but haven't been able to produce a coherent plan for solving it. Don't move here.
Bubbles are supply + demand in action, but where the demand is driven in large part by perceived future value where the underlying fundamentals to support that future value do not exist.
That homes are being paid for in cash doesn't indicate that there isn't a housing bubble -- it does mean that if there is, its not likely significantly an effect of a mortgaged-backed-securities bubble the way the pre-2009 national housing bubble was.
A tech job brought me to Austin in 1999. No state income tax and plenty of ranch land for development nearby. The University of Texas at Austin has a very powerful supercomputer and lots of sponsored research. Apple has a huge campus in North Austin and is a model for tech companies expanding out of Silicon Valley.
My friends here want me to tell you that 'Austin is Full', but everywhere you look there are help-wanted signs.
It's interesting to me that they didn't include Microsoft in their data.
The article itself states that Microsoft employs 100k people in the Seattle area - more than the ~78k they show for Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon combined.
I work in a high tech industry, I make mobile networks go.. and I'm slowly being priced out of Seattle (I live in Renton), my rent has gone up 20% in 2 years, and everywhere else I look is higher yet - this combined with the rather chilly local culture, is driving me to look at moving elsewhere, probably to a non-tech hub, like Dallas, I'd like to own a home at some point - but I don't make that 100k a year salary, and likely never will, as the best paid in my industry are making in the high 70's, beyond all that, I'm stuck as a contractor, on my second 18 month term with no headcount opening in sight.
I'm a pretty decent UNIX and networks guy - but not a software developer sort of person, its just not the way my brain is wired, so at the rate we're going, I'm not gonna be able to afford to live here in 2 years.
Does anyone from Denver also find that the relationship is overstated? I don't know of any Denver offices for Apple, Facebook, or Amazon. The only Twitter or Google offices I am aware of are in Boulder. Boulder and Denver are connected by a single highway and the commute is bad enough to effectively separate the two tech hubs. I don't see how anyone can claim that the 1200 employees attributed to Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook (which I dispute is an accurate number for Denver) could possibly have any measurable effect on a city of 600K / metro area of 2.6 million.
While I don't live on the Front Range anymore, I did for 20 years. Denver to Boulder is ~25 miles, and I use to make the commute in 25 minutes (not during rush hour). It was quite common to refer to the Denver/Boulder metro area. I know things have changed, but ~1hr commutes don't seem to me to be significant enough to be called separate.
As someone who moved to Seattle for a tech job, it's very exciting seeing the boom. Jobs are spraying everywhere; hope and life are flowing. It is frustrating to see the house prices go up, but the sense of change in the air is often almost palpable. Very thrilling.
That's funny, because everyone I know from or in Seattle who doesn't work in tech is talking about how it feels like their city is under attack and being destroyed, sort of like how it feels for everyone not in tech in the Bay Area.
Seattle's traditional Capitol Hill residents are really struggling with the tech influx, just down the hill in SLU. New bars and restaurants open daily, rents have skyrocketed, and their arts scene is being pushed up the hill and to the east.
Capitol Hill height limits and parking minimums are insane. I used to live across the street from Seattle U, and the apartment building was only four stories high. It should've been 20 stories, since everyone in it was connected to the university. Every street west of Broadway / 10th and south of Prospect should have no height limits or parking minimums. The problem can be solved: Seattle's politicians (and, by extension, voters) choose not to solve it.
Interstate-5, a fully-featured modern interstate highway, is a modern marvel. In the middle of the afternoon, we can travel an entire 13 miles in the span of just 60 minutes!
Imagine if some of that wealth creation were being used for something - even just making people financially independent so they could work less and pursue their own interests. Instead it just goes to the banksters that print the money.
[+] [-] manyxcxi|10 years ago|reply
What would be interesting to me though would be data along the lines of "What is different when technologists come to town vs. [insert some other group]"
- What does it do to supporting industries/economies?
- Do schools start performing better?
- Do the local municipalities fare better because of the group that is coming in?
- Do maker labs start springing up?
- Does the level of poverty decrease?
That's the kind of stuff I'd be interested in learning about. I guess I'm asking what ACTUALLY happens when technologists come to town that's different than when doctors come to town or garbage men, etc.
[+] [-] mc32|10 years ago|reply
Technology on the other hand brings, so far, long term prosperity to previously declining areas. The problem I see is that municipalities want the prosperity without the consequences. They want the tasty burger without the cholesterol. Western economies, or rather, societies, have this strange unease with rapid urban expansion. An unease I have not encountered so much in Eastern economies and societies. In the east, progress is seen as generally good, whereas the west has greater suspicion of it.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meesterdude|10 years ago|reply
I've been writing software for years, and it still feels like magic. People work 3x as hard as me and I make 3x as much as them. Many make real, physical things; i just type away on a keyboard. With the right incantations, you can build something that's worth millions. Just you, in your free time, creating something that can be used by the entire world.
Always reminds me of this louie CK interview on conan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEY58fiSK8E
[+] [-] lobe|10 years ago|reply
After a couple of months we took out our first profit, which I think I spent some of it on an ipod classic. I was 14, and through clicking buttons and moving my mouse I now had an ipod in my hands that was all mine. That was magic.
[+] [-] stephengillie|10 years ago|reply
I put together a few lines today that automates a 5-minute process. Across the scope of a few thousand servers, this obviates about 6.25 weeks of labor. It really does feel magical.
[+] [-] mentat|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterBright|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] geebee|10 years ago|reply
I think people forget that until very recently, San Francisco was actually rather fond of its tech industry. It was viewed as a creative, slightly quirky, and generally positive culture that fit right in.
Tech is actually a pretty good industry to have around. Supposedly tech jobs create wealth and, as a result, stimulate more non-tech job creation around it. The problem isn't necessarily tech, it's too much of a good thing[1]
There's also a secondary issue, which is that pacific northwestern cities have a middle-to-recent history of not really wanting Californians around, so you might be getting a more negative response from Portland or Seattle to "silicon valley moving north" than you would from Baltimore or St Louis. An occupational poll I read recently suggests that the computer industry is still looked on positively [2].
Overall, though? If this just means that tech is finally spreading out a bit, so that people can earn a programmer salary in SF (about 114k according to US news best jobs) in a place where this means they can now buy a house, raise a family, and stimulate the local economy (and perhaps an anemic housing market), I see this as a good thing.
[1] Perhaps. There is an argument to be made that tech culture has gotten much uglier with the amount of money that poured in. Also, we spend a lot of time and mathematical talent getting people to click on ads now.
[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/156713/americans-rate-computer-in...
[+] [-] kansface|10 years ago|reply
SF's (SV's) problem is that it refuses to build houses commensurate to the number of people who move there. Any number of well paid jobs from any industry would have caused the same problem. High paying (middle class) jobs (outside of manufacturing) are not a problem.
> If this just means that tech is finally spreading out a bit
For better or worse, the exodus of tech companies out of SV could have been prevented. The valley could have captured nearly the entire industry if it just built more houses. Billions (likely trillions over the course of a few decades) of dollars will not flow into the local economy.
[+] [-] chiph|10 years ago|reply
Which means that housing will be tight until the builders can catch up. Unfortunately, Austin's roads and other infrastructure weren't designed for this influx and are overwhelmed. The city leadership recognizes it's a problem, but haven't been able to produce a coherent plan for solving it. Don't move here.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|10 years ago|reply
That homes are being paid for in cash doesn't indicate that there isn't a housing bubble -- it does mean that if there is, its not likely significantly an effect of a mortgaged-backed-securities bubble the way the pre-2009 national housing bubble was.
[+] [-] SlipperySlope|10 years ago|reply
My friends here want me to tell you that 'Austin is Full', but everywhere you look there are help-wanted signs.
[+] [-] bkjelden|10 years ago|reply
The article itself states that Microsoft employs 100k people in the Seattle area - more than the ~78k they show for Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon combined.
[+] [-] Aloha|10 years ago|reply
I'm a pretty decent UNIX and networks guy - but not a software developer sort of person, its just not the way my brain is wired, so at the rate we're going, I'm not gonna be able to afford to live here in 2 years.
[+] [-] hughdbrown|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narrowrail|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pnathan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beatpanda|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stephengillie|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jseliger|10 years ago|reply
This is an easily solvable problem: http://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp/B0....
Capitol Hill height limits and parking minimums are insane. I used to live across the street from Seattle U, and the apartment building was only four stories high. It should've been 20 stories, since everyone in it was connected to the university. Every street west of Broadway / 10th and south of Prospect should have no height limits or parking minimums. The problem can be solved: Seattle's politicians (and, by extension, voters) choose not to solve it.
[+] [-] eclipxe|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mrwilliamchang|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eonw|10 years ago|reply
not only have housing prices gone up, traffic and crime have as well.
[+] [-] carboncopy|10 years ago|reply
Despite what the talking heads may have you believe, crime has dropped significantly in Seattle since its population and economic growth.
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Seattle-Washington.html
[+] [-] stephengillie|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pnathan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] serve_yay|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eclipxe|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindslight|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beatpanda|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mentat|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiritplumber|10 years ago|reply
I doubt that the problem is coders and tinkerers (well, I am one, so I am biased).
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]