Hacker News Reader

Comment by pnathan | Hacker News Reader

Seattle doesn't have the raw cash NYC does. I think that that's the core difference. Seattle punches above its weight and is a good place, but it doesn't have the wealth and easy access to wealth that NYC has.

Also, culturally, I don't think Seattle has a high risk appetite, and there's a pronounced anti-commerce attitude among many of the long-term locals.

View on HN

I live in Seattle, but have worked remotely on a startup based in SF. There is definitely a cultural difference. Many of the SF folks I know seem to be ashamed to work for a big company and not "doing their own thing". These people work for very well respected companies with great products, but always seem to be planning their escape to something new. If you are doing some crazy ridiculous experimental thing in SF, it is "cool".

In Seattle, I have talked to many employees of Amazon and Microsoft and they seem more proud of working at a top big-name company. They are working on products that are already used by millions of people around the world. When I mention that I work on no-name startup, I sometimes get the feeling that they feel bad for me. It's like "Oh that's cute, if you are looking for real job, I can probably get you in at Amazon".

Sounds like a good area for GE ads to target. I enjoy those commercials.

Seriously. I think they make it clear even to non-techies that GE is the place for Train Engines and Bulbs! I was shocked they were perpetuating the perception people have of GE.

> many of the SF folks I know seem to be ashamed to work for a big company and not "doing their own thing".

I really wish that this weren't so prevalent. Sacrificing your ambitions to provide stability and safety for your family is a noble thing, and I wish the public rhetoric appreciated this more.

the public rhetoric is that you should go to SF if you want to take risks like that

It's not necessarily good for society on the extreme either way.

It's beneficial to the world to encourage people to take some level of risk. It's bad to encourage people to take stupid risks, but it's also a bad outcome if the next Elon Musk decides to spend his life working as a line engineer somewhere forever for safety. This is one of the biggest problems with inequality/etc. -- a person from a poor background gets a $20/hr job and would be unable to do anything which puts that at risk, even if it has a huge positive expected value. A rich person could comfortably optimize for EV.

(Incidentally decoupling survival from wages is one of the big benefits of basic income; it's possible this would lead to a more beneficial deployment of human capital and thus greater wealth overall.)

Go elsewhere, the majority of the US thinks working for a big company with a stable future is the dream. The thing that makes silicon valley special is the encouragement to take risks and 'disrupt' the status quo.

this is so true of Seattle culture. I expect it to change over time however. Amazon for example has tremendous turnover even among devs.

I think amazon has lots of turnover because they treat people like shit and overwork them. 25% of seattle programmers are recovering ex-amazon people. another 1/4 are angry or depressed ex-microsoft people.

1. There's an enormous amount of MS created wealth in the Seattle area. Yes it doesn't match NYC, but it's also a pool of people likely to be interested in investing in software and technology startups.

2. Seattle is a huge city with a ton of people, saying "Seattle doesn't have a high risk appetite" is a pretty absurd generalization. It'd be best to talk about specific causes and effects rather than making assumptions about millions of people's psychology.

1. NYC wealth dwarfs the rest of the US. You're right in that it's a good pool, but there isn't the aggressive experimentation in tech that SF has. I attribute that to culture, bringing me to point #2.

2. The Puget Sound region is 2 million, roughly. Seattle is 650K, roughly. These are not huge by any global scale, even in the American scale. As I am reminded by the Seattle Times, the PI, and the Stranger (particularly), techies are not really welcome by the True Seattlite, and we aren't Welcome - (this is even true on reddit r/Seattle, which is the techiest of the techy). The grandiosity and merchantilism that characterizes NYC and SF isn't here. It's more about getting up at 6, working out, working hard 8-5, then going home or the bar, turning in at 11. Not doing whack experiments in a coffeeshop all night long to turn into a company. Generalizations, I know, but it's a constant drumbeat; it's the way the city is.

The Puget Sound population is actually 4.2 million as of 2012 [1], assuredly a bit larger now. I'd call it a moderately-large metro area.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Sound_region

King County just by itself has over 2 million people.

I'm surprised that more Microsoft and Amazon money hasn't worked it's way back into the Seattle tech echo-system. Is it a lack of VCs, rather than a lack of seed money and engineers?

I can't answer that with definitive nature; my impression is that the virtuous cycle of senior folks with great exits becoming VCs doesn't occur as much.

Could the issue be that Seattle Microsoft millionaires are more risk averse than Silicon Valley millionaires? Recirculation of capital (with advice that follows) is a big part of silicon valley.

Many qualified investors around Seattle are nervous to enter the Angel/VC game. Seattle Angel Conference is working to fix that issue. Introducing both investors and companies to the process. Investing about $200k every 6mo in Angel rounds

Sounds like a lot of people in Seattle took the right lessons away from the 90s.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com