Hacker News Reader

Comment by matt_wulfeck | Hacker News Reader

The Bay Area is just like the tech-heavy Nasdaq index it helps propel: When the going is good, the going is very good. But when it's bad it's really, really bad.

Detroit was really good for a long time too I hear. But don't worry this time it's different.

View on HN

Detroit largely relied on a single product: cars

Bay area is much more diversified and due to startup mentality also much more adaptable to failure.

The Bay area has ceased to function independently of the tech startup culture. When all the "get an underpaid person who lives three counties over to do this everyday task for you" apps go under, half the population will be immobilized and starve.

But at least you'd be in good company; pg's already tweeted to the effect that cities which don't have Uber can't be startup hubs, so that would kill the startup culture of starting up startups to startup the startups by being startups for startups, or whatever the hell it is we allegedly do out here now.

Source on the "half" figure? A significant amount of talent is at large established tech companies with billions in the bank.

I'd love to see what % of workers in the Bay are actually at funded startups that would be adversely impacted if the economy took a bad turn because they lack a solid business model.

My guess is the giants would hire up a bunch of them and life would go on.

Source on the "half" figure?

You're right. Probably more like three-quarters.

Sure: when the area is not paying top salaries anymore, or anyhow not offering a good life quality, those adaptable startup-ers will move somewhere else.

I don't think comparing the Bay Area's boom-bust cycle with the plight of Detroit is very fair.

The difference being post-boom Bay Area would still be a fantastic place to live.

The only place I've ever been pickpocketed was in San Jose (in the lobby of the Fairmont of all places). I wouldn't pay $1 to live in the Bay Area, and I only visit when it's an absolute necessity. I realize that many people live there and enjoy it, but I see no redeeming qualities. Gang problems, high prices, overcrowding of everything, bad traffic problems, and on and on. It's also a myth that startups have to be based there to be successful, or that engineers have to live there to work on exciting things.

> It's also a myth that startups have to be based there to be successful

Correct. For real business models

But on the bay area it's easy to get billions to built the next AirBnB for cats or something like that

How do you know? How does post-boom Bay Area look like? Empty houses? Deteriorating streets? Rising criminality? What makes you so sure?

Perhaps I came across wrong...I meant post-boom but not necessarily "bust". Bay Area is a beautiful and pleasant place to live in my opinion. Without the massive tech influence I think it will still be very attractive to people.

San Jose already has rising criminality and lousy infrastructure (at least when it comes to public transportation), regardless of the wealth of the software industry. I'm skeptical that it's such a "fantastic place to live" when that wealth doesn't seem to be paying for it to be better.

The software industry is clamoring to make the situation better... and are willing to pay for it. It seems like NIMBY homeowners (or at least, the city councils they elected) are actively thwarting progress.

Judging from 2008, much emptier BART trains and reasonable traffic on the freeway.

Better weather.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com