Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiousfiddler | Hacker News Reader

If you don't provide opportunity and a good civil environment to brilliant/enterprising people, they will find a way elsewhere. And once Vancouver or any other city starts working for them, Silicon Valley will lose its exclusivity. The thing to note here is that this response from YC is not a political one, but a response that came out of market demand; it is pretty significant if it works out.

View on HN

The thing to note here is that this response from YC is not a political one,

Indeed. It wasn't formulated as political -- but the intrinsically the move does have significant political import (as a form of "voting with one's feet", as it were). Which has the potential to send signals that signs, slogans and marches (alone) cannot.

Voice versus Exit.

A large reason many people are pushing back against globalism is _because_ of this thinking -- capitalism is blind to political movements, quality of life for its people, or growing inequality. All that matters is the bottom line. If it's cheaper to do it elsewhere, it will move there. But if this leads to yet continued wealth inequality while the laborers work for less in worse conditions, is it a good thing that it created more wealth in the process?

I know that example is an extreme one, but it is an example that is being seen throughout the country. Middle class jobs are being shipped overseas or supplanted by exploited H-1B visa holders. Lower class jobs are being displaced by illegal immigrants willing to do the job for below minimum wage. These are serious issues, and issues that will not be solved in a global economy where the bottom line is king.

The problem is that it is the US that has been forcing this down on other countries for decades if not centuries. And the US society benefited a lot from this.

Read up on the Perry expedition.

Is the problem that the US has been doing it? I would argue that, with the internet, massively increased global communication, and a massively different economy from 1853 when the Perry expedition occurred, the problem isn't that the US used to do it long ago when imperialism was the norm, but rather that this form of globalist capitalism is becoming the norm worldwide, to the detriment of the lower and middle classes across the world.

There are winners and losers but overall economists agree free trade is good.

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafjeduce/v_3a34_3ay_3a2...

In any trade system, there will be losers.

Do they, now? From the abstract we only read that (according to the authors) there is some kind of consensus:

Consensus is particularly strong for propositions of free international trade and capital flows.

But as to what that consensus (in particular, as to whether the effects of free trade are "good", "bad", or "mixed") -- we would need to dig into the full text of the article, which is available only to subscribers.

And anyway that "consensus" was from 2003, and a lot has shifted in the universe since then -- particularly in regard to the question of whether free trade is still a pretty neat idea, or not.

Do you have better more recent studies? Will gladly take it.

From what I understand, free trade allows for unparalleled wealth creation by optimizing the flow and utilization of capital, which is fantastic! The problem is that it optimizes other things too, like labor costs by taking advantage of countries with incredibly low minimum wages, workplace safety standards, and standards of living. Meanwhile, the increased profit doesn't go to the society impacted by the transfer of these jobs, but rather to the capital owners, thus exacerbating wealth inequality. So yes, free trade does create more wealth than non-free trade, but it's not to the benefit of the society losing the jobs.

In this case, though, isn't it working against those consequences that you mention? YC's contribution to a non-US company, in terms of guidance, doors opened etc., might be bigger than the money they get back through selling their share of the startups. This will be a net-negative for the US economy and would have created wealth, elevated working conditions etc. elsewhere in the world.

> In this case, though, isn't it working against those consequences that you mention? YC's contribution to a non-US company, in terms of guidance, doors opened etc., might be bigger than the money they get back through selling their share of the startups.

YC's existence is based on that not being the case, on average.

This is a negative for the US economy not because YC is losing money, but because if we'd let these companies start in the US, we've be getting significantly more of the gains.

Well it's hard to say that America has not significantly benefitted from it.

And the gains in the countries which supply the West with their goods are also significant.

So the world on average is significantly better off.

I think the issue today is

1) the huge disparity of the wealth distribution within that average.

2) the inability of human beings as meat space constructs to adapt to those changes. You can't train everyone to be programmers, and as you remove the niches for arts, soft sciences and so on, you remove the ability for the non mathematically inclined to find meaningful, gainful employment.

Microsoft and Amazon already station employees who can't get a US work visa in Vancouver, Canada: https://www.quora.com/I-am-placed-in-Microsoft-US-and-am-una...

Been hearing this since late nineties about how inability to get visas is going to be the death of US tech industry. Absolutely nothing has changed since h1b visa was initially implemented, its almost exactly the same when as it was conceived. And yet U.S tech industry is not dead.

Whats happening is response to current available alternatives(solutions ) , which was not exploited in 90s

In the late 90's working remotely wasn't a thing for most of us.

Nowadays it is pretty common in any major corporation, and has opened the door for offshoring all sorts of projects.

>>And yet U.S tech industry is not dead.

Well not dead, but definitely lost out on total world domination.

There isn't much difference though. If you settle for a draw after once being in a unbeatable position, its as good as a loss.

> Absolutely nothing has changed since h1b visa was initially implemented

They've changed a bunch of things, including at one point tripling the number of visas available:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#Changes_to_legal_and...

Honestly, if the US had generally a welcoming visa/immigrant policy, I and most startup founders would not even think to set up my company elsewhere as it is in some regards "the center of the world". But as the US gets a more and more unwelcoming image, other places like London, Berlin or Vancouver rise. Of course tech in the USA is not dead and will not be any time soon. But it could be attracting much more talent if it was more open and easier to get into. Look at Dubai: you want to found a company in Internet Zone? Go there, found the company, get your visas in a simple process, move over. The fees are high, but it is straight forward. That is how it should be in the US. I know there are investor visas, but it is a difficult process with an open end. And then there is stuff like the random travel ban, which, for example, makes it impossible to take my wife (Iranian) with me.

But, this could also be quite positive for the bay area. By reducing the number of jobs, It might finally provide the housing relief the bay area so desperately needs.

Yes, I often save time on household chores by burning my home to the ground instead.

If the bay area continues its absurd aversion to adding housing or transportation, some other cities are definitely going to eventually pick off all the jobs till the bay area looks like Detroit or 1970s New York. You can stay #1 just by already being #1, exploiting the chicken-and-egg problem, for a while, but not forever.

San Francisco provided good jobs way before the tech revolution.

I would bet they had better union jobs before tech moved in.

You could always live in the outlying areas to commute, and not spend all your money on rent.

Tech bosses decided they liked San Francisco, and the rich enclaves like Marin County.

They decided to set up shop, and hire like no tomorrow. I have never seen more money just thrown away, except in certain areas of government. This did make things worse for a lot of workers. I don't want to say blue collar workers because a lot of you fancy yourselfs as white collar. White collar will always be able to move across the county and find a new shiny job? The problem is your not really white collar. This bubble will end. All those frameworks you memorized will become useless. You will be eventually looking for a union job, or any job. Good luck.

Yes--San Francisco has always been a tough housing market. I think tech needs to worry about where they are going to move to when the current party is over. I'm for better transportation, and more low income housing. All I'm saying is the influx of tech workers did not make the Bay Area better for a lot of us. Tech moved fast and loud, and did disrupt life. It kicked out many with the Ellision Act. It added to traffic. Many displaced workers who didn't look like a young Bill Gates couldn't get that shiny new job. Even those that could probally do a good job.

> Tech bosses decided they liked San Francisco, and the rich enclaves like Marin County.

What sort of delusional rant is this? Marin county is now the hotbed of tech startups?

Truthfully, I think it will just spread more in the bay area. You have all the talent concentrated and you have people commuting far each way. Companies can just start popping up in concord, vallejo, and gilroy (just random examples. I have no clue how much real estate cost there) because it would be easy to get talent from the bay area and might shorten commute for some.

> If you don't provide opportunity and a good civil environment to brilliant/enterprising people, they will find a way elsewhere.

While I am not certain how true this is in general, it is for me anecdotally. I have no intention of wanting to emigrate and work in SF based on what I have learned on HN. I like the idea of choosing a city based on what i want from that city then doing what I want to do there. Not living somewhere for a one dimensional 'job opportunity' and otherwise hating it.

How will Vancouver improve its weather?

California has a powerful draw...

Winter is great when you prepare accordingly.

The skiing conditions near Vancouver are significantly better than near San Francisco, year-round.

A little bit of rain is a small price to pay for not having massive drought problems

In an era of declining fresh-water reserves, being somewhere rainy is a good thing.

We got so much rain in CA this year, the drought is nearly gone now. You can import water, but you can't import sunshine :)

Lots of business is done in places where weather not up to Bay Area standards, such as New York, London, Tokyo, Beijing, etc.

All of these have more sunny days than Vancouver. :)

Vancouver has a lot more sunshine per year than London.

I've met a Londoner in Seattle (which is about 2 hrs from Vancouver), said he felt "at home" with the weather in Seattle... I'm guessing they're about the same, though I suspect you're right, given the UK's one big island ...

I assumed they were referring to the part of the state with decent weather, not the bay area.

You guys realize that our weather sucks right? A handful of days over 75F per year, near-freezing cold and fog in _July_ in some parts of the city, needing to carry at least a light jacket/hoodie every single day of the year?

Did you try Palo Alto? Bay Area is not the same as San Francisco.

Not everyone thinks >75F is comfortable...imho, if you're sitting in the noon sun having a picnic, 65-70F is ideal.

Also, not everyone hates wearing a jacket everyday...

Winters are mild in Vancouver. What kills anyone who wasn't born there is the nearly yearlong overcast gloom... Sunshine is a necessary ingredient to feeling good. Coffee is just a temp fix.

I don't mind Vancouvers overcast gloom at all because it's such a beautiful place to live. I'm from rural England though.

Literally one of the things I hated the most when I visited California and all I hear about California is the weather (I should say, "San Francisco", not CA, since obviously CA is a pretty big state). I can't imagine what living somewhere that is the same every day.

Except Vancouver IS also the same every day: dark, gloomy, overcast clouds with constant rain or drizzle.

I lived in Seattle for a year, and I got depressed from the weather. My doctor handed me a huge bottle of Vitamin D to take, saying most of her patients that lived there are deficient.

I couldn't handle it, so I moved back to sunny California, and immediately, my happiness levels returned back to normal again. Humans rely on the light to regulate their biorhythms, and Seattle/Vancouver are so far up north that in December, the sun rises at 10 AM, and it starts getting dark at around 3 PM.

For what it's worth, I grew up on the East Coast in Pittsburgh, PA with its notoriously bad weather, and I could cope with the variety of having four distinct seasons, including real winters with snowfall, much better than Seattle/Vancouver's monolithic climate (excluding the short summer that gives you two months of what SF weather is like every day).

100x this. I get a lot of energy and happiness walking in the sun in the morning. Something so simple, yet has a dramatic effect on my quality of life.

It sucks doesn't it. I feel silly for having so much of my mood determined by the presence of clouds, but not much I can do about it

I was just there in Seattle the last five days. The entire time, it was cloudy and gray, nearly always raining.

As soon as I got back and walked right into the sunny blue skies outside of SFO, my mood perked up almost instantly. The difference was incredible!

> Seattle/Vancouver are so far up north that in December, the sun rises at 10 AM, and it starts getting dark at around 3 PM

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Even on the shortest day of the year in Vancouver, the sun rises at shortly after 8am and sets just after 4pm, which is a full 3 hours more of sunlight than you're giving it credit for.

Yes, if you want to be pedantic, and you define sunrise as the "bottom of the sun" touching the horizon -- as a meteorologist would -- instead of the much more practical definition of the sun is "sufficiently above the horizon for it to no longer be dark outside."

I came in to work at 10 AM every day, and that's when it would start getting light outside (9 AM, still dark out).

Then, I struck a deal with my boss to work later and run my daily 5 kilometers midday at 2:00-2:30 PM instead of after work because by 3 PM, it would be too dark outside to feel safe from cars while exercising.

I do feel like an outlier in that I really enjoy living in distinct seasons. It feel like it helps me mark the time internally, and reminds me that I'm a pretty small part of nature overall.

> It feel like it helps me mark the time internally, and reminds me that I'm a pretty small part of nature overall.

You know, I don't think I ever consciously had that thought, but since you mentioned it - I think I wholeheartedly agree with the statement.

> I do feel like an outlier in that I really enjoy living in distinct seasons.

You're not really an outlier, I learned that I feel the same way after living in SF for a while. It's just that it doesn't occur to many people because many people don't live in two such radically different climates.

If you grew up on the east coast, where you have about 1 week of pleasant weather in between hellish hotness in the summer and ball-shriveling cold in the winter, you'd appreciate SF's boringly middling weather.

I do miss the snow, but that's what Tahoe is for.

I did grow up on the east coast, and have, so far, lived my whole life here.

I would never describe the summers as "hellish" nor the winters as "ball-shriveling". I thoroughly enjoy the tremendous variety through all the seasons. I would say there isn't "1 week of pleasant weather", but rather, a year of tremendously varying, enjoyable weather.

But, of course, that's sort of the point - to each their own.

I think he meant NY or New England when he said East Coast. North Carolina doesn't fit that pattern of having consistent 0°F to 105°F range every year.

Yep, I did. Should have been a bit more specific.

Weather here is amazing! Vancouver has such a bad rep when it comes to rain, but honestly it's not that bad. Here's what it's really like:

Between May and October, basically half of the year, you'll have very comfortable T-shirt weather, and blue skies I'd say 70% of the time!

Between December and March it's gloomy, but you'll have awesome snow in the mountains, just 30 min from downtown :) from our office we can see the slopes. Just went skiing with the team 2 months ago.

Vancouver is one of the few cities you can ski in the morning and lie on the beach in the afternoon, grilling BBQ and play beach volleyball.

Life's not that bad! I've been here 5 years :)

BTW, if anyone is in town for the YC interviews, I'd love to show you a good time!

Ski in the morning and play beach volleyball in the afternoon? What month of the year? Whistler-blackcomb tops out at only 8000ft.

Vancouver gets 1900 hours of sunlight a year. That's not a lot. Compare to Seattle (which is considered gloomy) at 2170 hours and SF at 3000 hours.

Ski in the morning and play beach volleyball in the afternoon? What month of the year? Whistler-blackcomb tops out at only 8000ft.

March or April. We've had an exceptionally harsh winter this year (snow on the ground in Vancouver for weeks on end -- happens about once a decade) but usually around now people are admiring the cherry blossoms on their way to the beach.

Whistler/Blackcomb has a perfectly skiable alpine through to the end of April, and you can ski past that if you want (but I wouldn't personally recommend it).

Ok, but even in May average high in Vancouver is 16.7C, average low of 8.8C. That's hardly beach volleyball weather. I'm skeptical of the claim that people ski in the morning and play beach volleyball in the afternoon...maybe one or two lucky days a year?

These are exactly the temperatures tons of people in this thread are saying is cold when referring to San Francisco. They actually correspond with March in SF.

When people arrive in Vancouver, we rewire their hypothalamus with wildly lower expectations for what constitutes "amazing weather".

People definitely play beach volleyball in Vancouver in May. Maybe they are just insane. But some days are much warmer than 17C, and when it's sunny the air temperature doesn't matter that much.

The fact that SF buildings are poorly insulated doesn't help.

This!

I visited SF for the first time in December and at first I didn't realize why people were complaining about the cold when it was rather nice weather outside (I'm from 60 degrees north) and the weather was in the 60-70 Farenheit range (20 celsius) which I consider to be nice and temperate climate.

But after a week it hit me. It's cold as hell indoors! I have warmer in my house now than I had in my hotel room or office and it's snow and ice outside.

16c is almost tshirt weather in northern europe, which is about same latitude as Vancouver. This would pass as a colder summer day too. No rain = beach :)

Everybody's perspective is different...

60 Farenheit is not T-Shirt Weather, it certainly is not beach weather, that's cold for a high. As far as the latitude that's fairly irrelevant thanks to the Atlantic Drift, Great Britain is at the same latitude as Southern Alaska though their climate is quite different

Sunshine hours has more to do with the fact that the sun sets here at 4:00pm in the winter. More often than not it's sunny or cloudy with sunny breaks.

I'm 95% sure that's not how the earth's orbit works.

Sure, further from the equator makes your days shorter in the winter, but they're longer during the summer. It's awash.

It is a wash, but judging from the comments the heavy rains/gloom come in the winter... so it could be a real explaination.

Actually, just the opposite. If most of the cloud cover/gloomy weather happened in the winter, then much of the clouds would be at night...which wouldn't dramatically reduce your sunshine hours.

If the gloominess happened during long days, you'd really see a drop in mean sunshine hours.

> Vancouver gets 1900 hours of sunlight a year. That's not a lot. Compare to Seattle (which is considered gloomy) at 2170 hours and SF at 3000 hours.

Are you talking about sunlight or sunshine? I think these are different. The city where I live gets apparently between 1500 and 1800 hours of sunshine, is a bit South of Vancouver (but in Europe) and not particularly known for not being sunny. So the amount of sunshine could actually increase for immigrants, not coming from California.

Blackcomb is open until late may, and then also has a summer season. (glacier)

Vancouver does get a lot of concentrated rain, but summers are sunnier than most cities in North America. 90% of that 1900 hours is between June and September.

that sounds alluring :)

The temperatures are very moderate in the winter, but the rain is bad. It can, and does, rain for multiple consecutive weeks in the winter. The lack of sun is even worse. It can have a very real effect on mood if you're from somewhere that gets more reasonable amounts of sunlight, which is pretty much anywhere else in Canada.

I lived there for four years and I had a very tough time with the lack of sun. It can be very oppressive. Vancouver has a lot of things going for it (as you mentioned) but I think it's unfair to gloss over the overcast weather.

Well, the relevant comparison is to the San Francisco Bay Area...

It's way way worse than the Bay Area. Have you been to Seattle? It's like that.

It's not even remotely close.

Vancouver: 160+ rainy days per year

San Francisco: ~50-60 would be typical (with 250+ sunny days per year). It had 66 rainy days last year for example. And just 42 in 2013.

I moved out to San Francisco during a historic El Nino season so I'm sure my perception is a little warped, but I'd note that you're providing a lot more detail about one than the other, and no citations. Not that any of this matters.

Some people enjoy rainy weather.

Hours of sunlight per year:

Vancouver - 1835

London - 1460

Tallinn - 1753

Amsterdam - 1568

Stockholm - 1973

San Francisco - 3037

Honestly it's not that bad.

This map[1] might be of interest.

1 - https://i.imgur.com/yIe8gWy.jpg

If people are used to Seattle or Portland OR weather, they'll be used to Vancouver weather. I must say though, getting used to the Winter gloom takes some getting used to.

yeah, don't come to seattle either, it's full of the walking dead. no room for more people. vancouver is much better. austin is the top.

SF weather isn't that great. It cold and foggy. Socal has much better weather, but it isn't silicon valley.

This is only true if you're right up on the Peninsula. The South Bay area where YC is located is gorgeous for a huge fraction of the year, and the East bay is at least far less cold than downtown SF.

Even the Peninsula (e.g. San Mateo or Redwood City) is significantly better weather wise compared to SF.

I laugh at your cold weather and point to Chicago

5 months out of the year the average high in Chicago is above 70, SF only in September. I'll take 4 months of cold to 12 months of never warm

To each their own. SoCal is too hot for many people. Your comment might seem to imply that SF weather is silcon valley weather. 30 minutes south the weather is consistently warmer though leave the coast a little ways and the tempature can also dip more at night.

My family is from Victoria/Vancoucer and likes it cooler to enjoy active outdoor activities like running, biking and hiking. For this SF and Oakland weather is wonderful.

I also work a few blocks from the ferry building and wear shorts near year round, though that isn't saying much spending all my time in a temperature controlled office.

In my opinion, Silicon Valley is what it is majorly due to the kind of people it pulls in. There are several other places in the world which have a much better weather than SV, but don't have this kind of an ecosystem.

I don't mean people move to SV because of the weather. But if Vancouver somehow manages to have interesting and innovating tech companies, lots of jobs, high paying jobs, it would still be missing one key ingredient that California has - lots and lots of sun.

Oh, and burning man. That might not be everyone's thing, but its culture permeates throughout the bay.

Vancouver's climate/geography is a feature, not a bug. Mountain biking, climbing, and skiing in Vancouver is amazing. And you don't have to drive two or three hours to get there. It's literally right outside your front door. This will be a draw for outdoorsy types.

Also world-class scuba diving. Dry suit required, but lots of wildlife. Easy stuff and technical stuff available.

Climb, ski, bike, dive, kayak, hike. Top vacation destination activities available every weekend.

Dry suit is pretty much required in Monterey in the bay area anyway, unless you are nutso and enjoy being really cold.

Snow sports are the answer to Vancouver winter gloom. I smile through the rain because I know it's snowing at Whistler. Enjoyed that snow today.

Canada has lower corporate tax, liberal startup grants, greater income mobility, higher qol, health care, safer, more tolerance - but it's an itsy bitsy tad cold, no one goes.

California's terrible (IMO alert) weather is the main reason I've never considered moving out there for a job.

> And once Vancouver or any other city starts working for them, Silicon Valley will lose its exclusivity.

Silicon Valley doesn't have exclusivity. It has startup funding. It's all about the money, not weather, not talent, not Berkeley, not Stanford, not visa availability. It's about money.

> The thing to note here is that this response from YC is not a political one, but a response that came out of market demand

At base, this is an expression of YC's disagreement with the Administration's positions on immigration. It's saying that the imposition of even more onerous visa restrictions is misguided because it prevents from entering people who would make valuable contributions to American society. That is political.

> And once Vancouver or any other city starts working for them, Silicon Valley will lose its exclusivity.

I fail to see the problem.

So all in all it's a good thing for everyone but Silicon Valley, suddenly bright people will stop clumbin in SF but start working, paying taxes and spending their money back home. They will not need to move to a different country and keep their social net, etc.

This was the illusory hope of many of us in the beginning of the IT revolution. Work from anywhere, connected with everybody and the equal distribution of wealth.

I would believe this is not political if YC would have done this in the past. Its not that Visa issues to enter US is something brought by Trump administration. In any case, I celebrate the decision.

Unfortunately Trump and his supporters hate Silicon Valley so much they might not have a problem with that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com