Silicon Valley job seekers are increasingly looking for work elsewhere
blog.indeed.com
blog.indeed.com
I guess I can't blame SV for that - I am just clearly not a fit for it - but I can't help but wonder whether there are people out there now who are more like me than they realize, and might be happier elsewehere (or would go elsewhere if they reasonably thought they could).
I felt it to be a strong culture of comparison. Comparing job position, comparing employer, comparing income by implication. Ugh. Just not my ethos. I lived my 20s in that mindset and it's a zero sum game.
I also felt like it was so damn expensive to live there that even people making great salaries were constantly under pressure. To me, a pretty relaxed Midwesterner, it just seems like everyone is on edge.
The other thing that grated on me was the "funding equals success" mentality. So you got funded. Big. Effing. Deal. Go turn a profit.
It just isn't my kind of vibe. Like I said I'm a Midwesterner, the culture I grew up in is one of frugal living and understated successes.
My biggest problem with SV. It's like a rat race. It's all about doing the cool new thing.
Culturally, silicon valley is dramatically different from San Francisco; almost everyone who has experienced both has a strong opinion about which one they prefer.
They both have advantages and disadvantages. As for myself, I tried living in SF for a few years and was convinced that the appeal of city life just did not resonate with me; however many good friends could not do without the amenities and convenience that the city offers. We all just pick what is best for us given who we are and what we value for ourselves.
If you're not working on something that is currently hot in Silicon Valley, there is little reason to be here. It's not like Portland, where you decide that you want to live there first and then decide what you'll do for a living. But if you do want to work in one of those hot sectors, there really is no place to do so other than Silicon Valley; nowhere else do you get the same combination of talent, capital, experience, open-mindedness, and risk-taking.
It doesn't surprise me that people are moving out (even beyond personal experience, where basically all of my friends have remarked that they're considering moving to Colorado, or Seattle, or Portland, or North Carolina, and my wife & I are considering it too). We're at the end of a technology cycle, so nobody really knows what the next one will be or if it's something that'll interest them. But there are a lot of fascinating things going on with drones, robotics, self-driving cars, AI, satellites, and hardware, so if any of them seem interesting, Silicon Valley might be a good place to check out.
There are Code for America chapters in Raleigh and Durham so there is that. I enjoyed the cities and NC is definitely a contender for escaping the insane rental prices of the Bay Area.
I've considered the RTP area and idly talked it over with my wife. The big plus is that we could buy a gigantic house on 5 acres of land free-and-clear, with no mortgage. My brother-in-law's family also lives there, and my mom is up in New England, so family reunions would become simpler. The big minus is that I think the work culture in NC is a bit more conservative than I've gotten used to in the Bay Area; I doubt that they'd appreciate me rolling into work at 2 PM, or trying out new programming languages, or openly challenging my VP on product strategy. Plus, my wife works in philanthropy and there are fewer rich people with money to manage there. So it'd really only be an option once we cash out & retire.
(/s)
I grew up in the Boston suburbs and my parents owned an acre of land. My mom just sold it for a quarter of what my in-laws house (1/4 acre) in Cupertino is worth.
Which is most reporters. They get sent out to Silicon Valley, land at the SF airport, and of course go to San Francisco. There's little to see in the valley, while SF has great views and also (recently -- last 15 or so years) companies to visit.
Reporters with deep roots here (e.g. Markoff, who grew up in Palo Alto and lives in SF) write about the difference, but if the Bay Area is a foreign place to you, the distinction is invisible. It reminds me of a cabby I had in Berlin: "Oh, you're flying to the USA? I know it very well -- I've been to Miami four times!"
Most coarsely, SV is more tech heavy, SF much less so. There are many exceptions of course.
At one time, Scotts Valley (other side of Highway 17) was considered part of Silicon Valley (Borland and Seagate).
That's an excellent point.
This isn't to say one is better than the other, but one is almost certainly better than the other for you.
I realize that that's not fair, but not more unfair than imagining that SF's culture is objectively better.
When I go out in silicon valley? I see other people in free t shirts still wearing work badges. Everyone treats me well, as long as I make a basic effort towards politeness. Nobody expects me to be stylistically or socially skilled, as long as I put out that basic effort. I go to my favorite bar, and not only are there no tv screens, I am not the only one reading.
Essentially, silicon valley is for people like me. This is both why people like me like it, and also why people in San Francisco look down on it.
My point here isn't that one is more exclusionary than the other; just that they are very different, and likely will work well for very different people.
I think the explanatory principle is that most folks understand other folks through the use of archetypes; Silicon Valley is the only place/culture that has an archetype that matches me closely enough to be a useful model. Outside of Silicon Valley, I am pretty far off from any of the established archetypes, so people don't come with the pre-built ruleset for dealing with me that they have here in silicon valley. I can only really relate to people who are willing to step outside that archetype model. I mean, that's absolutely necessary for a close relationship; your friends and lovers don't think of you as an archetype, they've taken the time to actually know you. But your bartender? the person interviewing you? Someone deciding if they want to put in enough effort to actually get to know the real you in a friendship (or romantic) kind of relationship? All of those people are often operating on that archetype model, at least until they get to actually know you, if they get to know you.
Now, there's something to be said for having that filter; in the absence of an archetype, the only people who can become close to you are the people who are open to foreignness, and I personally like those people better than people who don't have that trait, but even if you are willing to take that as a pre-filter, it is kind of neat to live in a place where people who only meet you in passing seem to kind of know you.
For me, being that archetype was a really novel experience; honestly, I think I need to travel more and spend more time in places that are open minded but where I don't fit into any archetype sometimes, but I think silicon valley has given me a really interesting experience in that here I'm... normal.
I suspect the problem in San Francisco, for me (and a lot of people who are comfortable in silicon valley) is that they have an archetype that almost fits me, but it is off enough to be non-predictive and uncomfortable for all involved. I think that being that close to a archetype that doesn't fit you is in many ways worse than being clearly outside of any established archetype, especially in a place that seems to be as accepting of foreigners as San Francisco.
Really, I think foreignness is a reasonable model here; when I lived and worked in the central valley, sure, that's where I spent most of my childhood, and most people looked like me, but I always felt like I was a foreigner. My values, my personality, and my expectations just don't mesh with that area. I felt like I was on the wrong planet, and my impression is that the central valley just doesn't tolerate foreignness the way that places like San Francisco or Silicon Valley do.
The short list of places I need to try next is New York, Seattle and Portland. I suspect that the models that people in those places will be sufficiently off from, you know, me that I won't fit into any archetype, but I think that those places are sufficiently open minded that I could be a "foreigner" and still be able to operate socially, but that theory has yet to be experimentally proven, except for a few weeks in Seattle.
1) My rent is half as much.
2) I don't get stuck on a shuttle bus on 101 for 3 hours/day. Commuting eats up all the time that you'd use to take advantage of SF's (admittedly superior) nightlife & cultural scene.
3) There's greenery in my apartment complex.
4) There's no shit on the streets.
5) I can walk outside and it will be warm and sunny. None of this crazy fog or "the coldest winter ever was a San Francisco summer".
6) It doesn't take a half hour to find a parking spot. (For those who say "Don't own a car in SF" - you're right, but this doesn't solve any problems. Public transportation outside the BART corridor in SF sucks, it takes as long to get from the Sunset District to downtown as it takes to get from the South Bay to Downtown, and the only reason you need to spring for Instacart/DoorDash/Uber is because you don't have a car.)
If uber figures it out, then everything is fine. The problem is that nobody knows if an unsubsidized system can provide acceptable wait times in a place like San Francisco.
People talk like it is a super dense city, but it is really more of an in between, and without the privately subsidized ride sharing, it is in an awkward place.
3. SF has plenty of parks.
4. SF has a few odd neighborhoods where you'd see shit on the street. It's not everywhere.
5. It's really nice to have not too hot summer and not too chilly winter. I absolutely love it.
6. People who live in San Francisco and own car know when to take the car and when to Uber. I don't take my car when I'm going to Tenderloin. I'd totally take my car if I'm driving to Golden Gate Park.
I think in the context of business, it's safe to say that SF is in Silicon Valley, culturally speaking.
My experience is that if I interview up north, I get rejected on cultural fit grounds. If I interview south of San Carlos, if I get rejected, it is because I did not do well enough on the technical portion of the interview.
Just my experience, your mileage may vary.
I still live here because this is home to me. But I am not a fan of who we have largely become.
San Francisco: +21% 59,600 -> 72,200
Silicon Valley: +7.2% 229,200 -> 245,800
Oakland/East-Bay: +11.8% 50,600 ->56,600
SF Mid-Peninsula: +5.0% 45,600 -> 47,900
Boston: +3.1% 149,700 -> 156,000
Austin: +7.8% 74,400 -> 80,200
[0] page 4: http://www.us.jll.com/united-states/en-us/Research/US-Tech-E...
Edit: Added Mid-Peninsula and East Bay to complete SF Bay Area. Total Bay Area Tech Jobs in 2015: 444,500
Edit 2: Corrected typo, as pointed out, my bad. SF 72,200
I'm a bit confused because the study counts SF, Silicon Valley and SF Mid-Peninsula without defining them well, and there's no mention of South Bay at all, unless that's what they're referring to as SV.
EDIT: It doesn't seem like SV is being used as an aggregate term, since there's more absolute growth happening in SF and SF Mid-Peninsula than in SV.
EDIT2: Unless I'm terrible at reading charts and tables, it looks a lot like San Francisco hit 72,205 in 2015, not 76,200.
There is no data in this post about where people actually end up working. Given job growth in the major tech hubs, it is implausible and/or mathematically unlikely that SF is no longer as attractive to job seekers as places like Austin. Nothing against Austin, but the tech industry there is still an order of magnitude smaller than SF, and the gap is not shrinking.
- You want to live around real people and not around people who talk to computers all day, while making up stories about real people in their mind.
- You don't think that waiting for an hour to get into a restaurant is a good way to spend your one hour off work.
- You want a yard.
- You're tired of people constantly being offended by everything.
- You like commitment and people who can make up their mind.
- You like commitment and people who can make up their mind.
I hear these a lot, but this hasn't been my experience at all. The people I meet are rarely offended and don't flake out on me.
Finance folk got in first and have ruined New York about a dozen times at this point. There's relatively little left to ruin.
http://journal.burningman.org/2016/10/philosophical-center/t...
Until you start hearing about urban schools doing great, anything you hear about the resurgence of the city is due to your personal overexposure to dink couples and gay people without families.
What I do hear is pretty much everyone I know (and who can afford it, which in tech isn't a small amount) moving closer to the city and sending their kids to expensive private schools (which in turn, probably makes the problem worse).
http://www.greatschools.org/california/san-francisco/
SFUSD has a large number of very high performing public schools, though there are also still a lot of middling and severely underperforming schools.
Test scores aren't everything, but I don't think it's accurate to say SF has bad schools. I'd say it's more of a a mixed bag.
That's the case for the suburbs as well, the difference is that you can convert a high mortgage payment into priority access to a 9 or 10 in the burbs, whereas in SF, there's a much greater element of randomness to it.
The pattern is pretty clear, people stick around until kindergarten or middle school. At that point, 50% leave, 25% catholic school, 25% stick around.
Indeed seems as old and busted as Monster.com or... what was that one? Cube? Dice? Something like that.
I have no idea how real estate can maintain its value, clearly a lot of people are considering moving.
BTW, The data in this article could have been presented a lot more effectively.
For example – it's not a popular job-search platform amongst SF startups, as far as I'm aware.
(I personally still buy the overall conclusion, fwiw).
Once outflux > influx, we might actually see some sanity to housing prices.