See [1] for an actual discussion on the tax law changes
State and local taxes.
Taxpayers can deduct a maximum of $10,000
from the total of their state and local income
taxes or sales taxes, and their property taxes
(added together), a measure that might hurt
itemizers in high-tax states such as California,
New York and New Jersey. The $10,000 cap applies
whether you are single or married filing jointly;
if you are married filing separately, it drops to
$5,000.
Based on that maybe we'll see clustering on each side of the river? Entirely speculation on my part, of course.
The change in federal law has to do with deducting the total amount of state and local taxes paid, which is, going forward, capped at $10k. New Jersey credits any tax paid to New York, which is staying the same.
1) I was concerned that may no longer be the case, so thanks for that, but 2) if your net tax burden is > $10k because of double taxation then doesn't it make sense to exit one of the two places taxing you, thus lowering your overall burden? I.E. Even if NJ Tax is $6k and NYC is $5K that still means there's a $1k incentive to no longer work in one place and live in the other. That's my point.
You're right that the new federal tax law could incentivize people to move from places with higher state and local taxes to places with lower state and local taxes, but the differences between NJ/NY/CT are negligible. The only big difference would be moving out of New York City, as that would save you up to ~20% (federal tax rate) of 3.5% (NYC income tax rate) of your income, but I doubt many people are willing to trade in their quality of life in NYC just for that.
There's definitely a trade-off -- while it's nice being exposed to the issues people experience in a variety of industries, it was nice having easy access to engineers/friends willing to hack on ideas in SF.
But if you only hung out with tech employees in SF, that was a bubble of your own creation.
Living in Manhattan (East Village) and Brooklyn provided a completely different experience. It was a rare to meet people who work in tech.
In both circumstances, I haven't been going out of my way to try to meet people in any specific industry.
No need to rely on anecdotes though. According to San Francisco’s Controller’s Office, a little over 6% of the population work in the tech industry[1]. That is an unquestionably small minority of the overall population.
If the people you have met predominantly worked in tech, it is likely due to a bubble you created yourself. Perhaps, for example, the majority of the population outside of tech cannot afford to spend time at those coffee shops and restaurants?
[1] https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/why-san-francisco-...
That's probably the parent's point - your likely to see more people in your cohort in NYC that don't work in tech then those that do.
> According to San Francisco’s Controller’s Office, a little over 6% of the population work in the tech industry[1]. That is an unquestionably small minority of the overall population.
SF is just one part of the bay area. Head down to PAMPA and MV/Cupertino where the big employers are and I'd be willing to bet that % is much higher.
That was in 2013. 5 years ago. That article doesn't provide a source for that number either, it simply quotes the chief economist for San Francisco’s Controller’s Office who also doesn't provide a source. I'm sure the number is much higher now.
You can also say I created my own bubble by choosing to live in SOMA and the Mission (or anywhere downtown SF in general). I'm just sharing my experience of encountering mostly tech employees in those neighborhoods. If you've experienced otherwise, kudos to you! :)
If that is not the epitome of a bubble, what is? I completely understand why someone might find themselves in that kind of bubble, and even like it that way, but that is not the same as the bubble not existing. I expect you will find that 22-30 year olds in SF themselves are a minority.
That does not mean they are not living in a bubble. There are always people in other age cohorts that they could associate with. Nobody is saying that bubbles are not natural. You find them everywhere in nature! It is indeed natural to be in a bubble with your own age cohort, but remains a bubble of your own making. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from popping that bubble and exposing yourself to people in other age groups and careers. After all, those outside the bubble represent the majority of the population.
I'm sure many people are cooks, janitors, bus drivers and the like and I'm sure a many people work for the the state, county or city (especially including healthcare). Any city needs services both private and municipal -- but they are not the driver of the economic engine.
I imagine that 6% would be much higher if we excluded non-service, non-municipal jobs.
And yet, since moving from SF (after nearly a decade) to NYC, I can confirm the OP's observation that I rarely encounter people who work at tech companies, anywhere in the city. Regardless of whether or not you think we're creating a bubble for ourselves by how we live our lives, the reality is that the bubble is different in New York. And it's not like there aren't tech workers here: there are just a lot more of other kinds of people.
For me, personally, it's refreshing. San Francisco has descended into a form of groupthink self-parody that is uninspiring for people who like to make new things.
I think that goes without saying. 6% is a minority, but 6% all working in the same industry remains significant. Where I currently live one of the largest industries makes up about 3% of the workforce. And even at that lower rate it already feels like everyone I meet works in that particular industry. Just imagine what 6% is like. I am not at all surprised that it feels like nobody does anything other than tech. 6% is staggering!
Nobody denies that SF (and the Valley in general) is heavily weighted towards tech professionals. With 6% of the population involved, they are going to be everywhere. However, they still only make up a minority share of the entire population. There should be no shortage of opportunity to find people doing other things.
Close to a third of jobs in one region being in tech is an insanely high number, and it's no wonder that people would feel that the Bay Area is lacking diversity.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130308072135/http://www.bayare...
I also love the influence NYC industries have on tech startups. Warby Parker is tech+fashion, Buzzfeed is tech+media, Betterment is tech+finance.
Makes me wonder where the line is. What qualifies a company as a tech company? Software/computing services/hardware as a primary revenue source?
Is Amazon only tech when it comes down to AWS and Alexa?
I would argue that they are not. They provide services that rely on technology and have been incredibly successful largely due to their embrace of technology, but I would describe Uber as on-demand transportation provider rather than a technology provider.
>Is Amazon only tech when it comes down to AWS and Alexa?
I understand calling Amazon a tech company because they have significant business lines as a technology provider, even if these do not constitute their entire business.
While I have intuitive responses to companies like these, I really don't know where the line is (e.g. how much business one would have to do as a tech provider). I didn't intend to suggest a hard definition but posed the question because I'm genuinely interested in seeing peoples' thoughts on what constitutes a tech company.
I used Warby Parker as an example because their business model is disruptive, they're high-growth, and they leverage technology. I think the disruption and innovation are really important aspects.
>"Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology..."
I absolutely agree that Warby Parker has a disruptive business model and see them as a shining example of an innovative startup, I just wouldn't call them a tech startup because tech is not their business.
Would you call pre-streaming Netflix a tech startup? It feels like a startup to me, but at first it was just Blockbuster through the mail.
Maybe the difficulty in categorizing is that every company today has to use technology. When Netflix started out, getting a DVD in the mail was pretty novel. Nowadays, e-commerce doesn't have quite the "wow" factor it used to.
Startup, but not a tech startup.
>Maybe the difficulty in categorizing is that every company today has to use technology.
Yep, this is exactly what I was trying to get at. That being the case, it seems more accurate to shape a definition of "tech" companies based on output (i.e. products/services offered) rather than input (i.e. tools employed).
I've been a software developer in advertising, various startups and have friends in fashion and finance. While sure you can get some interesting insights into their industries, for example Gucci's new operating room spread is dope af, or the fact that hedge funds year over year make 20% on average using their "genius quants" (aka insider trading), I find that the actual people themselves are a relatively homogenous subculture across industries. That is a typically upper middle class white with a BS/BA in econ/finance/cs/communications who got "really drunk" in college, "loves" IPAs now and does sober February's as a challenge.
These are all various shades of yuppie identity non-diverse in thought, culture, or world perspective. They are boring.
> I find statements like this both cringe and problematic.
I think the 1st sentence of the 1st comment is amusingly and inadvertently supported by the 2nd.
These are all various shades of yuppie identity non-diverse in thought, culture, or world perspective. They are boring.
You're painting with a pretty broad brush there, yourself.
The diversity of thought and culture in the NYC area is breathtaking. It takes a lot of effort to navigate it at times, but it's definitely there. Hundreds of years worth. It used to be that the North East of the US kinda was the US. Half of the soldiers who went to fight in Europe in WWI were from New York state alone.
A big part of US history of the 20th century has been the demographic, economic, and cultural shift away from the North East to the West and South. As a part of this, it's only natural that a new intelligentsia would arise on the West Coast and pooh-pooh the North East. It's a very common historical pattern. However, when it comes down to it, people living, thinking, and working in close proximity will create cultural value. To denigrate this is to throw out the baby with the bathwater if you are a humanist, or a progressive.
That's the other side of the historical pattern. It also happened between Europe and the "New World."
My Louisiana Creole girlfriend (at the time) and I showed up for a concert with Joanna Newsom and Phillip Glass. Let me assure you that there are older West Coast elites who can wonder aloud about you and look down their nose at you just as much as Mainline and old New England preppies. (Basically the fans of Phillip Glass wondering about the Joanna Newsom fandom hoi polloi.)
> That is a typically upper middle class white with a BS/BA in econ/finance/cs/communications who got "really drunk" in college, "loves" IPAs now and does sober February's as a challenge.
These are all various shades of yuppie identity non-diverse in thought, culture, or world perspective. They are boring.
Speaking as someone who is a software engineer in NY, your broad generalization has not been my experience, nor does it apply to me. Moreover, I consider it pretty dismissive to reduce such a wide swath of people to the stereotypical yuppie. According to you, software engineers are homogenous and boring.
If you really can’t find more diversity in the conversations you’re having, I strongly encourage you to seek out more diverse people. To put this politely: the lack of self awareness you’re evidencing in this comment borders on hubris.
I don't agree 100% with this sentiment, but I doubt the OP does either.
What I agree with is that "diverse" has become a stupid word. Diverse is used nowadays to indicate only superficial differences. If you see a black man, a lesbian, a asian woman, and a hispanic girl together in the same office, you have diversity. Yet they're all in the same office, have the same standard of education, are just about the same age, probably have the same political affiliations, grew up in roughly the same geographic area, etc. Is it really diverse?
Culturally, not so much. But NY is not so different from any other place. People near each other tend to be similar. I just wish we would stop regurgitating the word "diverse."
There's plenty of upper middle class Asians too.
The OP's statement wasn't limited to software developers, who I agree still tend to be a relatively homogenous group even in NYC. But you really ought to stop outside your professional circle once in a while. If you go to a bar in SV it's nothing but people in tech, talking about tech. If you go to a bar in NYC you don't see it anywhere near as much.