Hacker News Reader

Comment by untog | Hacker News Reader

Tech is squeezed into hyper-expensive cities because, as illogical as it may seem, it's where a lot of workers want to live.

As an industry, tech skews young. And a lot of young people want to live in urban environments full of culture and entertainment, and have a job that has a social dimension to it.

Now that I'm older (thirties, married, kids) remote work from somewhere other than NYC seems appealing. But it didn't a few years ago.

View on HN

> Tech is squeezed into hyper-expensive cities because, as illogical as it may seem, it's where a lot of workers want to live.

That's a factor, but I think an even bigger set of factors is:

(1) industry-focussed venture capital and related support infrastructure (particularly for startups) prefers proximity,

(2) there are benefits to proximity to other firms in the industry other than capital and support structures, e.g., it's easier to pick up experienced workers as you expand if you don't have to get them to relocate,

(3) With the money flowing into the industry, wherever it is concentrated is going to become expensive, because the number of dollars chasing housing and other goods is going to be high compared to places it isn't concentrated.

It's not just young people. I'm in my forties, but divorced, and no kids, and the last thing I want is a big house in the suburbs. I want to live in a walkable urban environment full of culture, though also within convenient distance of outdoor hiking and cycling trails.

That's true to a point. Still doesn't explain Palo Alto, Mountain View, Cupertino etc.

just an endless pursuit of materialism. you want something so you gravitate towards it. hence a lot of regular people are destroying their financial futures by staying in these super expensive areas.

Destroying their financial future? None of my friends living in SF or NYC make less than $160k a year working as engineers. In fact, they make that nearly right out of college. The more senior engineers (5+ yrs exp) bring in $300k-500k a year.

They save a significant amount of it, more than they would have saved in any other place. And they can leave at anytime to a low-COL place and buy a house in cash.

people earning 300-500K are very wealthy by any standard. these are not regular people im talking about.

160K salary in SF is probably equivalent to 75K in the middle of America? (considering food, rent/car/health expenses)

Those cities are in the heart of Silicon Valley. They have been good places for engineers to raise families for several generations since their companies were headquartered nearby. The migration of tech headquarters to SF is relatively new.

In these discussions, I think a lot of people forget (or don't know) that most of these cities with rapidly increasing rents were losing population just 20 years ago and certainly 30 years ago. It's easy to be critical of infrastructure investment and zoning policies in some places but a lot of the demand is quite recent on the time scale that cities develop.

This is so silly. Denver, Austin, San Diego, Atlanta etc. are fine cities with vibrant urban cores full of culture and entertainment yet none of them require you to pay 3000$/mo for a decent apartment or pay millions to buy a low tier home. There is a mass delusion that SF/SV and NYC residents seem to have that it is impossible to match their lifestyles without paying astronomical numbers for housing and its just absurd.

> There is a mass delusion that SF/SV and NYC residents seem to have that it is impossible to match their lifestyles without paying astronomical numbers for housing and its just absurd.

It's not a delusion. Sure, if you find the culture, entertainment, and other lifestyle features of Denver, Austin, San Diego, or Atlanta an acceptable substitute for NYC or SF Bay Area lifestyle, you can get that substitute a bit cheaper. Not everyone does (if they did, Bay Area and NYC prices would drop and those other places would climb.)

The culture and entertainment of the Bay Area is overrated compared to other metros. Everything closes early for some unfathomable reason. I'd say most transplants are there for the tech money. Good food scene, though.

> The culture and entertainment of the Bay Area is overrated compared to other metros.

“Overrated” just means other people value it more than you do. But you should be happy, because that presents an opportunity you can exploit by satisfying your preferences more cheaply elsewhere.

Certainly. It is mostly the Bay Area native in me who is jaded. Familiarity does breed contempt.

I have to agree there about cultural attractions; if you want world-class museums, for instance, you'll find them in NYC and DC. You won't find them on the west coast.

there are lots of aspects of bay area culture that are not found in quantity in pretty much any other city in the country except NYC.

Really? Seattle, Portland, Austin, LA all have aspects of Bay Area culture. What they lack is the weather, and perhaps the tech culture if that’s what you’re talking about. Maybe some regional specific demographics like SF’s LGBT community.

sure they do and there is a lot of interchange (less so austin). But yes I am referring to regional specific demographics and subcultures which SF has a much higher per capita population of than almost any other city. Seattle and portland feel sooooo small compared to the bay and while LA definitely does not it has its own set of challenges.

Austin lacks the public transportation, bike infrastructure, and arts culture of all of these cities, along with what you’ve said. It’s more dense than most places in the south, but I could never realize the dream of being car-less there. Having to drive to social functions is probably the biggest differentiating factor, in my mind, between expensive coastal cities and cheap southern cities.

I think I meant the progressive/liberal/weirdness of the Bay Area. South Bay/Silicon Valley has pretty weak public transportation and art compared to SF, as it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com