I have this other idea, force VC's to point their firehose of cash elsewhere for a change.
I live in Houston and I concur. The company I work for has a lot of trouble finding talent that we need. That's not to say the talent doesn't exist here. It absolutely does. It's just that we can't afford Silicon Valley level compensation.
Beyond that, even in what are otherwise major metros, the game is farm league. LA, Chicago, Atlanta, Denver, Boston.
Several of which still have expensive housing, relatively.
The US are digging their own asset-inflated graves.
I feel like many places aren't even on the radar for companies or people. States in the South are attracting a lot of people like AZ, TX, FL. TN is very nice too, and I doubt their winters would be as bad as here. I think weather is part of it, but things like less red tape and taxes draw people in too. ID and SD are growing too, even though they get pretty cold I feel like the cost of living and smaller more efficient government helps.
I follow some full time RVers and people pick SD as their domicile and the state makes it easy to do since still need to live somewhere on paper legally but I was amazed you can renew your license online every other time. I'm surprised a state with less population is more technically advanced than larger states. I feel if they wanted to do something like that here, there'd be too much bickering going back and forth that nothing would ever get done. They kept arguing back and forth about getting rid of front license plates and it passed, but now someone is wanting to repeal that change before it comes into effect next July. So I think some of these states are organized and more efficient too which is drawing people.
I like to look at data on a site called Where Money Walks and it shows that the Northern States, California and parts of the midwest are losing a lot of people and money. I can't wait to see what the 2020 census will be, as I feel that will show more details. Maybe states will lose federal dollars and wake up where they need to come up with a strategy to compete for people, tech, tourism and many other areas. I think some of these politicians are too comfortable as we've seen a huge shift. Last time the census was done the iPhone was only a few years old and that changed phones are we know it for example.
I know states can't compete with weather, but there's many other things that they seem to be leaving on the table. Why would anyone want to live in a cold place like New York with high taxes, vehicle inspections, ugly yellow license plates which in some states get confused with party plates (people who were convicted of a DUI get them as a punishment in my state, but I think it's only if more than once), people who like sports cars get turned off by front plates when they could enjoy Miami with a lot less bs and warmer? If they had infomercials for both, I know which one I'd prefer. I know I was reading NJ is one of the most moved out states, these places are driving people away. Wouldn't surprise me if the schools were even better in FL. I think NYC would be cool to visit, but I don't think you could pay me to live there. California and Maryland have a bunch of problems too, so hopefully looking at the data is a wake up call for places to improve and start competing. In California you are more likely to be arrested over smog than committing a federal crime, plus people can't afford to live there so Austin is a growing tech hub full of California license plates, Apple is expanding there too and is going to be the cities largest employer. Then you have Facebook, Google, Oracle, etc too in Austin.
Students graduating with technical, programming, maths, and/or engineering knowledge leave not only the univerisity and its immediate surroundings, but the state. Marc Andreeson as an example from U of I is a classic: he co-invented the graphical browser ... and immediately departed for California. (Apparently annoying a fair fraction of U of I faculty and students in the process.) Chicago certainly can't hold that talent.
And I don't think it's just the weather, though it's not only the winters that suck, most of the summer's not so hot, or rather, far too hot, and humid, as well. It's hard to think when your brain's a puddle on the floor.
High taxes, at least for housing, may be a red herring, as that actually helps keep housing affordable. Dysfunctional government, gridlock traffic, an actively anti-intellectual and often racist general population, sprawl, and the rest, don't help. There are scattered locations of focused intellectual activity, but not concentrated enough, and/or in the wrong disciplines, to leverage off one another.
And most of the region lacks the easy recreational escapes of the SF Bay Area -- you're not minutes from a bayside trail, or the bay itself, or beaches, hills, or mountains. Or a couple hours' drive from snow and alpine hiking. There are some opportunities, but they're far less immediately accessible, attractive, and rewarding.
NB: New York City does clearly appeal to many and draw much talent, though most of that has been in FinTech. Which I'd criticise, though compared to what Silicon Valley's produced over the past decade, I'm afraid it's a case of arguing for lesser evils. Front plates don't seem to deter people from California. And taxes, generally, pay for government services and infrastructure which supports and encourages economic development, so long as waste, misspending, and incurred institutional obligations are reasonable.
Places to register residency on retirement (SD) and places to work ... have a different attractions and qualifications, that's not really a legitimate comparison.
Smaller or mountain states might mount a challenge. I've been impressed with Colorado (who wouldn't be) and Boise, though that's a long way from nowhere.
So was San Francisco, once.
Some of the RVers aren't retired and work remotely or own businesses too. I guess in a way full time RVers or digital nomads are homeless in a way but the traditional world expects you to receive mail somewhere, so mail forwarders and SD DMV makes it easy. I know there's a theory the state makes it so easy because they hope it will increase their federal funds, while in some states they won't accept full time RVers so even if you wanted to stay a resident they make it almost impossible unless you claim you live with someone else when you don't.
I've thought about Utah but even though Utah would be a nice state to live it does get cold. The mountains are attractive though, I was thinking it'd be cool to own a log cabin somewhere in the smokies. I think snowboarding would be cool to try, so even if I lived somewhere warm a vacation to a snow covered place would be neat for a week or two since snow is pretty but be glad not to be forced to stay in it.
I think I'm more set on traveling full time when I can make it work instead of settling down though as I feel like no area would make me happy long term 365 days a year. Even somewhere like Vegas or Orlando would probably get boring after a while I think. Do some travel by plane or ship along with RVing across the US.
Not sure how high taxes would help with housing... California is one of the highest-taxed states on income. I think a state with no state income taxes or a flat low rate like Utah would be better. I was surprised to learn cities in Utah don't tax income, only the state and fed unlike here where there's a city, school district(some areas do it by property taxes while some it's a separate income tax) and state along with the feds. So with multiple different income taxes instead of a single one seems much better. Some cities with taxes don't even have a way to e-file or so localized tax software doesn't include them. I know Trump's changes to deducting local and state taxes are another thing cited as people moving, and some states like California and New York are suing over it but haven't been following the case. I tend to see more conservative states as more efficient and less bloated.
My problem has been sticking with ideas but the goal is to get a prototype and either get funding or bootstrap it but still very early... So at some point, if things do work at, I'd need to decide where I'd want an office or just make the company completely remote. Having a company ran by nomadic travelers sounds cool and even niche job boards for that. But I wonder how accountability and distractions come into play... But other companies have experimented with this too... Another idea I had was maybe 3D virtual world environment might work too, so while somewhat roleplay with a virtual office building and conference room might be better than just regular chat and more dynamic. But I'm getting ahead of myself. I know people are saying the future of tech are all remote, but I kinda wonder though too as it seems a bit less social. Plus security and trust being a larger factor to probably for some roles. If Google ever went 100% remote, I wonder if they would want some guy working out of their bedroom to have root access to some systems.
California's Prop 13 is actually a key driver of the state's housing problems. Not the only one, but a major factor.
Utah, in parts, isn't all bad, though it helps a lot if you get along with Mormans and don't care much for beer or coffee. Community values and institutions seem generally strong.
https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/03/the-extreme-geographic-...
Or, as PitchBook puts it, "traditional hubs still account for preponderance of activity" (https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/the-state-of-us-venture-...)
NY and Boston get their share of funding dollars, too, but compared to the rest of the United States they aren't cheap places to live, either.
There is no universe where bootstrapping a brand new region with world class universities and infrastructure is cheaper than just fixing a broken bureaucracy.
The major problem is NIMBYism. It is extremely difficult to create new homes for homeless people. Even trying to build a new shelter, there is a lawsuit filed by nearby landlords trying to stop it.
NIMBYs also make market-rate housing expensive, and make transit difficult to expand. Thus, the pay scales that the city can afford are not high enough to fill the vacancies in SFMTA and SFPD and other agencies.
I think some tea got thrown in a harbour once in an argument about almost this exact point.