You are stuck making trade offs wherever you base your office, the market remains sort of efficient like that. If you have the network to hire the right talent in say Atlanta, go for it. But many will still do better in SF.
You are stuck making trade offs wherever you base your office, the market remains sort of efficient like that. If you have the network to hire the right talent in say Atlanta, go for it. But many will still do better in SF.
100 other metro areas in the US and 5 other continents.
Many companies are plopping offices right next to university clusters, which is a good solution if you need both talent and cost efficiencies. Consider the research Triangle in North Carolina as one example.
It’s probably shorter to just say SFs appeal is largely to fresh grads who want to party in a city and industry consolidation - both the consolidation of actual tech companies and the financial services that service them, like VCs. SF does not have any monopoly on fresh grads and no longer represents a disproportionate consolidation of the tech industry which is now very spread out.
> You are stuck making trade offs wherever you base your office, the market remains sort of efficient like that.
Absolutely there are tradeoffs. I believe people are struggling to realize the entrepreneurial tradeoffs of SF have changed (as much as I don’t want them to as a local resident), and now disproportionately encourage cynicism - oh wait AI will turn everything around never mind.
I really wish the techs would fully embrace remote work and then just equalize pay already. You can work and live where you want, although you might not get paid enough to live in SF, but it’s your choice and problem.