> "You're kinda missing the bigger picture - the fact that Bay Area was not always a tech hub, and became one at some point for various reason - which can happen in any other place (and has)."
Lol are we children now? No, YOU literally said tech hub.
> Those aren't generalizations, those are very specific statements, which go directly against your vague generalizations ('oh but there are good universities in the area for tech talent therefore its impossible to replicate'), and which you apparently can't disagree with because they are obviously true.
No, they are generalizations. I have given you myriad examples as to why the UC system and its integration with research and development is unique and doesn't exist anywhere else in the US let alone can be replicated. "Many Stanford alums leave California" means nothing to the overall point (despite 70% staying in CA). Yes, some people from one university leave California leave? Yes? And? "Talent is being outsourced at ever increasing rates". Yes, and? Talent is being outsourced at ever increasing rates everywhere in the US. Outsourcing talent has going on for a long time. Again, means nothing to the overall point.
> Nope, what you said is that because these universities are located in that area - no other region could possibly compete. And I gave you very specific examples of why that's not true.
You did not? You named universities from 5 different states and/or regions. I am actually beginning to be concerned. You understand the difference between what I'm saying right? The 5 schools you named have been around forever.. They haven't replicated what the UC system and surrounding schools have create in the Bay Area. So your examples are stupid?
I didn't even say leading universities in tech can't exist outside of California? What are you even saying anymore?
> What I disagreed with is your baseless assertion that no other region could possibly compete, or that tech companies have to be in SV to succeeded (which is obviously false, and which I see you shifting the goalposts on now)
No other region right now is competing - or can compete. I conceded to your overall vibes-based opinion that "anything can happen" and that yes, in a miraculous set of circumstances held over 50+ years that some region could usurp the Bay Area with tech. I then continued with historical and contemporary examples as to why that won't happen anytime soon.
> Maybe you should rewind to back when NYC wasn't a major finance hub, then apply your same reasoning - 'NYC couldn't possibly become a finance hub, because London is the finance hub'.
Please reference my last response. Yes, New York became a major financial capital (and competitor to London) after 150 years of massive historical circumstances (WW1, Bretton Woods, etc). Perhaps this could happen to the Bay Area in tech, sure - but these aren't happening separately in a vacuum. Whilst the title of financial capital of the world traded hands between London, NYC, and even Tokyo in the 80's, one thing stayed constant, and that is the tech industry remained in SV.
There is no NYC in the 20's equivalent to the Bay Area's London in this equation.
> Your arguments are self-contradictory and not logical.
They are not. Here is my argument in a nutshell: Silicon Valley became - and remains - the global tech hub thanks to a unique mix of top-tier universities like Stanford and the surrounding UC system, early government investment in semiconductors, a deep venture capital ecosystem, and a culture of innovation and risk-taking. Other regions domestically and internationally, have struggled to catch up because they lack the decades of compounding infrastructure, talent networks, and startup experience that can’t be quickly replicated.
Your argument: Nuh uh