Slashdot Mirror


San Francisco Poaching Tech Talent From Silicon Valley

jfruh writes "Silicon Valley, including San Jose and the chain of suburbs running north from it along the San Francisco Peninsula, has long been the epicenter of the tech business and startup scene. San Francisco itself, just a few miles to the north, has always been in the Valley's orbit — but now, more and more, the center of gravity is shifting to San Francisco, and the move seems to be hitting a tipping point. The reason: the young talent companies want to attract would rather live in a hip city than in suburban sprawl, and don't want to commute 45 minutes to work."

15 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It takes about 45 minutes to commute between places actually in San Francisco, if you don't pick the right ones, thanks to SF Muni having barely had any improvement since the Market Street Subway was built in 1980. Could easily spend 45 minutes on the N-Judah...

    1. Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute by andymadigan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At least you're not driving, on public transit you get to read while someone else does the driving. I moved to San Jose six months ago and I explicitly picked a location where I could take the Light Rail to work, most of my coworkers drive and live nowhere near transit along the peninsula. I plan to move to SF (along with all the other "young talent") where it might take a bit longer to get to work, but you can go around the whole city without a car, instead of just certain areas. (I do have a car, I just hate driving).

      Of course, the real reason to move is that even San Jose, with a larger population than S.F., feels like a suburb compared to City.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    2. Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What the hell is wrong with feeling like a suburb? Having grown up in a small rural town I'm baffled by the arrogance and snobbery of city dwellers who'd prefer having homeless people sleeping in their doorway than to go somewhere else. Why is suburb a dirty word? What is in SF that anyone would want to live there and put up with all its problems?

    3. Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute by TallDarkMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The basic answer is culture...be that arts, entertainment, or what-have-you...which the suburbs are more limited in. If you're lucky, there's some stuff to do in your (suburbia) town (Marin to the north is very artsy-fartsy, and Berkeley has a lot being a college town), but others (Hayward in the East Bay, or San Bruno on the Penninsula south of S.F.) don't have much more than the traditional malls. So "going out for a night on the town" usually means hopping in your car (or if it's convenient, hopping on BART) and heading to The City.

      The suburbs aren't "bad"....just less stuff to do there versus the city....and I think that's true for a lot of cities.

      Heck, I know of some people who lived out in the Central Valley (to the east of the Bay Area and it's suburbs) but moved to the Bay Area, even though it's WAY more expensive, simply because "there's more there"...

      --
      Will draft for food...
  2. the business has changed, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Issues of sprawl and crappy commutes notwithstanding, the people developing cool apps for smartphones want to live in SF because they are hipsters. These are not the same kinds of folks that "made" silicon valley. They were far nerdier, more interested in hardware, chip design, etc -- basically infrastructure stuff and they were NOT hip. They weren't quite as drawn to SF.

    SF also has girls.

    I still think the Peninsula and South Bay are far superior if you like outdoor activities: running, hiking, climbing, biking.

    Psh. I like the old farts better than the new kids.

    1. Re:the business has changed, too by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The gay city, right?

      Right. There's still a better male:female ratio in SF than in "Man Jose". Subtract the gay guys from that and it gets even better. Trust me on this. For every girl that walks into a Silicon Valley bar there's at least ten guys with her. Your odds are much better in the city.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:the business has changed, too by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why go to a bar? Is the sort of woman you'd meet in a BAR the sort you'd want to have a long term relationship with? And what does it say about her taste in getting picked up by a some dude in a bar?

      Huh? What are you talking about? Where the hell else are you supposed to meet people if not in a bar? Would you prefer me to meet some losery loner on an online dating site or something? The majority of my long term relationships began in bars or on the way home from them and "the kind of girl" you meet in a bar is not much different from "the kind of girl" you meet in the street or in the supermarket or anywhere else with the exception that they're outgoing and sociable. What are you, Amish or something? Maybe you'd prefer me to meet people in a fucking church!

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  3. And also want to pay more rent by ramk13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    San Francisco is undoubtedly cooler than the south bay, but it's also way more expensive. Not everyone can afford rent or the space they want in SF when compared to many of those south bay cities. That goes both for companies and people. Some companies will move or start there, but I think it's reaching to say we're at a tipping point.

    And most importantly, people aren't raising kids in SF:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/13/san-francisco-moms-reflect_n_1508072.html

    So that talent that young is going to have to commute the other way when they get married and have kids.

  4. Re:Hip City? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guess what? In ancient Rome, they called Rome, "the city" and in England, they call London "the city", and it's similarly true elsewhere in history and the world. The condescension is imagined on your part.

  5. Can we stop using the term 'poaching'? by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem I have with the term is that it suggests that there's something morally wrong with offering somebody more salary / benefits / perks to change jobs, or with that somebody choosing to make the move to greener pastures.

    Employment is a 2-way street: My boss can choose to fire me at any time, I can choose to quit and do something else at any time. I understand that many employers would not like employees to be able to do that, but they can, and that's because they're your employees rather than your slaves.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. This is news? by dorpus · · Score: 5, Funny

    They said the exact same thing when I lived in the Valley during the dot-com boom. Not everyone wants to pay $2,000 for an apartment that has the privilege of homeless people pissing on the doorstep, walking on streets that reek of sewage, daily encounters with street trash that threaten anyone who is dressed normally, or the dilemma of owning a car with no place to park vs. a car-free lifestyle that makes shopping so difficult. Yes, I love the car alarms that go off constantly, the buses roaring by all the time, the ugly eucalyptus trees that give off a powerful smell, the harsh cold wind from the bay combined with the harsh sunlight, the lack of air conditioned offices, the "vibrant nightlife" of stores that close down at 5PM, the tourists who treat you like a funny zoo animal, and the warm welcome one receives from other Americans for saying they live in San Francisco.

  7. Re:And the cost by CFTM · · Score: 4, Informative

    I live in the East Bay. I take BART to work everyday. From my stop in the East Bay to my stop in SF, it costs $4.15. Parking at the BART station costs $1. I live 2.4 miles from the BART station. Round trip, it costs me $9.30 to go to and from work.

    Were I to be driving, my commute would be nearly 30 miles. I'd be driving across the Bay Bridge ($5 a day) and then parking in San Francisco would cost me a MINIMUM of $10 a day. This isn't even taking into account opportunity cost of time, wear and tear on the car or fuel.

    The car is not cheaper in San Francisco. Ever.

  8. Not Really by BadPirate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the "Young Talent" companies only make up a small part of the tech industry out here. Silicon valley still has the largest and most successful of the tech industry at the moment in Software (Apple, Google) and even the older struggling giants (Yahoo), which represent a MAJOR force for employment, Apple's new campus in cupertino will hire and bring in more bodies to the valley then the next 100 SF startups (even assuming that by the time 100 startups have formed 50 of them haven't flopped).

    Years ago when I moved to Silicon Valley the ratio and rate was the same. There were "artsy" or "fun" gaming startup jobs (a few) available in SF, and there were startup jobs available here in SV. But the real hiring was being done by the big players, and those guys will never move to SF. The hub will remain. There is no "tipping point". Article is an opinion puff piece by a hipster looking San Francisco dweller - https://twitter.com/cscott_idg who is obviously as biased about the subject as I am.

    Moving on.

    --
    - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
  9. Re:And the cost by dlsmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you want to employ gun-toting rednecks then by all means set up in Hicksville. If you want the brightest and the best then you have to go where they want to live whether you like it or not.

    Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I'm a well-educated, young (early 30s, anyway) computer scientist and I care a lot more about my net pay (after living expenses) than I do about living in a hip city. I find out a job is being offered in a high COL area, and I cross it off the list.

    I think there are a lot of places that offer a much better balance: Austin, Atlanta, Denver, Salt Lake City, ... (I imagine responses will tell me these places are most definitely not hip.)

  10. Re:And the cost by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm really happy that it's so cheap for you, but you live in suburbia. Nothing happens there. You can't walk across the street to the corner store for a gallon of milk and stop to chat to your neighbours about the concert that's going to be in the nearby park next weekend. You can't walk up to the tennis courts to play a few sets with your roommate and stop for coffee and a snack on the way back while you sit outside on the street and strike up a conversation with the interesting dog owner at the next table. You can't walk to the independent bookstore, on the way bump into some old friends that you haven't seen in years, and instead of going to the bookstore you go to the bar and spend a few hours catching up over cocktails while a pretty lady at the next stool catches your eye and ends up becoming your future wife.

    You suburban TV watchers and couch potatoes can throw as many smart alec remarks as you like about "insufferable hipsters". If you want to live in your cookie-cutter apartment complexes and dorm "communities" where nobody knows your name then knock yourself out. I prefer a real social life where "social networking" actually means getting out there and mingling with people, not sitting in front of a Facebook in the evening with reality TV in the background.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars