Slashdot Mirror
Jimmy Wales: London Is Better For Tech Than "Dreadful" Silicon Valley
Mickeycaskill writes: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has praised London as a tech hub, saying its cultural assets make it an ideal place to do business and superior to Silicon Valley as a place to live. “I meet people around London and they ask ‘when do you go back to San Francisco?’ assuming I’m here for a few days, but I live in London,” he said at the launch of Tech.London. “There’s always this bit of British self-deprecation about ‘oh well, things are so great in Silicon Valley’. But I can tell you, things aren’t that great in Silicon Valley. London has all these incredible advantages of a tech scene, but it’s also a place people want to live. Nobody wants to live in Silicon Valley – it’s dreadful out there. London is this incredible cultural city, it’s at the crossroads of the world. In the US you have San Francisco for tech, Los Angeles for movies and Washington for politics. In London you have all these things. It’s a great place to do business.”
As everyone starts to insult where everybody else lives.
Silicon Valley is about the only place you can have your startup fail, walk down the street a few blocks, and have a nice safe job to tide you over until you decide you need to do another startup (if you do). In other words, there's a job safety net that is not there elsewhere (the article as much as admits this, for London).
The other issue with any place other than Silicon Valley: Silicon Valley is where most of the VC's are located, and it's where most of the VC's prefer their companies be located, so that they have the option of an acquisition as an exit strategy for the companies they fund. Other locations, not so much.
Jimmy Wales has a pretty safe gig, which allows him to live anywhere he wants, without having to get more funding, and without having to worry about money too much at all, or about having to get another gig. So he can live anywhere he wants to live, and it's kinda OK.
I'm personally OK with London as a very nice place to live, if you've got a steady income, and so on. It's an amazing place. But I think you would have a difficult time getting Series A funding there, compared to a 15 minute drive to Sand Hill Road. To get some sense of the absolute importance of this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/ar...
If you like "high culture", have money, and don't mind crowds then London is great. If you prefer other things not so much.
Oh come now. London has many more things to offer, such as pigeons.
Er, and dickheads www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmWN9VYZXfY .
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm not sure that the people he's meeting are as happy with him as he thinks.
Sounds to me like a polite way of saying "It's it about time that you get the F* out of our country?"
What about the Ant People? They owe us money.
Not quite...
A lot of the negative preconceptions around London are based on tales from people who are determined to cling to the city centre. I used to be one of them; living in a tiny, poxy flat in Zone 2 and paying through the nose for it.
I then took stock, realised that I was spending so much on being close to the centre and was so stressed out by the downsides (noise, antisocial behaviour, general crowding) that I wasn't actually enjoying the supposed benefits. So I bought a place - at a fairly reasonable price - in Zone 5 (and south of the river to boot). From stations within a few minutes walk of where I live, I can be at Victoria station in less than 20 minutes and London Bridge in less than 25. I also get a pleasant, leafy environment, a rock-bottom local crime rate and decent - albeit very mainstream - local shops and amenities. And I'm not exactly mega-rich... "reasonable middle-income" is probably the best description.
If you want to do the full on hipster thing of living in the middle of town so that you can cycle to work and walk to your local pop-up organic smoothie yurt before going window-shopping for hemp underwear, then unless you are rich, you will have no money, will live in squalor and your impressions of London will sour pretty fast.
If you want good access to the city's big employment centres and cultural highlights, then just conquer your snobbery about the outer Zones (a point-to-point ticket from Zone 5 doesn't cost much more than a Zone 1-2 travelcard) and going properly south of the river.
don't forget CCTV. mustn't forget the omnipresent CCTV (roads, streets and buildings). also, you aren't allowed to withhold your passwords from police, there's even less police/secret services transparency than in the US of A; your kids will probably be taken away if you discipline them in public or if you go to a doctor with any kind of genital problem (UK children are not allowed to have genital problems).
oh and the sweaty armpits on tube (mmmm yummy), yobs who'll knife you if you complain about their loud music at night (wo'd ya say to mee?) and among the highest rent and property prices in the world. however, it's a good place to live if you're a member of any oppressed minority (race, sexuality, religion) as with so many minorities present nobody gives a shit about that anymore.
and if you happen to speak the most common language of london - polish, your life will be much cheaper (plumbers, carpenters, builders, car servicing, etc). the first thing you should do when you move to london is get a polish friend. i kid you not, they're 100x more useful than your local "citizen's advice bureau".
Someone I once worked with put it best regarding living in London, there are two groups of people, there are those who have lived there for a short time, i.e. only a year or two who think it's the best thing ever because they've not yet exhausted all the attractions, and then there are the people who lived there all their lives, and know that once the attractions are done, and you've eaten at all the cool places to eat, it's an incredibly shit city to live in. I suppose you're right, you can add the ultra-rich as a third category who will love it because they have the money to paper over it's problems (i.e. they can get their kids out of there and send them to private school, they have chauffeurs so don't have to deal with overcrowded transport, and they can have a country home to get some actual fresh air on weekends).
It's anyone's guess why Cameron chose London as the UK's tech hub, when London inherently writes off a good portion of the UK's population as willing candidates either because they can't afford to live there, or simply don't want to live in a shit hole. Cambridge was always the obvious choice, but there are other lesser considered yet far better choices too that have rapidly growing tech scenes that have developed naturally without need for government intervention to try and force it as London's "silicon roundabout" has (e.g. Bristol, Sheffield, Edinburgh).
Other capital cities like Ottawa and Wellington might not have as much upfront to do as London, but at least they're places you'd actually want to live if you had a choice and are the sorts of places you'd actually want to bring up children.
Relatively difficult to get a work visa for the UK:
http://www.visabureau.com/uk/i...
You aren't going to get a Tier 1 unless you are an Olympic athlete, Linus Torvalds, or Craig Venter, etc.. Cap is 1,000/year.
You could *possibly* get a Tier 2, if you already had a job offer from a UK company. Cap is 20,700/year.
Intra-company transfers for an existing employer (e.g. IBM), limited to a year if you are making £40,000/year; call it $63,500 at todays exchange rate; this is generally not hard for someone employed by IBM, actually; I have a friend who went to the UK for IBM on one of those, and got her MBA at Oxford (IBM also paid for that, since it was business related).
If you have money (£200,000 for the business, plus your own living expenses), and can start a viable business, a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Visa is an option. It has to employ 2 EEA people, or you get kicked out after 2 years.
If you have *lots* of money (£1million), you can get an investment visa; you are not permitted to work any other job, other than managing your investments. I believe this means you can not do international consultancy or remote management of other assets. This is basically similar to the U.S. EB-5 "millionaires visa", by which you are able to (effectively) buy a U.S. green card if you are rich enough, and willing to pump a $750K or $800K house price up to $1M in the outer Sunset in SF (it's basically the reason real estate prices are so high in SF: 5,100 home sales in the Bay area this way each year, 1/3 go to 1,700 EB-5 visa winners, with the remaining 8,300 EB-5's going to other areas of the U.S. and inflating housing prices there, instead. Hint: it's not gentrification that's doing it.
Tier-3 you can't get (program is suspended); it's for things like swinging a hammer and other labor which is considered unskilled.
Tier-4 is a student visa; you aren't allowed to work more than 10 hours a week in most cases, generally granted for only one year, requires 15 hours/week study, you must agree to go home after, as a condition of the visa. This is probably not what you want.
Tier-5 is a temporary work visa with a sponsor; mostly, this is the artist/entertainer visa, but can also be for charity workers and things like Mormon missionaries. If you want one of these, your best bet is to run away and join the circus. :)
So basically: a heck of a lot less opportunity to go to the U.K. from the U.S. than the other way around.
And that is really the key thing. On those days of always connected and virtualisation technologies, skips and email in our pocket, why do we have to live in dreadful places?
Note to Americans:
The "City of London" is about a square mile. It's the most downtowney square mile anywhere, and is home to London's finance industry. What you think about when you think about London is called the "Greater London Authority." So this guy is talking about a British government initiative to create a Silicon Valley type space near the most expensive Real Estate on the continent.
There're actually places in the Greater London Area where rent is reasonable. They're not near the Square Mile.
Londoner here. I grew up in Zone 4, left for ages and I'm now loving in Zone 2/3 border. It's neither the greatest thing ever nor the worst place ever. I'd rather live someqhere quieter and smaller and closer to the outdoors, such as Sheffield (never lived there but I'd love to).
Cambridge is prefereable too (I lived there on and off for a number of years),unless you hate cycling into the wind in every direction you go in. Los Alamos, or Santa Fe is probably where I'd live given the chance though.
Either way, London isn't "incerdibly shit" unless you stick to the central bits norf ovva river. If you want "incredibly shit", try Swindon.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If you are already very rich then London can be nice
Incidentally, the Wikipedia donation campaign is currently underway.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
I was born and bred in London before living in Stockholm for a few years, Dusseldorf for 2 etc. I've worked and stayed for extended periods in Amsterdam, Berlin, Budapest, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Barcelona, Valencia, Rome, Florence, New York, Istanbul...(the list goes on)....
Every international city has it's own characteristics but ultimately they all share 2 common things, a unique cultural 'vibe' / identity (the style of the buildings, the food you can eat there etc) and 1 other thing: tourism.
London is unique in the fact that it has everything from every place you could ever imagine. London evolved as a series of smaller villages ("hamlets") that all had their own unique characteristics that slowly grew to merge together. Combine that with the British empire and the way the country was in essence founded over many centuries of immigration and pooling of resources from every corner of the world and you have one big melting pot of culture where you can pretty much see, do, buy, eat anything you want to.
They say if you're bored of London you're bored of life, in 30 years I haven't seen everything and I was born here, so how anyone could ever see everything in a week, 2 weeks, month, year I have no idea, you can't call it shit, you're just in the wrong part of London.
I've lived North, South, East and West and I live in Chiswick as of the past 2 years, down the road from where I was born, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else now. There are parts of London I hated living in (especially East London), but each area is so drastically different from another there's always somewhere that will suit someones personality.
The same applies to every other city I've visited, Amsterdam for example is an awesome city in the centre, go to west Amsterdam though and it's a completely different place, it's a fucking shit hole. Does that make Amsterdam shit? No, it doesn't.
Contrary to what people think we're a very chatty city and we do talk to people (it's true everyone's always in a hurry though), all too often people rely on tour guides and manufactured tourism maps to direct them to the usual crap instead of telling you to go off the beaten track, the best way to see a city this size is by asking someone who's from here.
- Dan
They're not talking about a "fresh perspective", but working in a city with amazing infrastructure, which is the financial capital of the world, in the EU (for now :)), and in a great timezone whose business day overlaps with that of the US east coast and many Asian markets. All those things are simply not available in Africa, Latin America, or Asia. What you are saying, regardless of how accurate it is, has very little to do with this discussion :)
London's fantastic if you're rich
Everywhere is fantastic if you're rich.
The majority of CCTV is privately-owned and governed by the Data Protection Act of 1998. Disciplining your children by hitting them is illegal, as it's the last act of desperate, shitty parents. Kids can of course have genital problems - you are just making that up, obviously. It is a good place to live if you are a minority, as it's a very progressive place that doesn't give a shit about such petty bullshit. The Metropolitan Police and armed forces marching in the gay pride parade (in uniform, and officially sanctioned) is a good example of that.
The most common language of London is English (according to the 2011 census 77.9% speak it as their first language), but I guess that doesn't fit in to your "Polish invasion" narrative. Only ~1.9% of Londoners speak Polish as their first language, and many of those speak English.
But it seems you're not really interested in painting a more accurate picture of London...
Why is the parent modded Flamebait? Is there something inaccurate about his post?
It's flamebait because it's xenophobic drivel, or do you really believe Polish is the most common language in London?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"I have investments in various countries from India to Kenya to Colombia, amongst other countries"
Well good luck with that, most people don't do that because of the massively high risk of losing it due to corruption. In Western markets you have a relatively high assurance that you can invest based on your understanding of the market and have your return fit your talent on predicting that.
You don't have that in the countries you list, in Kenya and India your investment is one corrupt government official away from being wiped out.
This is why dealing with corruption is such a big focus by politicians, and India is a prime example of this. 15 years ago we were told India would be a top 3 world economy alongside China and the USA. Instead it's still stuck at 10 despite having over 21x the population and drastically higher land mass and natural resources than the half way further up the ladder France. India is 142nd out of 189 in the ease of doing business index for this reason, and Kenya is 136.
Colombia does much better for sure at 34 however so is indeed a sensible investment - and probably will continue to grow as such now that things finally seem to be calming down in a possible more permanent way with FARC.
So whilst it looks good whilst things are going fine, like DRM corruption in countries like India and Kenya is one of those things that looks harmless until it fucks you, and then that's the end of your investment. They may pay off, but they're incredibly high risk.
I moved from London to somewhere where I can walk to unspoiled moor land from my house.
So you are saying London is nice and all, but you were really expecting moor?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Disciplining your children by hitting them is illegal, as it's the last act of desperate, shitty parents.
I grew up with people who got to occasional well deserves swat on the butt, they are all pretty well adjusted. I see a lot more kids now who are psychologically screwed up because their parents are verbally abusive because they don't do any sort of corporal punishment. As with anything, excess is bad. And you can really screw up someone without ever laying a finger on them.
Speaking as someone who moved to Silicon Valley from London...
Oh god, no, no one wants to be in London.
1) People in the bay area think it's expensive - no, London is expensive. Rents there can be up to 4 times rents in SF. The average is double SF.
2) Pay is lower in London, despite the place being more expensive.
3) The weather is fucking terrible.
4) The people are rude, and unfriendly. Sure, it's not as bad as Paris, but it's much worse than the bay area.
5) It's impossible to get out of the city without travelling for multiple hours (while in the bay area it's typically 10-20 minutes to some open space).
Frankly, I'm very glad that the tech industry is all in the bay area, not in London.
I think it almost never makes much sense, in any topic, to talk purely about the -is- state without taking the changes and developments into consideration that caused this state to be. Paris has changed considerably in the last 20 years. One of the most evident change is the increase in porverty, and this is caused in no small part by immigration.
Why should I not mention immegration as a cause of this development? And what is illogical about saying this?
In fact it is quite meaningful to make this connection, because it provides the information that the majority of French people are still quite well of and that the poverty mainly affects a fringe group of people due to their special circumstances. It tells us that the problem is not mainly the French economy, but the unusually high influx of unqualified laborers who can not find any jobs.
Technically a fjord is a glacier-cut U-shaped valley with the bottom submerged. There are some in Scotland but none that I'm aware of in England.
What about the Ant People? They owe us money.