Tech Workers Think Silicon Valley and Startups Are Losing Their Luster (qz.com)

An anonymous reader shares a Quartz report: The job site Indeed.com found Silicon Valley's hold on tech workers is slipping as opportunities, and the cost of living, changes the equation for living and working in one of the priciest places in the country. "There is more opportunity for tech professionals in more places than ever before," wrote Terence Chiu, vice president of Indeed Prime by email, citing cities such as Austin, Boston, Seattle, and New York City. "Obviously the San Francisco Bay remains the largest tech hub [but] what has made it so attractive has also made it expensive." Indeed's most recent survey of professional tech workers found more than 66% of tech workers say living and working in Silicon Valley is either "not that important" or "not at all important" for a career in technology. Just 12% consider it "very important." Opinions were split on generational lines. About half of millennial tech workers say it's important (26.5%) or very important (19%), but the number declined to 10.2% among the Boomer generation. "Seasoned talent is often searching for opportunity elsewhere," stated the report. New employees may see the high cost of living as an acceptable tradeoff for building up a reputation and experience in the Bay Area, but that seems to fade over time.Recently, Google co-founder Sergey Brin advised people to not come to Silicon Valley to start a business for the very same reasons.

Comments

Telecommuting FTW

[DoofusOfDeath]

I've been telecommuting for the past two years, for a virtual company, and I hope I never need to give it up.

There are some things I miss, in particular (a) my wife not needing to keep our kids somewhat quiet during school vacations, and (b) having a ready-made social life due to being cooped up with coworkers.

But after working out some of the kinks, and with a just a little extra self-discipline, it's so, so worth it.

Even if an employer needs to pay and $5k/year to cover telecommute-specific costs (such as decent video conference equipment, etc.), it seems it must be a win-win for just about everyone involved. (At least for software development jobs. Not sure about other kinds.)

Re:Telecommuting FTW

[bzipitidoo]

I love telecommuting, saves a lot of time and hassle fighting rush hour traffic and maintain a car. Not to mention that it can be far away so one doesn't have to move, a very expensive and life disruptive process. I'm willing to accept quite a bit less pay for a telecommuting position. But it is against most employers' religion, even progressive seeming technology employers such as Google.

Many cling hard to the mindset that workers are lazy slackers who have to be closely monitored to ensure they're working instead of goofing off. Instead of leading and inspiring workers, they use the slave driver approach and push and prod workers. Much harder to push telecommuters, so they simply don't allow it. No doubt many workers would abuse the situation. But it wouldn't last. If the telecommuter doesn't do any work, this is going to be noticed pretty fast. Telecommuters can't get away with much more slacking than office workers, often even less because of the necessity to counter the higher levels of suspicion by working harder.

Then there are the managers who believe a work environment and the close communication it enables is necessary to be highly productive. And, yes there are environments, home environments especially, where doing any work is very difficult thanks to loud, needy family members. But it's hardly an insurmountable problem.

Re:Cost of Living Tradeoffs

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] had insane traffic that would never get better [...]

The only time traffic ever got better in Silicon Valley was when a million people moved out of Silicon Valley after the Dot Com Bust in 2001. That lasted a few years. Saw a similar dip in traffic after the Great Recession in 2009 and 2010, where half my apartment complex stood empty and the leasing office forego its annual rent increases. These days I take the express bus into work to avoid the traffic hassle by paying someone else to drive.

I don't blame them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the situation of a young college grad today; they're entering the workforce loaded on with $80,000+ dollars of debt, ...

You must go to "top" schools to get a job these days. Anecdotal:

At a July 4th party, and someone was complaining about how there is a shortage of CS grads and the bidding war over them. After having been at a recent graduation at a state uni and seeing half the class stand up when the college of computer science was called, I was a bit incredulous. So I asked.

The response was "we only recruit from top colleges."

"MIT, Stanford, ... ?"

"Georgia Tech."

So some really sharp hard working kid who commutes to say Kennesaw State to save money and get the most out of his HOPE Scholarship and not end up in debt for most of his life, will be passed over. I think SHE/HE's the goddamn genius!

Employers are fucking stupid.

I have another ancedote about my 60 year old neighbor who was fired because he didn't go to Stanford and he was "too old to be a programmer" - (lawyer said he couldn't prove it so no case.)

There's a lot of snobbery in this profession now. Even when I started in the 90s, if you didn't have a college degree you were discounted and not hired at many places.

Re:I don't blame them.

[ErichTheRed]

"There's a lot of snobbery in this profession now."

Agreed -- almost no one without a degree is even considered, and you might as well not even try getting hired at a Silicon Valley startup as a new grad unless you went to Stanford, MIT, etc. even if the work you're doing doesn't have anything to do with CS.

I do think that businesses are using the pedigree as more of a filter than anything else. Investment banks and white shoe management consulting firms hire almost exclusively from the Ivy League. A new lawyer has no chance of success unless they get hired by a big corporate law firm, and those jobs _only_ go to the top grads of the top 14 law schools in the country. As in, you've wasted your law school money if you can't get into the Top 14 and graduate at the top of your class. These more traditional professions use their filter to keep the old boys' (and girls') club going. Getting into one of these companies is a guaranteed ticket to riches for life. Tech companies? Probably not...I think they're just trying to beat off a massive pile resumes with a really short-sighted stick. The state university grad is smarter for not blowing their money on an overpriced private school degree, but state universities also graduate a range of students. Some skated through with barely any work, and some worked their asses off to make sure they mastered the material. It's stupid that firms pass on people just because of where they went to school, but when you have thousands of new grads looking for work, what else are they going to do? Interview them all?

It's Dotcom Bubble 2.0, everyone's ignoring it

[ErichTheRed]

The famous quote "those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it" is very applicable here. This exact scenario played out in the late 90s during the build-out of the Internet and the web. The things that are different this time are phones and social media are the primary focus, and the bubble is almost entirely in Silicon Valley this time. (Last time, New York City had a part in this because of the financial ties and the fact that traditional publishers and broadcasters were throwing money at the Internet.)

I think that people are starting to see the top of the bubble and opting not to join startups. Startup culture isn't for the young either; you really have to have the fraternity/sorority member personality type to work there so as people age they're less likely to trade salary for beer pong or free dinner. This will be the third recession that I've been on the sidelines doing "boring" work in old-school companies watching the startup mania from a distance. No one with a family or other responsibilities is going to do startup work as their first choice unless they have massive amounts of savings. Very few people (should be) willing to put up with the terrible commutes, traffic and real estate prices in the Bay Area. (That's coming from a New Yorker, we have the second-most insane housing market and I think it's crazy...$1 million+ for a tiny house a 2-hour one way drive to work? $4500 a month for a 2-bedroom hipster loft in San Francisco? Nope, sorry.)

I think, just like last time, it'll all come crashing down, we'll pick up the cool new stuff that came out of the last bubble (not much this time...), and it'll inflate all over again. I just hope something more useful than advertising algorithms comes out of the next bubble.

Treasure vs. Cruising

[Tablizer]

When you are young and don't yet have a family, you typically want to seek "fame and fortune" and be where the action is. Even if you don't strike it rich, it's where you get experience with the latest trends (or sometimes fads).

When you have a family, or just want stability and convenience, you are happier with something relatively mundane. You worked your ass off for a while, and want to settle into more of a cruise mode as you mature. Working long hours will burn you out eventually. You will have at least one of weight problems, marriage/relationship problems, and/or physical problems like back and hand issues, or just shear boredom from doing the same thing for so long.

The high churn-and-burn rate, and cost of living of the Bay Area and start-ups can wear one down.