Tech Jobs Are Surging in Seattle, Declining in Silicon Valley (axios.com)

The number of posted tech jobs rose by 10.7 percent in the first half of the year from 2016 in the Seattle area, as eight tech hubs continue to dominate the U.S. technology industry, according to a new study by Indeed. From a report: But while Silicon Valley retains its spot as the premier technological center in the U.S., tech listings plunged by 5.9 percent in the western and southern valley around San Jose in the first half of the year, and an even higher 7.8 percent in San Francisco and along the eastern Bay Area, Indeed said. Raleigh, NC, saw the largest plummet, with tech listings dropping by 14.6 percent.

Comments

Recruit it em from school

[Anonymous Coward]

Recruit'em from school and when they hit 30 something, lay'em off.

Rinse - repeat.

Keep'em young stupid and willing to kill themselves living to work.

The American way! Churn'em and burn'em!!

Why yes, I am a Silicon Valley entrepreneur! I was a used car salesman - but I was fired for ethics violations. I then became a real estate salemen and worked for Goldman Sachs who fired me because I wan't ethical to their standards.

But I fit right in here in SV!

That'll change too

[s.petry]

Silicon Valley is on the decline because property is too expensive, taxes are too high, and the overall cost of living is higher than anywhere else in the US. Rent on a 1bdr apartment in SF will cost you 60K/yr, which is why you will find 1bdr apartments housing 6-8 adults regularly.

Seattle isn't far behind in terms all the down sides of Silicon Valley.

When companies can't hire people or pay too much in taxes themselves, they move to locations where they can do better. Nothing new here. Politicians still don't recognize the failures of their policies, and people still vote in the same ole crap politicians.

Re:That'll change too

[jeff4747]

When companies can't hire people or pay too much in taxes themselves, they move to locations where they can do better.

That has been the case for literally decades. Yet they are not moving to East Bumfuck for the cheap taxes and labor.

It's almost like there are things in addition to taxes that drive these decisions.

I lived in a dying rust-belt city. The people there were absolutely sure they could low-tax and low-cost-of-labor their way into a bunch of new factories/industries. They got none. But they are very sure that if they keep doing the same thing, it'll work.

It turns out the people managing these organizations did not want to move to a dying rust-belt city, send their kids to the awful underfunded schools (but taxes are low!) and deal with the poorly-maintained streets (but taxes are low!), or walk past the crack pipe display to pay for gas at the local Exxon station (can't afford those fancy pay-at-the-pump pumps)

And it turns out it's also difficult to get the highly-skilled employees they need to accept that environment too, leading to massive staffing issues and paying Silicon Valley-like rates to get people to move there.

So you actually get no labor cost savings, and you have to make up for a lot of services not provided by the government due to low taxes. And if you decide your management doesn't actually have to be there to manage, there's always a poorer country that will be even cheaper than East Bumfuck.

Re:That'll change too

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your post (meaning, the main reason behind the decline), though will say that there are other reasons as well. Preface: I've lived in Silicon Valley for 20 years as a tech worker, and I'm not native to this area.

Particularly when discussing issues like rent, or "localised" issues, it's important readers understand San Francisco != Silicon Valley. I can't speak for rental prices in SF, but I *can* speak for areas such as Mountain View, which has been considered the "core" of Silicon Valley for several decades. I know about 1BD/1BA places, since I'm single and without kids. Rent specifically in MV varies greatly, with deltas as much as US$2000/month, depending on location; you can find a place in what's colloquially known as "Old Mountain View" for $2000/m, but it will be 700 sqft, built in the 1950s (i.e. 10A electrical circuits and wiring, 2-prong electrical outlets without ground, extremely bad insulation (hot during summers, cold during winters, i.e. expect an electric bill 2-3x higher than elsewhere)), lack air conditioning and laundry facilities, etc.. Drive half a mile and you can find a $3200/m apartment, corporate-owned, rebuilt in the late 80s or 90s, which has aircon, laundry facilities, a gym, pool, decent insulation, etc..

One of the major problems we have in MV is massive economic disparity. Anyone who doesn't work in the tech sector can't afford to live here; minimum wage in MV is $13.00/hr (comparatively, Santa Clara county is $11.10/hr). Landlords don't care about this -- what they do is look at the competing rental costs across town, think "oh wow, I can make $500/m more!" and proceed to increase rent dramatically. They don't care that their building may be extremely old -- they know it doesn't matter because a new 20-something will rent it (and it's true, they would).

This situation prompted at least 2 separate large-scale protests last year on Castro Street (on which City Hall is located). The result of those protests: as of 2017, Mountain View now has rent control: only one increase per year and at no more than 3.4%. This combats drastic rent increases and landlords skyrocketing rent after a substantially-lower-rent tenant moves out.

But here's the ruse: non-tech workers aren't being given a 3.4% raise per year, while tech workers don't care about rent in general (when tech workers make $175K/year they really don't care if 25% or even 40% of their gross income goes to rent). I call the latter "Bay Area Syndrome", and it's very easy for someone foreign to the area to quickly fall victim to this trait (thinking money grows on trees / ignoring the situation because they make a lot of money). I can't speak for others, but I've stuck to my Pacific northwestern roots fairly well.

All of this is a direct result of the insane wages tech industry workers are being paid. A landlord can choose to be reasonable and increase rent at tolerable amounts (say $20-30/year), but they've historically chosen not to. Who's truly to blame (tech companies vs. landlords) is highly subjective. As a data point: my landlord has increased my rent every year by about 6% (for the first couple years), and 8% for the past 3, excluding this year.

I imagine places like Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara are in similar situations. And I would think Seattle will eventually have this same problem, given how prolific Amazon is. The only place I know of that's more expensive than SF and Silicon Valley, rent-wise, is NYC.

Re:Reference?

[cayenne8]

Hey, whatever floats a persons' boat.

I'd rather stay where I am...not quite taxed to the bejesus....and more freedom.

I like my guns and enjoy very lax regulations here, I like not being forced to sort my garbage, you can, but you are still free to just put one can out for the garbagemen. No "sniff" test on my car for an inspection....hell, and where I live, I can go to a bar 24/7, or buy beer, wine or liquor in a grocery store 7 days a week....drive through daiquiri stores, and no one has much a hangup about who you are, etc....

I find it a very good thing that different states can mostly self regulate and have the laws their citizens enjoy, rather than a one size fits all federal mandate on fucking everything.

Let's keep it that way, eh?

Have fun in Seatle....I'll come to visit, but not wanting to live there. I'm sure many out there feel then same about here.

No problem, nice to be free to choose in the US.

Too Expensive

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Even tech people require housing. The smart investment money should be OUTSIDE of the hubs, which have become overpriced.

Re:Seattle = worse than Calif

[Penguinisto]

Mt. St. Helens is a long way off, and nothing near Seattle has gone off in what, 10,000+ years?

The Cascadia Subduction Zone goes off, and the tsunamis it'll generate will make nowhere on the West Coast (or Japan, China, etc) a very safe place to be.