Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the new-patterns dept.

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.

99 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Reference? by DavidHumus · · Score: 2

    Not that I'll read it.

    1. Re:Reference? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      https://www.axios.com/tech-job...
      It's to the right of the headline. It's been this way for a while. It's dumb.

    2. Re:Reference? by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Reference? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I like my guns and enjoy very lax regulations here,

      Country mouse and city mouse have different problems, which are solved with different solutions. As well, in some cases what people do in their yard has significant effects on what happens in other people's yards. You may not have to sort your trash, but it's still illegal for you to burn plastic. You don't get a tailpipe test because you don't have enough tailpipes to matter much, but you still have to deal with basic federal emissions regulations (it's still illegal for you to remove original emissions equipment, for example, and there are various mechanisms by which you might get caught and fined) because if a large enough percentage of your population cheated badly enough at emissions, it would make a difference.

      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.

      But there is a federal mandate on fucking everything. For the most part, states simply place additional restrictions, because they don't feel that the federal guidelines go far enough. Every state has its own version of this, designed to suppress or oppress a different group.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Reference? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Alex: "This town has guns, garbage, daiquiri's, and easy car inspections."

      BZZZT. "What is 'New Orleans', Alex?"

    5. Re:Reference? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      As always, there's a link next to the headline, but the "article" is little more than a worthless summary of the original article. The original article has quite a bit more information, with the headlining statistic being their breakdown of the share of tech job listings that each of eight regions has:

      1. San Jose: 19.2%, -5.9% from 2016
      2. Washington D.C.: 17.4%, +4.5% from 2016
      3. Baltimore: 12.8%, +3.4% from 2016
      4. Seattle: 12.5%, +10.7% from 2016
      5. Raleigh: 11.1%, -14.6% from 2016
      6. San Francisco: 10.9%, -7.8% from 2016
      7. Austin: 9.9%, -0.3% from 2016
      8. Boston: 9.4%, -6.8% from 2016

      So, the San Jose region's share of tech job listings is 19.2% this year, which is a decrease of 5.9% from last year, and so on.

    6. Re:Reference? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Well, gun laws are pretty lax up here, the only thing you can't get are fully automatic weapons.

      You have to go to Oregon for those. It's why all the blank fire WW2 re-enactments happen there. Guys get to bring out their Brens and MG43s.

    7. Re: Reference? by fubarrr · · Score: 1

      Peope in Seattle are so logical

    8. Re:Reference? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Country mouse and city mouse have different problems

      Well, I live in New Orleans...I'd not call it exactly a very tiny rural town...especially with the adjoining suburbs....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Reference? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Alex: "This town has guns, garbage, daiquiri's, and easy car inspections." BZZZT. "What is 'New Orleans', Alex?"

      And you WIN Final Jeopardy!!

      ;)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Reference? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Cheers!

    11. Re:Reference? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, I live in New Orleans...I'd not call it exactly a very tiny rural town...especially with the adjoining suburbs...

      It's not a town, it's a disaster area. I hope nobody paid you to stay, because that should be a crime.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Reference? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      It's not a town, it's a disaster area. I hope nobody paid you to stay, because that should be a crime.

      hmm...not sure why you say that?

      Sure it has some unique problems, mostly due to some high poverty areas, but has improved since we started getting rid of a lot of the projects throughout the city, which started before Katrina.

      But most everyone that lives here LOVES it...cost of living items like food, and drink (haha) are cheap...seafood is plentiful year round, there is all kinds of sportsman activities, especially fishing, crabbing, etc.

      And there is ALWAYS something going on here...a festival, at least one almost every week...music ones, cooking ones...art ones...etc.

      and the people...to me, that's the best part. People here that might not have a shirt to give you off their back...will still do so. Friendly, and good to be with...people you can trust and count on...you get to know your neighbors here, which I think is nice, and something that is missing these days in other cities and communities.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Reference? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem is not the community, which by all accounts is wonderful. It's the location. If you could pick it up and move it all to someplace that wasn't just going to get wiped out again, I'd cheer it along.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Reference? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      The problem is not the community, which by all accounts is wonderful. It's the location. If you could pick it up and move it all to someplace that wasn't just going to get wiped out again, I'd cheer it along.

      Well, that's the thing...we weren't wiped out.

      Hell, a year after Katrina, we had more restaurants than we had before Katrina.

      The areas that got really devastated, most of them, were in need of flushing out anyway. They were built on swamp land that was never a safe place.

      New Orleans is older than the US itself. And its location is actually quite strategic...being at the mouth of the MS river. It is here to house one of the largest ports in the US.

      It is also uniquely set up for helping to bring oil in from the gulf, not to mention, provide for close to 1/3 of the US's seafood.

      The areas in New Orleans proper...the original areas that were built up by the settlers almost 300 years go..actually didn't really flood much.

      Even the areas with more damage...near the 17th street canal, near good neighborhoods...lots of parts in there survived, and it didn't take but a couple of years to where you really couldn't tell there was a Katrina flood, in the areas of town that are original, or were and still remain productive and vibrant.

      Areas like New Orleans East, the 9th ward, etc...those were dead areas before the storm, the floods just washed a lot of the trash away, and the city is better for it. Poverty and crime is all those areas housed and so, not missing that at all.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re: Reference? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It's actually not there, on mobile. There is no link.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Original Article by VorpalRodent · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not stated in the summary for some reason, but here's the article: http://www.hiringlab.org/2017/07/25/next-silicon-valley/

    --
    Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
  3. Priced out. by Templer421 · · Score: 1

    Cost of living there could not continue to infinity.

  4. That'll change too by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:That'll change too by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

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

      Rate things are going, neither is Portland. :/

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:That'll change too by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:That'll change too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:That'll change too by sootman · · Score: 1

      "Silicon Valley is on the decline..."

      Citation needed. AFAIK everything in the Bay Area continues to get more expensive, not less. That is not a typical indication of "on the decline."

      Call me when shit ACTUALLY goes down. Until then, it's like the old joke, "No one goes there anymore -- it's always too crowded."

      In other news, why the fuck are all the tables in that article images?!?

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    5. Re:That'll change too by eepok · · Score: 2

      THIS! The greatest myth of attracting large employers is that they won't move to City A because taxes are "too high". The truth is that neither their big money earners want to live there nor do they think they'll be able to attract the necessary skilled employee pool.

      People want to live in nice places and, as Seattle, San Diego, Orange County, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Portland, etc. all show, they'll pay for it. They'll pay for transit. They'll pay for good schools. They'll pay for bikeability. They'll pay for wide sidewalks, shade trees, and farmer's markets. But those things actually have to exist in some way, shape, or form first.

      If you try to make your city a tax-free zone, you prevent ALL THOSE SERVICES from developing and thus you will never attract new businesses that actually employ people.

    6. Re:That'll change too by avandesande · · Score: 1

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

      Really? It's 40 minute commute from Tacoma and there are tons of 200k houses there. It is not even close to being like SV.....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    7. Re:That'll change too by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Remember, San Francisco is not Silicon Valley, and it's not a tech hub unless you count web stuff.

    8. Re:That'll change too by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      No, sorry, all the issues you cite are not what the big tech companies care about, they care about two things:
      1. their costs (which include labor costs) and they care about
      2. labor availability.

      The primary reason that Silicon Valley is what it is is due to the large pool of talent that exists there. You are much more likely to get an on-shoring factory to come to your town than an actual tech company, because the factory requires far fewer people with advanced degrees to run than the core business of something like Apple or Google who needs literally thousands of MS/PhD degreed people to work on the various projects.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    9. Re:That'll change too by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      One good way to train such a model would be to give out surveys where people rate the relative importance of things.

      That's likely not going to get you anything useful. What it gets you is a survey of what people think is best for them. And they're not right a lot of the time, because few people are investors and visionaries. Most people are short-term practical people.
       
      As an example, traffic is getting worse and worse in my little city. Everyone is talking about how we can improve the roads and highways, we're widening some, improving intersections at others, but nobody is really talking about public transportation. What we need are a couple of light rail lines from the growing suburbs to downtown and the job hubs. That would likely fix a lot of the traffic problems. But that requires people to think longer-term, and rethink how they go about their daily life.
       
      Instead of spending 25 minutes, now 30, now 35 minutes in the car commuting, they need to think about catching a 5 min bus ride, then sitting and checking email for 20 min before getting off near work. But that's far harder to wrap your head around than "I wish I could shave 10 minutes off my drive to work". Survey people, and they want less traffic congestion and a better drive to work. That frankly can't happen without public transportation, but nobody wants that.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    10. Re:That'll change too by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Your assuming they want to fix things for people and not just line their own pockets.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    11. Re: That'll change too by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      When tech workers are paying half their incomes to RENT an apartment, I wouldn't call those incomes "insane". Unless you mean "insanely low relative local cost of living".

      Yes, inequality and economic disparity are a BIG problem. The solution, however, is not to let tech pay relative cost of living stagnate even more than it already has. (Tech wages have been stagnant for a decade, while cost of living more than doubled.)

      What drives the high cost of living? First and foremost, the cost of housing. Which in turn is driven up by increasing consolidation of ownership (private equity firms), unsustainable debt financing, and extreme restrictions on new construction. Probably in about that order of importance, but that's debatable.

      Incidentally, if we tech workers ever manage to organize ourselves into a union / guild / "professional association" we'll be able to stand in solidarity with our brethren in non-tech jobs when they demand for more pay. Solidarity across companies, industries, and professions makes a strike a hell of a lot more effective.

  5. What is a Tech Hub? by bit+trollent · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think there is a bit of a flaw in the way this indeed survey and others identify national tech hubs.

    According to this survey, the top tech hubs have the highest percentage of their job listings advertising for tech jobs. This disregards the actual total number of tech jobs.

    For example, Austin is considered a tech hub in this last while Dallas is not, but Dallas has way more tech jobs than Austin, which is a smaller city. The difference is that Dallas has a very diversified economy, so the percentage of job listings for tech is lower.

    Personally, I'm more interested in the tech hubs that are part of a larger diversified market. Just like a diversified portfolio protects you from losing money from fluctuations in the market, a diverse economy protects your ability to find a local job when your industry takes a downturn.

    1. Re:What is a Tech Hub? by buddyglass · · Score: 2

      Having is more jobs is nice because there's more variety, but what I care about as someone who wants to have an easy time finding and keeping a job (and who wants to be paid well) is the number of jobs relative to the number of qualified workers . I'm not convinced the situation is better in Dallas than in Austin.

    2. Re:What is a Tech Hub? by mikael · · Score: 1

      The worst thing I heard about Dallas and other cities was the danger of "home invasions". This is from coffee table tech discussions. Then there is the hire-and-fire policies. California does have some employee protections.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:What is a Tech Hub? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If you've got engineering skills then you normally want to go to a new engineering job. An engineer doesn't fit in well with a bank for instance. Sure, if the tech economy goes bust there then at least you can start over as an 50 year old underpaid junior employee.

    4. Re:What is a Tech Hub? by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      What - banks don't hire programmers?

    5. Re:What is a Tech Hub? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Engineers. Silicon Valley is a lot more than programmers. And if they banks do hire programmers, they'll be at the corporate office and not in Dallas.

    6. Re:What is a Tech Hub? by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      I'll have to tell my software engineer friends that work for banks in Dallas that there aren't any tech jobs in the banking sector here.

      Probably should tell myself that software engineering position at a bank that I turned down a few years ago never really existed.

      I don't think Texas is greatest place on earth or anything - I'll leave that to people far more pretentious than I am - but here is a news flash for you.

      The corporate office is in Texas... That's what a diversified economy is all about.

    7. Re:What is a Tech Hub? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Ok, what engineering jobs are there in banks? They make devices, design circuits, write low level code, build bridges, ...?

    8. Re:What is a Tech Hub? by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      Banks perform real-time mission critical financial transactions over a global network that can essentially never go down. I'm sure there are some engineering challenges there if you look for them.

      It sounds like you'd rather make devices and do low level code.

      Perhaps you would like to work on a new processor designed to handle radar data in self driving cars.

      Texas Instruments may be a good fit.

      Designing new processor isn't your thing? You want to be an engineer that builds bridges - great.. there are tons of engineering companies in Dallas. If bridges aren't difficult and flammable enough for you, design undersea rovers for an oil company, or help them engineer the cutting edge tools that they use in their day to day operation.

    9. Re:What is a Tech Hub? by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 2
      Exactly this ^^^

      I've been working in Denver for the past four years. I recently did a job search and ended up getting far underpaid and underemployed because despite Denver's reputation as a "tech city", the market is awash in more candidates than there are jobs.

      This week, I advertised myself to be available in other markets in the hope of getting a better job and my phone and e-mail immediately blew up. It looks as if even in Salt Lake, there are more hiring managers seeking candidates than there are here in Denver.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    10. Re:What is a Tech Hub? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      There are tons of companies who are desperate for highly skilled engineers and will bend over backwards to get them -- but have problems because they are not engineering companies.

      I highly recommend engineers, particularly new ones, to investigate these situations. Such companies often offer challenges, benefits, and a degree of freedom that no engineering firm can even come close to.

      An engineer typically wants to do engineering on interesting projects. Such projects are more difficult to find in traditional engineering outfits.

    11. Re:What is a Tech Hub? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Yes, some of them do.

  6. Re:Recruit it em from school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    If you're laid off at 30, it's your own fault for not keeping your skills up and for not following trends to stay in demand.

  7. Seattle = worse than Calif by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Informative

    California has earthquakes, but Seattle has earthquakes PLUS volcanoes. Seattle is in the Cascadia Subduction Zone, which makes the San Andreas fault look weak and puny. So yeah, your chance of dying in a natural disaster just quintupled by moving from Palo Alto to Seattle.

    1. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've lived in both Palo Alto and currently Seattle. I've yet to feel a single earthquake in my 10 years here, and Mt Ranier (if it erupted) is more of a threat to the southern suburbs than the city or it's northern suburbs where the tech sector is strongest.

    2. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Informative

      CA gets more small and medium earthquakes like the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquake, but Seattle area has more potential for mega earthquakes of biblical proportions.

    3. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      But WA State has no income tax, lower property taxes, about equal sales tax, and a lot less debt-per-capita as compared to CA. CA has much better weather, though - I was born and raised in Seattle, but now reside in SoCal where we complain about our 30 days a year of rain...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Your Bible-Fu is weak...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      California has earthquakes, but Seattle has earthquakes PLUS volcanoes.

      You probably have not heard of Lake county, California. It's one of the most volcanically active places on the planet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

      California has earthquakes, but Seattle has earthquakes PLUS volcanoes. Seattle is in the Cascadia Subduction Zone, which makes the San Andreas fault look weak and puny. So yeah, your chance of dying in a natural disaster just quintupled by moving from Palo Alto to Seattle.

      Still better than living in the pit of snakes that is the Washington DC Metropolitan Area.

    8. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Not true. Seattle does have an income tax.

      Now stop moving here!

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    9. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down.

      A volcano is not threatening Seattle, and quakes are far more likely in California than Seattle.

      Actually, that is true. We are both on two active fault lines (Seattle fault and another recent one), and subject to Rainier Mountain (an active volcano) going off, which it does every 200-250 years which was 240 years ... um, hey, who wants to buy my $1,000,000 townhouse?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    10. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      California has earthquakes, but Seattle has earthquakes PLUS volcanoes. Seattle is in the Cascadia Subduction Zone, which makes the San Andreas fault look weak and puny. So yeah, your chance of dying in a natural disaster just quintupled by moving from Palo Alto to Seattle.

      Yep. Horrible here! Do not come! Too many people, too dangerous. If more people move here it might set off the eathquakes which will set off the volcano. Stay in CA.

    11. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by painandgreed · · Score: 1

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

      Rainier goes off once every 300 years or so. Last one was in recorded history by European explorers. About due for another one. Others in the area go off every 500 years or so, and again, could be about that time.

    12. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      I've lived in both Palo Alto and currently Seattle. I've yet to feel a single earthquake in my 10 years here...

      Last one in Seattle was in 2001 and it effectively shut down the city for the day as everybody had to go home to check their gas lines and some buildings had to be condemed. There were at least three more in the six years before that that were easily noticed by people as everything in the building they were in started to shake. That we haven't had oen in 16 years is making me nervous.

    13. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Seattle THINKS it has an income tax. WA Constitution Article 7, sections 1 and 2 state that any tax on income must be uniform (meaning - no minimum income level, no progressive levels, it's on every penny from the first to billionth and beyond), and it cannot be more than 1%. Seattle's "law" fails on both counts - and it will be struck down by the State Supreme Court as has happened consistently in Washington over the last 80 years. Yes, I lived there, and that was one of the things I loved about WA (but the B&O tax, on the other hand, sucked for small businesses).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    14. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by chispito · · Score: 1

      California has earthquakes, but Seattle has earthquakes PLUS volcanoes. Seattle is in the Cascadia Subduction Zone, which makes the San Andreas fault look weak and puny. So yeah, your chance of dying in a natural disaster just quintupled by moving from Palo Alto to Seattle.

      That's all fine and good but you really only need to bring up the weather to convince most people.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    15. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Seattle THINKS it has an income tax. WA Constitution Article 7, sections 1 and 2 state that any tax on income must be uniform (meaning - no minimum income level, no progressive levels, it's on every penny from the first to billionth and beyond), and it cannot be more than 1%. Seattle's "law" fails on both counts - and it will be struck down by the State Supreme Court as has happened consistently in Washington over the last 80 years. Yes, I lived there, and that was one of the things I loved about WA (but the B&O tax, on the other hand, sucked for small businesses).

      Which it is. Flat tax with one standard $250,000 per adult earner exclusion.

      I've been 100/100 on the WA Constitution so far. It's kind of funny watching you guys who fell asleep in your civics classes getting p0wnd by someone who was in the Canadian Army and only moved here when he was 30 (born in US), because you don't actually bother reading your own state constitution. Or your own laws.

      Agree about the B&O tax.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    16. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Actually, we're in the middle of the eruption zone, when the stocastic mud flow burns half of Mercer Island, all of Kent and Renton, and half of downtown to a hot flaming crisp.

      No worries, mate.

      There's a UW alert system that gives you 90 seconds warning when that happens, but you can't outrun the boiling, flaming mud covered by hot gas that puts you to sleep, as it moves almost as fast as a plane does and goes over things.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    17. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Actually, California wouldn't get much of a tsunami from a quake in the CSZ, because it's coastline is parallel or at a negative angle to the path that the pulse wave would take. Take a look at California on a spherical map. Eureka and Trinidad would get clobbered, but everything south of the cape of California would be shielded from most of a tsunami (and most of California is south of that).

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    18. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      It's the sales tax that puts me off. I hate sales tax with an extreme passion -- not because of the tax itself, but because nobody seems to include the tax in the marked prices, forcing me to constantly do math in order to figure out what something really costs.

    19. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      dead is dead. not sure it matters, we can't even rescue the kids in daycare and grade school when that happens.

      but, hey, you go stand in front of boiling scurf and tell me what it feels like - I'll be over here

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    20. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I read Seattle internet access is like 20th century dialup.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    21. Re:Seattle = worse than Calif by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      It's higher than 1% (fail), and it is not uniform (the State Supreme Court has consistently ruled over the last 100 years that uniform means NO deductions, no minimum thresholds, must be applied to the entire value of what is being taxed, not a portion thereof). It's a fail through and through.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  8. Re:*facepalm* Oh, editors... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I fucking hate people who do that shit.

    Have some Spam with Black Pepper for your whine.

  9. Portland, OR by linuxguy · · Score: 1

    Portland, OR is benefiting from the Bay area tech job departure to some degree. Tech jobs here are increasing and the real estate prices are going up. But they are still way way below Seattle or Bay area prices. I frequently have to travel to Bay area for work. That place is just nuts. I simply do not understand how so many there can afford the rent or mortgage.

    1. Re:Portland, OR by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      It's called "working for long term loss"

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  10. dyslexia in adults by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did anyone else read that as, "Seattle is in the Canadian Abduction Zone" and think Canadians were being held hostage in exchange for maple syrup? ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:dyslexia in adults by mikael · · Score: 1

      They get bundled into a van with blacked out windows, driven to a reservation casino and have to play until they win the grand prize of a mounted moose head.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  11. Migrating from startups to established companies by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that people are moving away from crazy web startup land to more established companies? Microsoft is poised to become the new IBM in terms of lock-in and guaranteed revenue with Azure, and Amazon has their tentacles in everything including AWS these days. Both are very close to becoming monopolies (again) raking in large amounts of money at a constant rate. Talk about a good place to find a stable job where companies have enough cash on hand to treat employees well...the opposite of post-bubble VC funding that's coming to Silicon Valley.

    I like Seattle, but I wouldn't want to move across the country just to have the same insane cost of living I already have in New York. The Californians moving north are probably driving the increase in prices -- average SV techies make $200K+ and many are selling a million-dollar plus house. Microsoft and Amazon are going to have to at least match the SV salary plus pay for relocation.

  12. Too Expensive by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:Too Expensive by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly. I paid $163,000 in 2013 for a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1768 sqft home on a third of an acre. I have a 7 minute commute at 30 mph to get to work, the software company I work for has for the last several years been rated as one of the best places to work in Texas, and I make enough that my family can live quite comfortably off my salary alone, despite only being in the workforce for a few years.

      Why would I move to a place where the same home on less land with a worse commute could cost me upwards of 8x what I paid here, but wouldn't come with a salary to match? What with the startup culture of workaholism on top of that, I see those tech hubs as only being for uninformed people who want to play the startup unicorn lottery or those who are willing to sacrifice a lot in order to work on a particular problem or at a particular company. Otherwise, I just don't get it.

    2. Re:Too Expensive by painandgreed · · Score: 1

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

      Current businesses and high tech industry require large pools of trained possible employees. Those just don't exist outside the hubs unless you want to hire and train people which businesses don't want to do because they'll just leave for a better job. They can't attract people outside of the hubs in sufficient numbers because typically, those people living in the hubs like it there and moved there before looking for a job. Currently, they (businesses or the empolyees) don't even seem to be moving to places like Tacoma which is a sizable city thirty miles away with rents one quarter what they are in Seattle. I don't see them moving to Nashville or Buffalo anytime soon.

    3. Re:Too Expensive by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      You lost me at Texas. I lived in Texas for many years. It's a racist, redneck backwater, lacking both culture and world perspective.

      No thanks.

      Some parts are, sure. Most isn't any better or worse than anywhere else. Having lived in California, (south) Florida, and Texas, I'd take Texas any day. Even so, you don't have to choose to live here. There are plenty of other places with similar costs of living and similar job opportunities. Choose any of them. The point is just that you don't choose a crazy expensive place.

    4. Re:Too Expensive by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      In other words, it is a place where you don't have to worry about a high pot smoker running you off the road.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    5. Re:Too Expensive by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      In tech, any skills trained more than four months ago aren't exactly useless, but close. Since any employee you are going to train anyway is going to require training, it is much cheaper to do that at a lower rate of pay- made possible by lower rents and mortgages.

      I would not invest in a business that wastes money on looking for the perfect workforce already trained. It's a waste of resources.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  13. Re:Recruit it em from school by DavidHumus · · Score: 2

    'Cuz no age discrimination? Just keep repeating this as you pass 40 and so on....

  14. Re:Wages are lower in Seattle and housing is cheap by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    SV has the best weather? You can keep it... I prefer Ventura, much more moderate temps year round, more sun - and water you can actually surf!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  15. Last one to leave... turn out the lights by sl3xd · · Score: 1

    Not a bad time to mention the other side of the coin: Will the last person to Seattle- Turn out the lights.

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  16. Doesn't match observation by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    You get in a traffic jam on 237 at 6:05 am and tell me jobs are fleeing. To avoid traffic you need to get up at 4 AM and leave work at 1 PM.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  17. Re:Wages are lower in Seattle and housing is cheap by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    SV has the best weather on the planet give or take

    What? Who told you that? There's dozens of towns in California alone with better weather. Most of them are on the coast; Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel, and San Diego all spring immediately to mind. The weather in the valley ain't even on the top ten list. It's way too goddamned hot there.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. Re:*facepalm* Oh, editors... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    you sound obese, bro

    I'm ten pounds lighter. Bitch about something else.

  19. This is totally fake by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Seriously, this is totally fake.

    Look, if you believe this, you'll believe we have a $15/hr minimum wage, and grew from 600,000 to 700,000 people since 2010, and will be 1,000,000 people by 2040. And that we have (looks out the window), 45 construction cranes building new 6-100 story buildings in Seattle itself, and more on the Eastside.

    Totally made up.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  20. Minimum Wage by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Must be that $15 minimum wage.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Who wants to live in SV? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    You couldn't pay me enough to live in Silicon Valley. Seattle is a much nicer place to live -- at least for now.

  24. Re:Recruit it em from school by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    I'm over 50 and while there certainly is age discrimination, it's not really that hard to overcome. You just have to keep doing what you had to do in your 20s -- keep your skills up and stay flexible. It also helps to avoid companies and regions that think there's some sort of expiration date on being a great engineer.

  25. Meanwhile... by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    I grew up in the trailer parks of Issaquah/Bellevue/Redmond. When I was in gradeschool we toured the MS campus in Redmond. They told us we were the future, not, over the past decade, I've found myself priced out of my hometown for miles in all directions..... These implants are bringing all the stupid-ass laws with them up from Cali too. I'm not even allowed to smoke in my own car anymore.

    A few things that have happened over the past 5 years...

    Tolling bridges to Seattle.
    Tripling of bus-fare.
    Sin-tax on booze a smokes.
    Sin tax on carbonated beverages.
    My rent has increased 40%
    Malls and shopping centers growing like weeds.
    Legalized recreational pot-smoking.

    I'm hoping for another bubble busting so I can watch all of the hodey-hodey-ho Seattle tech workers forced back into that old job at McStarbucks so they can finally reap what they've sown.

    Or maybe tightening of the foreign work visa programs so some local boys and girls can join in the fun. Seriously, Bellevue, and Redmond have become so predominately Indian it's hard to believe MS is even giving lip service to the rules. I have a few friends who have refused to move away (it really is a stunningly beautiful place to call home) and each and every one of them is contracting at various tech companies, constantly hunting for the next contract, and barley scraping by. These guys have degrees, portfolios, and experience. It makes no difference.

    Seriously, even if I suddenly start pulling 1m+/year, I'll still not be able to afford a home across from the trailerpark I grew up in.

    I really love the pacific NW, but I'm certain I'll soon be forced to leave, but hey, thanks for all the spiffy tech jobs.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  26. Re: California has bad politics by nctritech · · Score: 1

    I don't know if this is what you meant by "home" but this is a residence that exists in the area and is under $400K. https://www.zillow.com/homes/f...

    I would seriously love to hear about why this absurdly cheap seaside trailer is not a good place to purchase. I enjoy learning that kind of thing. "Trailer park" is obvious, but what else do you notice?

  27. See Detroit by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Just because they are not all moving immediately, or all at once, does not mean it's not happening. Detroit was the Technical center of automotive for a very long time, and the crash took a couple decades. It happened, despite all of the politicians and unions claiming it was impossible. Those wheels were turning for a very long time and Detroit and Michigan ignored the warning signs. More and more taxes, more and more regulations and fees. Once the automotive companies established outside of Michigan, it took only a few years to evacuate everything.

    If you don't like the Detroit example, try Pennsylvania or West Virginia.

    The majority of growth in the big tech companies is not happening in SV. Much is going to Texas and other southern states with lower taxes and as with most IT a lot is going overseas. Jobs here are not growing much if at all (depends on who's reports you read) and that stagnation isn't a good sign.

    Your argument is fallacious logic, relying on an untruth that there are only two options. Dying Rust Belt|East Bumfuck or Massively taxed regions like Seattle or Silicon valley. I refuse to list the myriad of cities in the US in between those extremes.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:See Detroit by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Pennsylvania and Detroit both have alot of tech jobs. Their city problems have more to do with white flight and the decline of manufacturing.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    2. Re:See Detroit by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Come from Detroit like I did, and then talk. The Metro Detroit area has about 5% of the tech jobs it had in the late 80s early 90s.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  28. Re:Why not get really out there? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Real estate prices and tax breaks (or rates) are not major drivers for me when I'm figuring where I'm willing to work.

    Overall quality of life is. Idaho might be wonderful -- I've never spent any serious time there, so I have no idea. Because of that, I wouldn't take a permanent job there for fear that I'd hate the area.

    I would, however, consider a short contract position there so I'd have a fixed end-date in case the area turned out not to be to my liking.

  29. Re: Why not get really out there? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Really??

    That immediately rules out Idaho for me, no matter how nice it may be.

  30. "taxes too high" is a bankrupt expression by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    People arguing taxes too high are like those arguing helicopter sales are not plentiful because they are gas guzzlers. If you can't afford the housing in Silicon Valley, taxes are a non-issue.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  31. Re:Good for Seattle! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Half of the 21 candidates for Mayor are women and half are POC.

    Maybe you should realize we elect our Mayor in odd years. Like years when whiny suburbanites complain about a city they don't live in, and they take 2 hours to commute to, while we walk and bike to work faster than their cars can move. And the primary is by mail, so it's 40 percent done already.

    Feel free to not move here. We'll be sitting in our houseboats on Lake Union, drinking a cold craft beer or local cider or local wine and laughing at you.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  32. Re: Wages are lower in Seattle and housing is chea by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    If I ever move back to Cali, I'll take the city of Los Angeles, thanks very much.

    Best weather in the world. Actual culture - because of the movie industry, LA is effectively the subconscious mind off the entire anglophone world. The average woman is an order of magnitude more attractive than in SF, and people in general are way more friendly.

    SF still has better public transport. But LA is building subways faster than any other city in America, whereas SF now takes 20+ years to build a 2 mile "stubway". And Uber means you can go to the bar in LA without recruiting a designated driver or living in fear of the gestapo.