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

Reference?

[DavidHumus]

Not that I'll read it.

Re:Reference?

[sexconker]

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.

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.

Re:Reference?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Original Article

[VorpalRodent]

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

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:That'll change too

[eepok]

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.

What is a Tech Hub?

[bit trollent]

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.

Re:What is a Tech Hub?

[buddyglass]

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.

Re:What is a Tech Hub?

[rock_climbing_guy]

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.

Seattle = worse than Calif

[Spy Handler]

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.

Re:Seattle = worse than Calif

[Dutchmaan]

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.

Re:Seattle = worse than Calif

[Spy Handler]

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.

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.

dyslexia in adults

[Gravis Zero]

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? ;)

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:Too Expensive

[Anubis IV]

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.

Re:Too Expensive

[Anubis IV]

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.

Re:Recruit it em from school

[DavidHumus]

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

This is totally fake

[WillAffleckUW]

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.