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.

11 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. 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.
  2. 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 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. 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.

  4. 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 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.

    2. 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?
  5. 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.........
  6. 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.
  7. 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.