7 ms·
So, which came first to the bay area? the engineers, or the companies? Are we at a point where most people move in to the bay area for work? Or is it the other
by xtrapolate 8y ago
So, which came first to the bay area? the engineers, or the companies? Are we at a point where most people move in to the bay area for work? Or is it the other way around (ie. companies wanting to establish a foothold in an area known for its prestigious/unique population of software-engineers)?
My point is, not only are the employees losing here, but also the employers. I no longer understand the motivation of companies to continue expanding at problematic locations (such as the bay area and new-york).
If Google left the bay area completely tomorrow, would that somehow restore the equilibrium?
- jpao79 8y agoFor better or worse, I think a good analogy is making a movie in Hollywood versus anywhere else. Yes you could make your movie in New Hampshire, but it'd be that much more inertia to find a screenwriter, to cast the talent, find the crew and get funding, etc. And for tech startups, where time is of the essence and the secret recipe for making a blockbuster tech IPO is somewhat ephemeral, why risk it if the opportunity really is as amazing as you are telling the VCs and LPs. Another aspect is a lot of startups have the back-up plan to get acqui-hired by FANG or Cisco which are located in SF/Bay Area, so it make sense to have the key talent on the team prepared for that eventual integration/docking with the mothership.
- jdhn 8y agoThe new non-Hollywood hotspot is Atlanta. Apparently their movie industry has been growing by leaps & bounds.
- briffle 8y agoI think that the success of the Amazon HQ2 process (for amazon, its a success) will lead to many other companies starting the same process. Towns are bending over backwards, and throwing money at the possibility..