Five Cities Account For Vast Majority of Growth In Tech Jobs, Study Finds (go.com) 110
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal: Just five metropolitan areas -- Boston; San Diego; San Francisco; Seattle; and San Jose, Calif. -- accounted for 90% of all U.S. high-tech job growth between 2005 to 2017 (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source), according to the research (PDF) by think-tank scholars Mark Muro and Jacob Whiton of the Brookings Institution and Rob Atkinson of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. The nation's 377 other metro areas accounted for 10% of the 256,063 jobs created during that period in 13 high-tech industries such as software publishing, pharmaceutical manufacturing and semiconductor production. Among the smaller cities that gained tech jobs were Madison, Wis.; Albany, N.Y.; Provo, Utah; and Pittsburgh. Some prominent cities -- including New York and Austin -- lagged in tech job creation, according to the study.
The result is increased concentration of high-tech resources in just a few places and a strengthening of economic forces that are dividing the nation. Tech industries find they are most productive when they have resources clustered in few places. Such clustering -- which economists call "agglomeration" -- allows for the fast spread of new ideas and a concentrated talent pool from which businesses recruit. The forces of agglomeration, economists say, run counter to the idea that technology might allow people to work from anywhere, even in remote places. The trend is creating problems for the cities that have these concentrations of workers and for those places that don't. High-tech cities like San Francisco and Boston are becoming increasingly unaffordable as home prices soar, while cities outside of these high-tech hubs are missing out on the dynamism that technology creates.
The result is increased concentration of high-tech resources in just a few places and a strengthening of economic forces that are dividing the nation. Tech industries find they are most productive when they have resources clustered in few places. Such clustering -- which economists call "agglomeration" -- allows for the fast spread of new ideas and a concentrated talent pool from which businesses recruit. The forces of agglomeration, economists say, run counter to the idea that technology might allow people to work from anywhere, even in remote places. The trend is creating problems for the cities that have these concentrations of workers and for those places that don't. High-tech cities like San Francisco and Boston are becoming increasingly unaffordable as home prices soar, while cities outside of these high-tech hubs are missing out on the dynamism that technology creates.
"Dynamism"? (Score:4, Interesting)
"missing out on the dynamism that technology creates" the article says. If dynamism is another word for increasing social anxiety and rising prices, I think that whoever misses out on it is pretty lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
...says a person on the internet.
Maybe they meant something more along the lines of "high wage job opportunities created by technology" but shortened it to a single word that they looked up in a thesaurus. A lot of people tacitly assume that technology will improve quality of life, and it often does but is not without undesirable side effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they meant something more along the lines of "high wage job opportunities created by technology" but shortened it to a single word that they looked up in a thesaurus. A lot of people tacitly assume that technology will improve quality of life, and it often does but is not without undesirable side effects.
They talk about high wage opportunities and dyanmism. So you're saying they're missing out on high wage job oppourtunities and...high wage job opportunities? No, your definition can't be correct.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems more like 4 cities. (Score:2)
Re:Seems more like 4 cities. (Score:5, Interesting)
By similar comparison, you're saying they should cluster Philadelphia and NYC into the same metro (which they do not) despite New Jersey standing between them.
Re: (Score:1)
"By similar comparison, you're saying they should cluster"
They do, it's called the northeast megalopolis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalopolis
You can make a fair argument that most of northern IL and eastern WI is all the chicago Megalopolis as well.
Only 146 out of 3000 counties contain half the population, making sure the other 2,854 have some kind of say in the laws that prevail in their homes is the purpose of the electoral college and the senate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
is the purpose of the electoral college
Nope. The EC was created as an extension of the 3/5ths Compromise to the Presidential election, on account of the fact that a direct election of the Executive would never be agreed upon in the South since only land owners were allowed to vote there, and thus they had very small absolute voting numbers.
and the senate.
No, the Senate was create to represent States in the federal government. It was moved to a popular election long after the fact.
Really, the House of Representatives is the body designed to represent those pe
Re: (Score:1)
You think the small and tiny northeastern states would have agreed to having New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston [wikipedia.org] decide the nation's elections? Note that the next two cities were south of the Mason-Dixo
Re: (Score:3)
You think the small and tiny northeastern states would have agreed to having New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston [wikipedia.org] decide the nation's elections?
Elections for what? Representatives had nothing to do with national population concentrations. Senators were selected by state legislators. The President was (minus the South) either going to be selected by the Federal legislature, or a direct election by the country's voting population.
How you try to ponder their logic is irrelevant- because they fucking documented it.
Also note suffrage based on owning property was the rule rather than the exception for all the states at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified.
Nope.
I'll just go ahead and let the authority on the matter answer-
Notes from the Constitutional Convention [yale.edu]
Mr. MADISON. If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
Re: (Score:2)
That Madison quote, the opinion of only one man, does nothing to invalidate my claims about the small Northeast states; if you accept that premise, at most it can be construed as saying this problem was worse with the Southern states, and institution of the Electoral College solved both, while also providing a Kevin Bacon N degrees of separation republican style answer to many problems.
That is, you would be unlikely to know much about a Presidential candidate, his real character and so on. But you could kn
Re: (Score:2)
That Madison quote, the opinion of only one man, does nothing to invalidate my claims about the small Northeast states;
In a way it does, because mine is a historical viewpoint, yours is some asshole's on the internet.
and institution of the Electoral College solved both, while also providing a Kevin Bacon N degrees of separation republican style answer to many problems.
You're trying to conflate your perceived usefulness of the EC with its intent. That's logically fallacious.
.6%
Let's get back to your small northeastern states though-
Popular vote tallies for the first Presidential election (from the States that did popular votes- the rest simply selected their electors via their legislature, as is the right of a State)
Delaware: 685 / 8887 - 7.7%
Virginia: 4333 / 691937 -
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you're resorting to puerile insults shows everyone except perhaps yourself who's having the better of this debate. That you can't see that your supplied statistics about small Delaware and populous Pennsylvania prove my initial major point....
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you're resorting to puerile insults shows everyone except perhaps yourself who's having the better of this debate.
Another logical fallacy- implying that because I don't respect you that my argument is wrong ;)
That you can't see that your supplied statistics about small Delaware and populous Pennsylvania prove my initial major point....
Your point was never in question, only your assertion that your point was relevant. I have proven that it is not, by both backing up with historical context the intent of the EC, and by giving examples of how it played out to the stated historical intent.
You have given... your opinion, and an apparent argument that the 8000 people of Delaware were a larger concern to the formation of the Union than the 700,000 p
Re: (Score:2)
"Really, the House of Representatives is the body designed to represent those people."
That is exactly the opposite of the case, house districts are divided by population. If you have a high population area you divide it up into yet more districts. The house better represents the HIGH population districts and under represents the low population districts. In states with high urban populations the rest of the state only gets any kind of voice at all if extreme gerrymandering has occurred.
"Nope. The EC was cre
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly the opposite of the case, house districts are divided by population. If you have a high population area you divide it up into yet more districts. The house better represents the HIGH population districts and under represents the low population districts. In states with high urban populations the rest of the state only gets any kind of voice at all if extreme gerrymandering has occurred.
This is complete fucking nonsense.
Every single state has less representation per person the larger the district, and larger districts the more people they have.
This is because ultimately, there must be a minimum of one, and less representatives than people- so lesser people will *always* be favored.
Hypthetical example:
New York has 3 districts.
Rhode Island has 1.
Sure, New York has more power as a whole- but you're trying to lump some place with far more than 3x the population of Rhode Island as a singl
Re: (Score:2)
"All votes for losing candidates are 'invalidated', in every election."
Yes, that is what winner takes all election means.
"To be clear, geographical regions do not vote, and never have. People - individual people, not to put too fine a point on it - vote. Votes for a candidate or person who is not elected may always be considered meaningless. The purpose of the Electoral College scheme was and is to make meaningless more votes than would otherwise be, to make possible the election of a candidate who got fewe
Re: (Score:2)
San Jose and San Francisco don't seem like separate metro areas to me.
If you'd spent time in the area, you'd know better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you drove on the freeway from SF to San Jose and didn't notice all the stuff in between, just stop talking because you know you didn't look out the window.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Of course they're separate. 50 miles apart, different attitudes, etc. Neither however are part of the original "Silicon Valley", though San Jose has assumed that title over time. San Francisco is cold, cramped, and dense inner city urban core with a parochial attitude that everything on the other side of the border is to be avoided, and the SF idea of "tech" is mostly about content. San Jose is sprawling, houses have lawns, it gets disparaged as a "suburb" by SF, and there is still tech that invo
Re: (Score:2)
What? Of course they're separate. 50 miles apart, different attitudes, etc. Neither however are part of the original "Silicon Valley", though San Jose has assumed that title over time. San Francisco is cold, cramped, and dense inner city urban core with a parochial attitude that everything on the other side of the border is to be avoided, and the SF idea of "tech" is mostly about content. San Jose is sprawling, houses have lawns, it gets disparaged as a "suburb" by SF, and there is still tech that involves silicon. In between the two are a whole lot of other cities, those in the south have more in common with SJ and those further north are more similar to SF.
The "metro area" may be shared but it's like claiming the tech areas south of Newark is in the same metro area as Manhattan.
Speaking as a San Diegan, we hate them both... But we're also quite used to considering anything north of Orange County (arguably Camp Pendleton in the past) and south of Ventura to be "Greater Los Angeles." San Diego has a patchwork of neighborhoods, incorporated cities, and county regions, with the City-of San Diego stretching and wrapping around like an amoeba, and even long-time residents would be hard-pressed to tell which was which. It's all just "Greater San Diego" to us unless you run a business or
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to say this, as I spent 13 years in San Diego, but I've run across people who lumped San Diego into the Great Southern California Metropolis, not realizing how distinct and separate it was from Orange County and LA.
Huh (Score:4)
Re:Huh (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazing, isn't it? You don't think conservatives could be wrong about things, do you?
Re: Huh (Score:1)
People with $600k mortgages on ranch style starter houses could be wrong. But everybody gets to choose whats important to them.
Re: (Score:2)
People with $600k mortgages on ... houses ...
Don't live in SF. That isn't even enough for a small condo in a bad neighborhood.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course it isn't enough. I was talking more about California urban areas in general.
Lacking economic diversity != Not a shithole (Score:1)
I just looked at the methodology in their full report.
The numbers show that these cities have become more focused on tech R&D jobs than they used to be, as opposed to other cities which have grown various types of jobs. For example, Texas has added a shit ton of jobs while diversifying into a wider variety of jobs. So they aren't on this list, because it's not only high tech R&D jobs. In other words, in those areas you better be a data scientist or Rust programmer, or you're not going to get a job.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, in those areas you better be a data scientist or Rust programmer, or you're not going to get a job.
I'm in Seattle, and I'm neither a data scientist or a Rust programmer ;)
That doesn't necessarily mean it's not crappy.
We certainly don't think so.
I think we're doing alright. [washingtonstatewire.com]
Not quite double Texas' GDP growth, but working on it.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're a young person with the kind of degree or skills those companies are hiring for there's no reaso
Re: (Score:2)
Many of those leaving are doing so because just by selling the house they've owned for 10-50 years they're able to profit enough to completely retire elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: Huh (Score:1)
You're a brainwashed fool and your reality is entirely fear-based ("How can I trust my neighbors with a potentially-dangerous machine when I can't even trust myself??").
Re: (Score:1)
It's a good thing over a million people in the US every year ignore your advice, we were at a run rate of 2.5 million self-defense gun uses every year a while ago, there's been quite a bit more gun liberalization since then.
Note the numbers don't quite match because some people use a gun more than once a year, and something well over 90% of the time the gun is not fired to deter an assa
Re: (Score:2)
Agree with you on that one. I've always had some long guns in my house, sometimes kept loaded. But when my kids were born, the guns got hidden away and the ammunition went out of the house. I prefer the statistics on my side rather than the false sense of security I used to have with a loaded shotgun in the bedroom.
Re: (Score:2)
And which statistics would these be? Kellerman's, which only scored self-defense killings, which are a specifically illegal not to mention immoral goal for civilians?
Re: (Score:1)
Three of them are in that supposed shithole state of CA where it seems every day I read a news story about people fleeing its awfulness in droves.
So the fact that an army of young idiots are willing to work for subpar wages and live in their cars just to have "Google" on their resume doesn't mean that the middle class isn't leaving the rest of the state? Is all of that Cal-to-Surrounding States movement smoke and mirrors?
The only people coming to California in appreciable numbers are illegal aliens. California is becoming a LOT like a third world country: a place of extremes where you have the very very well to do living in gated communities and ever
Re: (Score:2)
And oh, people shitting in the streets. That doesn't happen in first world places.
Shitting in the streets has been classified as a "quality of life crime" by San Francisco's Attorney General, and will not be prosecuted. Likewise prostitution, panhandling, unlicensed street vendors, and more. I'm wondering how long it will be until SF suffers a typhus outbreak like Los Angeles.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people coming to California in appreciable numbers are illegal aliens.
This is ridiculously false.
Immigrants are padding a falling population in California- absolutely.
Between 2007 and 2016, 6 million people moved away from California.
But 5 *million* people moved *to* California.
Immigrant influx masked this deficit, but still the vast majority of people who moved to California were legal.
Re: (Score:2)
They're always leaving in droves, but usually only after they're rich and retiring early.
It's a shithole in that when they have no reason to stay, they often leave. But it is a "shithole" in a metaphorical way, since they're rich and pay well.
Re: (Score:2)
Three of them are in that supposed shithole state of CA...
For those still doubting whether these shitholes really exist, a convenient online map for tourists has been created to help guide you to the best human shit sightings.
Literally [openthebooks.com]
Re:Huh (Score:5, Interesting)
Im not American.
But how come California has 3d best life expectancy of all us states? Far higher than other southern states. Id take that shithole over the others, I think.
Re: (Score:1)
Life expectancy is not a useful metric when only a few months separate #3 from #20.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
You're right, you aren't an American. "Other southern states" almost certainly have more blacks (Latinos are ethnically cleansing them from a lot of their traditional cities and neighborhoods in California, not sure where they're moving to, plus gentrification is pushing a lot of all lower income minorities out of SF, and probably those other two cities), and their life expectancy is somewhat below whites, a quick search showed 3.4 years as of 2014. Which would be before the Ferguson effect, but I don't k
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that ridiculous map from Business Insider two years ago that lumped New Jersey and Iowa into some ridiculous "Midlands" that looked like a gerrymandered congressional district? That map?
k.
California is only a shithole to conservatives. (Score:4, Insightful)
California is only a shithole to American conservatives who want any excuse to rag on one of our most Leftist states. Don't get me wrong, the state certainly has its problems but it's still an extremely nice place to live. I've been to the South and Bible Belt and while I'll allow there are few nice areas I'll take California any day of the week.
I mean, you don't get sky high rents and land values like ours if your state is an undesirable place to live.
Re: California is only a shithole to conservatives (Score:1)
I mean, you don't get sky high rents and land values like ours if your state is an undesirable place to live.
To the contrary, you just exhibited a tautology.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, cost is a negative to living in California but it wouldn't be so high if people weren't willing to pay it.
Re: (Score:1)
Take out the tech giants there. Then you get Detroit, Baltimore, Houston.... and the other Dem cities that could double as a post apocalyptic city.
I have a friend with a San Fran address. I asked him when he's retiring and what was his plan. He's worked for a who's who of big tech companies out there going back four decades. He said his retirement plan is his house. He's going to sell it and move to a sane place to live as he put it. He's been held up multiple times in the city, pistol whipped at least once
Re: (Score:2)
Take out the tech giants there. Then you get Detroit, Baltimore, Houston.... and the other Dem cities that could double as a post apocalyptic city.
Not really, California actually has an extremely diversified economy. Of course losing a major source of employment would hurt a lot but the state was quite prosperous before the 90's tech boom.
Also, just about all major cities in the US are Democrat cities so not only do your comparisons not make sense, they were also clearly cherry picked.
I have a friend with a San Fran address. I asked him when he's retiring and what was his plan. He's worked for a who's who of big tech companies out there going back four decades. He said his retirement plan is his house. He's going to sell it and move to a sane place to live as he put it.
Your story doesn't add up. Either your friend bought property before the housing crisis and then failed to save for retirement or they bought property recently which wou
Re: (Score:1)
Take out the tech giants there. Then you get Detroit, Baltimore, Houston.... and the other Dem cities that could double as a post apocalyptic city.
Not really, California actually has an extremely diversified economy. Of course losing a major source of employment would hurt a lot but the state was quite prosperous before the 90's tech boom.
Also, just about all major cities in the US are Democrat cities so not only do your comparisons not make sense, they were also clearly cherry picked.
LOL. You sound like you even believe that. Be my guest. Add in Philly, Atlanta, Chicago, same story. Democrats run things into the ground. I picked those cities because they've been run by Dems for well over 50 years. Eliminate the - well Republicans ran it from X... BS. Democrats seem to have 101 excuses. Let's hear your example of a successful Democrat run city that has been run by Dems for 50 or more years. You have one, right?
I have a friend with a San Fran address. I asked him when he's retiring and what was his plan. He's worked for a who's who of big tech companies out there going back four decades. He said his retirement plan is his house. He's going to sell it and move to a sane place to live as he put it.
Your story doesn't add up. Either your friend bought property before the housing crisis and then failed to save for retirement or they bought property recently which would not be a good investment if they were looking to retire soon.
Basically, I'm saying your anecdote is at best a half truth. Regardless though, it's just a single anecdote. Try using proper data rather than "well my friend told me..."
He's been there since the 1980s. Independent contractor. I think he had a fund
Re: (Score:2)
The crux of your problem is that you're knocking San Francisco with anecdotes and conservative talk show spin rather proper data and critical thought.
San Francisco is not an especially crime prone city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It has an extremely temperate climate that does not experience any of the extremes most parts of the world experience (although some find it a tad chilly) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Owning a home in SF is about as close to a guarantee of a strong return on ones investmen
Re: (Score:2)
Nice humble bragging and conservative spin btw. Venezuela once looked like the US? The Left wants to break up "family, religion, and discipline". Give me a fucking break. you'll make up anything to justify your world view. You go out of your way to demonize America's Left with falsehoods and then go and complain about the Left doing the same to the Right.
Don't get me wrong though, I really don't expect you to get your own massive hypocrisy. If you were a thinking person you'd likely have noticed it on your
Re: (Score:1)
I mean, you don't get sky high rents and land values like ours if your state is an undesirable place to live.
You're just being a partisan douche bag at this point. Rent is sky high because housing is hard to find. Housing is hard to find because your state has made it fucking impossible to develop new properties in anything resembling a timely manner.
I say this as a former CA native of 31 years who left a decade ago when I saw the writing on the wall. Frankly it's amazing people like you exist, how can you justify a state that makes it legal to knowingly infect someone with HIV but a fucking felony to use a plasti
Re: (Score:2)
Rent and housing has been consistently higher than the vast majority of the rest of the country for at least the last half century, well before the current housing crisis. Of course if you really lived in California for 31 years you'd know that.
On top of that, the admittedly poor growth policies of many of our county's are really irrelevant to this conversation as they don't change the fact that quite clearly people are willing to drop over half a mil to buy a house in this state. No one would pay that to l
Re: (Score:2)
It's definitely illegal in CA to knowingly infect anyone with HIV (or any disease), and it's not illegal to use a plastic straw. Prices in the Bay Area are super high because there's no room to expand; hard borders of water and mountains (and much of the private land in the mountains can't be developed on because it's already owned by someone other than a city). Whereas in LA it's a giant sprawl because it just kept growing and growing as there were fewer natural borders. Both areas need to learn to grow
Re: (Score:2)
California is also a purple state. There is deep deep red in California; I have some cousins in Devin Nunes's district (the chief cheerleader for Trump). Even Trump came to California to do fund raising. Ronal Reagan was a 100% Californian through and through.
It is a great place to live, and people are not leaving it in "droves", if anything it is too crowded and too many people keep showing up.
Re: (Score:2)
California is also a purple state. There is deep deep red in California; I have some cousins in Devin Nunes's district (the chief cheerleader for Trump). Even Trump came to California to do fund raising. Ronal Reagan was a 100% Californian through and through.
It is a great place to live, and people are not leaving it in "droves", if anything it is too crowded and too many people keep showing up.
This. And speaking as a native San Diegan, at times I'm quite glad we have a national forest and 20 miles of US Marines separating us from the rest of the state (and country).
Re: (Score:2)
This is for you too so you know what words mean https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh... you don't know what the term "purple state" means. Here you go. https://www.dictionary.com/bro... [dictionary.com]
"a state of the U.S. in which the Democratic and Republican candidates both have a good chance of winning and that is considered key to the outcome of a presidential election:"
A Republican presidential candidate hasn't stood a chance in California since Reagan and he did well in almost every state so if you call California Purple because of that you might as well call almost every other Blue state Purple
Re: (Score:2)
The reason I say purple is that if you shade districts by which way the vote and back off a bit, everything is mostly purple in the US. If you go further and shade the districts by the popular vote in each district (not just winner-takes-all) then things are very purple indeed. Many of these safe districts are about 53/46 anyway, and if you divide further there's a large chunk of in the middle that are the swing voters (and in California we have a relatively large chunk of voters who do not register for a
Re: (Score:2)
The reason I say purple is that if you shade districts by which way the vote and back off a bit, everything is mostly purple in the US. If you go further and shade the districts by the popular vote in each district (not just winner-takes-all) then things are very purple indeed. Many of these safe districts are about 53/46 anyway, and if you divide further there's a large chunk of in the middle that are the swing voters (and in California we have a relatively large chunk of voters who do not register for a political party).
Well you're using the term wrong. If everything is purple then it becomes a meaningless indicator.
Likewise, re-defining a term to your own personal definition just creates confusion. It's best to use words in the context that they are meant.
Even if we haven't gone for a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan can be offset by the fact that we actually had three Republican governors after Reagan.
I already covered this point. It is not at all uncommon for non swing states (both Red and Blue) to elect governors from the opposing party. They're typically incredibly moderate though and not really all that representative of the party they belong to. This does not mea
Re: (Score:2)
As if homelessness isnt a problem elsewhere in the country and of course it isn't common in middle America, they'd freeze to death there.
Some of our counties growth policies certain need some help but all you've done here is hashed out tired old conservative troll nonsense about California. No one would pay over half a mil to buy a house in a state in the condition that you types like to claim California is in. Meanwhile, no one would pay over half a mil to buy a house in a red state. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
But how come California has 3d best life expectancy of all us states? Far higher than other southern states.
It's because of weighted averages. If you go to the Wikipedia page on this, you can sort the columns by race and California no longer appears in the 3d position. Life expectancy in the USA is heavily tied to race. California has a lot of Asian-Americans, who have a very high life expectancy. It has very few African-Americans, who have a much lower life expectancy.
This isn't a matter of genetics. After the US Civil War (19th century) policies were adopted by racist governments across the USA to funnel m
Re: (Score:2)
By long standing public policy, non-competes are unenforceable in the state, creating the most liquid talent pools in the US, if not the world. A company will put up with a lot if it is able to hire the talent it requires to succeed.
Wait, you think companies like this so much that they find it attractive, or think it is good for business?
You didn't know that businesses hate it and fight against it?
You didn't understand that California was already the center of the tech world before these sorts of contracts were popular?
You didn't understand that California was already the center of the tech world before the court decisions that made those contracts unenforceable in California?
epidemic hepatitis A in San Diego
From https://www.sandiegocounty.gov... [sandiegocounty.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people "hate" what's good for them. If they hated it that much, they wouldn't do business in Califo
Pre 2018 news (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The D.C. area has a work ethos that's twisted by the way the Federal government and its contractors work, which just doesn't seem to result in long term success for tech companies, except for outposts like AWS's biggest region. It's biggest strength, very much related to that Amazon region, is communications, and that got nuked in the "dot.com" crash, which was much more a telecom than website company crash.
It doesn't have anything that directly helps a region to become a high tech center, like the non-com
Pareto Principle (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From where I sit it seems increasingly apparent that various Americans inhabit practically different universes and it's becoming increasingly difficult for them to get along.
Coastal elitism in this assessment (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Last time I checked, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh-Durham are so close to the Atlantic coast they might as well count, certainly Seattle isn't directly on the Pacific Coast.
But the metric is very straight forward, so you're saying either the researchers are sloppy, lying, or they're working from poor data and not recognizing that. Any combination of those is plausible, but you ought to make a real case, instead of throwing out a wild accusation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Who cares if NY has x number of tech jobs, if you're also not accounting for the fact that there are almost 9 million residents?!
Actually, these numbers are adjusted for local population changes, which is why NYC is graded poorly. By the report "New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA" added 7162 jobs from 2005-17, but when adjusted for employee population that came out to a -0.2% growth.
NYC has a big tech workforce, but it has grown roughly the same as other workforces in NYC... which is actually healthy. Being completely dependent on a single industry isn't a good idea.
The main premise of the article(that places that aren
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, here's a direct accusation. They made their list directly based on the number of tech jobs, not the number of tech jobs, per capita or the number of unfilled tech jobs, per capita. They made no adjustment for quality of life. They made no intelligent adjustments whatsoever. They simply said, "this city has x number of tech jobs" with no account for how many people live in that fucking city. Who cares if NY has x number of tech jobs, if you're also not accounting for the fact that there are almost 9 million residents?!
Your comments are unrelated to the study. The study (heck, even the summary) said: "Just five metropolitan areas—Boston; San Diego; San Francisco; Seattle; and San Jose, Calif.—accounted for 90% of all U.S. high-tech job growth between 2005 to 2017"
You said: "I have a hard time believing this assessment when Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh-Durham aren't in the list."
If you have a hard time believing this assessment, it means you think that Austin+Atlanta+Charlotte+Raleigh someone contrib
Re: (Score:2)
They made their list directly based on the number of tech jobs, not the number of tech jobs, per capita or the number of unfilled tech jobs, per capita. They made no adjustment for quality of life.
Why should the research make that adjustment if the research is focused on growth alone? The research argues that "X" % of growth occurred in certain areas. And that's it.
The research is not making an argument of where it is occurring best, or about growth wrt to changes in quality of life or COL or whatever.
That would be an interesting research mind you, but neither is what they are presenting nor is something they are precluded from pursuing (if they aren't doing it now.)
You are just making a stra
Re: (Score:2)
certainly Seattle isn't directly on the Pacific Coast.
I don't know. That requires some pretty serious pedantry. The Puget Sound is an inlet of the Pacific Ocean.
I can walk down to the water front, hop in a boat, and be in the Pacific Ocean proper in short order without transitioning between salt/fresh/brackish water, or any locks.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a hard time believing this assessment when Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh-Durham aren't in the list. Of course, let the coastal elites think there aren't any good jobs outside of their bubbles. The last thing we need is more competition for these almost equally paying tech jobs in areas with half the cost of living.
Shhhhh ...
Re: (Score:2)
I have a hard time believing this assessment when Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh-Durham aren't in the list.
Why? All of those are places people don't want to move to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, the median income in Seattle is nearly double that of Austin, but OK.
Most job offers I get range from 150-250k/yr total compensation. A quick glace at Glassdoor indicates jobs in Austin doing what I do go for somewhere between 50-100k less.
I think you have trouble believing this because you have trouble separating facts from what you want to be true.
Re: (Score:3)
The text of the report specifically mentions that Atlanta and Raleigh increased their share somewhat but not as much as the top five.
Raleigh, NC 12,238 0.3%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 5,736 0.1%
In addition, the text of the report specifically mentions that Charlotte added jobs but not as fast as the industry overall so it's share did not increase. Also, the tabluar data at the end of the report shows that Austin too added jobs but at a rate slower than the industry so it lost share.
Charlotte-Concord-G
coastal l33t hurr durr (Score:2)
I have a hard time believing this assessment when Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh-Durham aren't in the list.
It is not that hard to believe when you consider the number of jobs (and wealth) being created in the aforementioned 5 cities compared to the four you mentioned. The assessment is not making a claim that tech growth only occurs in those 5 cities (or that it does not occur elsewhere.)
Of course, let the coastal elites think there aren't any good jobs outside of their bubbles. The last thing we need is more competition for these almost equally paying tech jobs in areas with half the cost of living.
And herein lies the true reason of your rant: hurr durr coastal l33t hurr durr. Put your bias aside and try to read the assessment. Or not, feel free to hump strawmen, but don't complain later when you develop blisters.
This Study Is Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea that Austin has lagged behind isn't born out by the huge tech boom buildout, or population figures, or traffic, or personal experience.
Then we get to this section:
So evidently only the most sparkling unicorn industries count. This suggests that the entire 14 magic industries were selected to give the results the writer wanted.
The Brookings Institution should go back to doing what it does best: Sucking up money from terrorist supporting Arab kingdoms [freebeacon.com].
Meh (Score:2)
"think tank" (Score:3)
Beware of any "think tank" report. They aren't doing this for free. There is some purpose to every report.
Diversity (Score:1)
But I thought diversity was our strength!
Why??? (Score:3)
In my job, except for the parts that actually involve interacting with people, I work from wherever I happen to be. Usually at home. I find this a lot more productive, as well as a lot more pleasant. The down side is the danger of working too much. Sudden idea Sunday evening...no, stop. You have to have times that you do not work, so maybe you write the idea down and look at it the next morning.
My wife is currently freelancing as a translator. In her last big contract, she never - not once - had to meet a live human being. Everything was online.
Anyway, my point is simply this: Given today's communication possibilities, there is almost no reason for people to concentrate themselves in office buildings in particular cities. You can program from Outer Bumf*ck just as well as (and probably better than) you can in Boston or San Diego. The scenery is better, the cost of living is cheaper, what's not to like?
Re: (Score:2)
You're ignoring, besides the obvious issues of managerial lack of confidence and competence, that a bunch of companies set up open offices so that they can show the next set of potential investors that you're working hard. Not productively, of course, let alone how low it sets the ceiling of the difficultly of what your serfs can do while they're in the office
Salary Negotiation (Score:2)
Salary negotiation usually begins with previous salary. Salary often varies based on the cost-of-living in an area. Understanding this is key to landing roles, remote or otherwise. If I low-ball the salary on a position, regardless of my qualification, I may be perceived as unqualified for said position. If I high-ball the position, the prospective employer may feel that they cannot adequately meet my salary expectations.
So it is that I expect that I won't ever be invited to work a position in one of these
Oooooo (Score:2)
I'll bet the tech people can't wait for flying cars so they can stay above it all like Blade Runner.
As a Native San Diegan (Score:2)
please don't lump us in with the Bay Area. Not only do we largely despise that area with the fire of a thousand suns (along with LA, which is closer and still sends us their smog from time to time), but the market forces affecting San Diego and the Bay Area tech scenes are vastly different.
San Diego is still primarily a tourism-based and military-based town. People come here to vacation, and then like it so much the settle down and/or retire here once they can afford it. We have a long legacy of mil-tech an
Meth, anyone???? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you work, the McDonalds across from the WBX building?
Cities most affected by recession (Score:1)