tautologer@tautologer
you keep citing SF problems for reasons why the tech industry would want to move away. but it's important to understand that the overwhelming majority of the tech industry is in Silicon Valley -- the literal valley running down the peninsula -- not San Francisco.
SF's combined market cap is ~$800b market cap in public companies plus startups and AI labs (which are driving most of the discourse), compared to almost $20 trillion market cap in the south bay/peninsula, plus almost all the VC firms. in terms of employee count, Claude estimates there are ~75-95k tech industry employees in SF, and ~350-400k in the rest of the Bay. looking at a map of big tech company headquarters will likely be edifying. most of them are an hour+ outside SF.
and in many ways the suburbs in Silicon Valley are some of the most desirable places to live on Earth. nowhere else in the US can you find a pleasant climate year-round within an hour of two major cities (don't forget about San Jose!) with abundant high-paying jobs, very low crime, world-class schools, etc. small houses on the peninsula cost millions of dollars because _that's how much people value living there_.
a huge portion of tech executives, employees who vested and exited a decade or two ago -- all your prospective angel investors and VCs -- and two-tech-income working families all live there, and they're really happy living there, and it would be just about impossible to convince them to leave. so if you want a single reason why the tech industry is hard to move, that's it right there. most anyone who is established -- in particular all the decision makers behind all the capital -- have zero reason to move anywhere.
and don't forget about San Jose btw. Santa Clara County has more tech employment than SF and San Mateo combined. you never hear about San Jose's problems on twitter, and you know why? it doesn't really have any! a city of a million people with a median household income of $148,000 -- composed almost entirely of families living in nice little detached homes working stable jobs. one of the beating hearts of the tech industry -- albeit completely culturally irrelevant.
so okay. you cited housing and crime as the reasons why people would want to move. crime is only a problem in SF -- we'll get to that later. housing is a problem everywhere in the Bay -- people complain about it a LOT. it's true! but also, housing is a problem everywhere. the Bay is worse than average, but not by a factor of 2x -- pretty much every major metro area in the country is hardly building housing. the housing problem in the Bay is so bad _precisely because people want to live here so much_, and they can afford to do so.
and that's the thing -- tech industry employees _can afford to live here_. we complain, because paying the extraordinarily high prices sucks, but we can do it! tech employees are famously paid a lot of money! it's an annoyance for the tech industry -- it's only a real problem for everyone else. people make a lot of noise about it on twitter, and for good reason, but it's not driving the tech industry away from the region -- we're the ones setting the prices!
and then crime. yeah, SF has a crime/social disorder problem. again, this affects most of the tech industry not at all, because the overwhelming majority of the industry neither lives nor works here. and even within the city, most of the crime, grime, and disorder is concentrated in a few neighborhoods. as long as you don't linger in certain areas after sunset, the city feels very safe. yeah, social pathologies are pretty prominent, and this sucks, and people rightly make an issue about it.
but this is not enough to actually make living here unpleasant. and in particular, if you can afford to rent outside SoMa, you hardly even see this except maybe if you commute down Market Street or go out in the Mission. so while people rightly make a lot of noise about SF's governance failures here, it's not a compelling reason for the tech industry to leave the city, let alone the region.
(also, it's only been really bad since covid, and it's been getting steadily better. the tech industry was instrumental in getting Lurie elected because of these problems, and he's making progress! yeah the governance of the city sucks, but it's at least somewhat tractable.)
and sure, what about the startup scene? its center of gravity has shifted in large part to the city, away from Silicon Valley. why doesn't the next generation of founders leave or found somewhere else? well, this might happen. but then you lose out on the talent and capital and networks and mentorship expertise and so on that is firmly rooted in the idyllic Valley. is that worth it? some people think so! we'll see what happens. but certainly this hasn't happened in the current generation. part of the reason you're hearing so much noise about housing currently is because ~all the AI startups are here, printing beaucoup bucks and driving up the prices. again.
you hear the most about SF's problems on twitter and on the news. partially this is because the squeaky wheel gets the grease, partially because the startup scene has shifted its center of gravity here, and ultimately because it's San Francisco. it's an iconic American city, it has a rich and storied history, it's a useful synecdoche for the Bay at large (especially for people with an ideological axe to grind), and it is a perennial driver of culture. but don't mistake SF's problems, or the startup scene's grievances, with the broader Bay or tech industry.
the tech industry is in the Bay -- and has been for the last 70 years -- because it's one of the best places to live on earth, both because of the natural features of the region and because of the history and governance (no non-competes! very little crime outside SF!) and culture here.
and ultimately, SF has all this chaos and disorder and startups and culture because this is a city that draws and shelters freaks and weirdos and outsiders and pioneers, and as much as we'll always complain about it, we love it here, and we wouldn't have it any other way.
