Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do think direct flights to the West Coast are somewhat of an advantage for attracting tech grads from Asia. I just don't think it's a "huge" advantage. Anywhere else in the US is a connecting flight away, so we're talking 10hr flight vs. 14hr maybe a few times a year.
I think people like to stick with their tribes, and Asians are no different. Asians tend to want to be in proximity to other Asians, just like any other race, tbh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
Atlanta sure as heck isn't affordable anymore. Salaries haven't spiked 67%, so they all suck from an economic calculus perspective. So people will diffuse out and as people retire, companies are gonna have to get tech workers from wherever they are, which is all over now.
Atlanta is a bargain compared to the coasts. No brainer.
International connections, international population, and military are not limited to coastal cities.
I do think direct flights to the West Coast are somewhat of an advantage for attracting tech grads from Asia. I just don't think it's a "huge" advantage. Anywhere else in the US is a connecting flight away, so we're talking 10hr flight vs. 14hr maybe a few times a year.
"More" is the key concept here. Typically more of all of the stuff above.
Atlanta is a bargain compared to the coasts. No brainer.
And much of the US is a bargain compared to Atlanta, if you don't have to be near the hub, why be there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
"More" is the key concept here. Typically more of all of the stuff above.
By that logic Cheesecake Factory is the best restaurant in the US...
It's better to live in a place that does what you like really well than a place that does everything ok. That's why Denver sucks, it does everything ok but nothing really well.
My short statements seem to be confusing, if I'm reading you right.
What I mean is more direct flights, a larger contingent from one's home country, and more military presence (with a heavy tech education/experience component) collectively will tend to be helpful for attracting tech people.
That coincides with your last paragraph. Being really good in these areas is better than having a little.
And much of the US is a bargain compared to Atlanta, if you don't have to be near the hub, why be there?
By that logic Cheesecake Factory is the best restaurant in the US...
It's better to live in a place that does what you like really well than a place that does everything ok. That's why Denver sucks, it does everything ok but nothing really well.
Not sure what that means regarding Denver but it's certainly a well thought of city.
And you're saying Atlanta is middle of the road in cost? ok, I agree with you there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors
I'm poking at the whole coastal/port city thing because I want to see evidence to support the narrative. I often hear claims that some quality inherent to location explains a metro's success. In California this is usually something about a mild climate. Or proximity to Asia. If we believe success is inherent to a location this breeds complacency. I'm not saying these factors don't matter, just that they matter much less than often assumed. Human factors are the best explanation for what makes a location successful. Attract the right people with skills and a willingness to invest, regulation that isn't overly burdensome, good local governance. These things matter more, and this is what new/emerging Tech Hubs are doing well.
And cost of living is a huge factor, but it's more than that. What new and emerging tech hubs have are most of the benefits of major metros at a fraction of the cost.
I believe California's geography and climate have been huge advantages. Who can deny that? Or are you saying the liberal government is why they've been so successful?
I assume by "local governance" you mean conservative government that's more likely to be found in the south and intermountain west?
I've been to Seattle many times, though not Austin so I don't have an opinion about it. But I think one of the things we see with cities is a point of diminishing returns. Seattle may be more interesting than Austin in some areas, but is this a meaningful difference for most people? They both have good restaurants, live music, museums, events, farmers markets, and so on. NYC has more than Seattle, but again, I think we're past the point of diminishing returns. Sure, some people *really* care about the marginal differences, so it's a worthwhile distinction for these folks. For many (most?), good enough is good enough.
As for coastal areas, I don't think this automatically makes a place more interesting. The Sound is pretty far inland so other than being salt water it's not that different from, say, cities along the great lakes. I suppose this is very much a personal preference thing. IMO, cities are really about the people -- businesses, art, architecture, economy, community -- not the physical characteristics of the location.
The fact that the Puget Sound is salty makes a big difference. For one the tides are huge even by ocean standards (10+ ft) making for a dynamic setting and exposes the near shore environment and makes beach combing much more interesting. There’s also just a lot more biodiversity everything from shellfish to whales, and yes you can go whale watching in the Puget sound.
Of course not everybody is into that or cares, but it’s a very important distinction. Seattle also has a huge lake, lake Washington, other than the warmer water, I always find the Puget sound way more interesting to walk along than the lake.
Complacency is real....along with factors that have the same result as complacency.
Washington state advertises about as much as Disco Stu. We don't market or incentivize much for tourism, tech, filming, biotech, or much of anything.
This is also a cultural aversion to giving anything to corporate interests or rich people (jobs notwithstanding, and ignoring our regressive tax structure).
Seattle itself also punishes development and high-paying jobs. Anyone reimbursed over $150k (common, including benefits) at a large business actually does pay income tax. New office buildings and apartments pay millions for the offense of adding jobs and housing, resetting market rate for every renter and buyer except the lucky few that get the resulting subsidies.
My short statements seem to be confusing, if I'm reading you right.
What I mean is more direct flights, a larger contingent from one's home country, and more military presence (with a heavy tech education/experience component) collectively will tend to be helpful for attracting tech people.
That coincides with your last paragraph. Being really good in these areas is better than having a little.
These things make it attractive for an employer to have an office in a said location. They don't necessarily correlate to being an attractive element for the random employee. That's the mismatch and THAT's what's changed since 2015.
Before, cities had to cater to employers and jobs would appear. Now the employees have a say in the matter and they move their job with them. To a large extent, the more things that are attractive for employers to have offices in a location, the more cons / costs there are to the employee: prices go up, congestion goes up, teacher to kid ratios go down, bird counts diminish... That's why nobody retires in Houston. The costs are universal, the benefits are specific. Nobody has time to take advantage of ALL the benefits of a city, there's things they aren't doing or using.
I was just talking to my new coworker, I was showing him pictures of Taos, like the shot of the milky way off my porch, and he was so jealous. He's still living with his parents as he's young, but he's like, "man I want to live in a small town like you, where I can see the stars and there's no traffic. All people do in DC is work work work." Less is better in many regards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamThomas
Not sure what that means regarding Denver but it's certainly a well thought of city.
And you're saying Atlanta is middle of the road in cost? ok, I agree with you there.
Um, read threads lol, the 2015 Denver was a lot more regarded than the 2024 version that's a nation leader in property crime. I remember the mayor of Denver saying his biggest fear was the city sitting on it's laurels enjoying it's status failing to address issues that creep up. And that's exactly what happened. For someone that's a long term homeowner, the issues don't hit home much. For the new person without a home or kids in school, cities dropped in livability hard.
Actually, employers in high-wage tech tend to go where they can most easily recruit workers. They say this constantly, both in public and in discussions with their A/E/C/RE teams.
In that sector, they're mostly focused on people in their 20s, and paying them well into the six figures. That combo tends to favor urban cities.
Per discussion in this thread, the companies that focus on finding 25-year-olds for $150,000 positions aren't the same as the ones hiring 35-year-olds with families for $80,000 positions.
These things make it attractive for an employer to have an office in a said location. They don't necessarily correlate to being an attractive element for the random employee. That's the mismatch and THAT's what's changed since 2015.
Before, cities had to cater to employers and jobs would appear. Now the employees have a say in the matter and they move their job with them. To a large extent, the more things that are attractive for employers to have offices in a location, the more cons / costs there are to the employee: prices go up, congestion goes up, teacher to kid ratios go down, bird counts diminish... That's why nobody retires in Houston. The costs are universal, the benefits are specific. Nobody has time to take advantage of ALL the benefits of a city, there's things they aren't doing or using.
I was just talking to my new coworker, I was showing him pictures of Taos, like the shot of the milky way off my porch, and he was so jealous. He's still living with his parents as he's young, but he's like, "man I want to live in a small town like you, where I can see the stars and there's no traffic. All people do in DC is work work work." Less is better in many regards.
Um, read threads lol, the 2015 Denver was a lot more regarded than the 2024 version that's a nation leader in property crime. I remember the mayor of Denver saying his biggest fear was the city sitting on it's laurels enjoying it's status failing to address issues that creep up. And that's exactly what happened. For someone that's a long term homeowner, the issues don't hit home much. For the new person without a home or kids in school, cities dropped in livability hard.
Antecdotal. I'm sure there are plenty of small town folks who want to make their mark on the east or west coast. People always think the grass is greener or maybe they're being complimentary.
I feel safer in downtown Denver than in Atlanta.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
