Chase for Talent Pushes Tech Giants Far Beyond West Coast

Seems to me that Bill Hewlett and David Packard made the right decision in the early 1960s, to expand HP not just in other parts of Silicon Valley, but in a wide range of cities in range for a corporate jet day trip from Silicon Valley (Corvallis, Spokane, Boise, Ft Collins, Loveland, San Diego) as well as cities within an hour by propeller plane (Santa Rosa, Roseville). They knew that continuing to expand in Palo Alto would exhaust the housing supply. The choices made by Google and Facebook, and to a lesser extent Apple, to locate a large number of new engineering jobs in areas already built out when I started in Silicon Valley in 1980 has sent housing prices above 10x what they were when I moved to an outlying area, sent salaries soaring without letting people raise a family, and proved that Bill and Dave (and before them IBM) were correct to choose a distributed organization for tech.

This is a step in the right direction, but the concept needs to be taken out to the next layer of cities that can provide homes to hubs of workers. Cities like Boise come to mind. Having spent 2+ decades in tech leadership in Seattle, and now splitting time between Boise and Redmond, the quality of life and cost of living is starkly different. States that want to participate in the "tech boom" need to invest long-term in education (secondary and university) and have credible plans for infrastructure growth.

the west coast made sense when "silicone" was important for hardware production, but that is all in china now. software can be done anywhere.

For anybody who has trouble understanding why tech companies expand into cities that are already civilized--decent colleges, decent public schools, decent transportation, access to culture, a growing pool of talent--recall what Robert Altman said when he was asked why he made the films he made: "I fiddle on the corner where the quarters are."

As a 25 year resident and homeowner of Austin and not a coastal transplant I can verify that this city is Increasingly becoming too expensive for natives. Property Taxes are off the charts due to high valuations ( read shortage of housing) and many people are fleeing to less expensive areas. Traffic is awful and no smart transportation solutions on the horizon. Longtime cultural music venues and local establishments are being closed due to skyrocketing rents. It’s already Any city USA where cost of living is through the roof . Growth is a culture killer.

Yes, please spread yourselves out to somewhere else. To those of us who have always lived here in the Santa Clara Valley, (not Silicon Valley), it would be a relief to not have so many people frantically pursuing wealth, housing, and the gridlock of the "good life" with all of its material trappings. Santa Clara County is the only place on the entire continent of North America that is technically a Mediterranean climate. This has something to do with it for sure. The native Indians hay their name for this valley: The Valley of Hearts Delight...

The cities that tech companies favor are largely liberal, even Austin in red Texas. I wonder if tech people would want to live in places with laws that restrict abortion, refuse to expand Medicare, take bargaining rights away from teachers, refuse to address climate change, want to allow guns in nursery schools, etc? You can build it, but will they want to come there?

Ann Arbor! World-class university,culture, restaurants galore,affordable housing, character-building winters!

I'm wondering how Nicas and Weise come up with their conclusions about a shortage of 'tech talent'. It certainly doesn't reflect the consensus in the American engineering professions. So many talented electronics and software people are out of work - it's like a slap in the face to every one of them.

I have little idea of the cost of housing etc. in Austin, TX. But as far as I am aware, housing and other living costs in Seattle, San Diego and Culver City, particularly the last, certainly rival those of the Bay Area! Additionally, I think a quick glance at a map would indicate that each of these three communities lies on the west coast of the United States. The Times refers to Culver City as if it's some small backwater town rather than a booming tech center in the heart Los Angeles! It has recently welcomed thousands of Google employees, is the home of Sony Studios and the hundreds of tech companies that service the entertainment industry etc. The actual locality is the booming area of Playa Vista that carries the nickname Silicon Beach. Even a superficial analysis of housing and costs in places like Seattle, San Diego and, yes, Culver City would inform someone that, whatever the reasons for Apple's new investments, cheaper living expenses for employees isn't among them. When I saw the article in the NYT I kept scratching my head in wonderment as to whether the authors of that article even knew where Culver City is? As a lifelong New Yorker who now divides my time between the Big Apple and LA (and who actually resides part-time right next to Culver City) I can assure you life ain't cheaper here! And, sadly, this gives rise to the greater question: Is anyone at the NYT's doing any fact-checking and editing nowadays?

High tech companies are likely to cluster where there is a base of talented employees, which requires: 1. Institutions that constantly train new people. (Many mid-size cities can do this) 2. "Climate" - Talented people need to believe they have lots of opportunities. This means funding sources for new ventures as well as a choice of employment options for workers. (This one is harder to replicate in areas that don't have an existing base) The auto industry "escaped" from Detroit because it was cheaper to build cars in non-union southern states. The savings was enough to justify the other costs, long supply chains. If coastal cities cannot do something to make living in them less costly, the may lose their dominance among some of the more powerful companies who will opt for markets that can reduce employee costs (for many functions).

We need to make sure that some of our best and brightest start new companies rather than join one of the big corporations. It doesn't help that healthcare is company provided and that our taxation, regulatory system and State/city subsidies (e.g. NYC - Amazon) currently heavily favor multinationals.

I find this satement “ballooning cost of living in their home bases of Silicon Valley and Seattle” to be rich! What do they think skyrocketed our cost of living? This from a bunch of smart people?!

The real story here is that the high cost of housing in the San Francisco area due to mismanagement is driving the economic engine of the region out. This will only accelerate until another region becomes the new tech hub or the San Francisco area wisens up.

Working in this industry, it amazes me what snobs they are about where people world. Industry leaders wring their hands about "talent droughts" but ignore anyone who isn't willing to relocate to their chosen area. Guess what? Technology companies should be the most willing to accommodate remote employees and, frankly, it saves you a small fortune on office costs. There is plenty of "tech talent" out there -- it's just not everyone wants to live in CA or even Austin.

Its coming back, remember when route 128 was the tech, computer main street.

Apple spends another billion, but somehow my iPad still can’t make use of files, drag and drop, or function on many websites because it doesn’t have a real browser. What do all these engineers do? I’m at a loss.

Hey, Apple - come to the Hudson Valley! We have lots of great technical people here who are eager to work for you. Housing is very affordable, and this is the most scenic area on the East coast, if not in the country. And you'd be just a short ride to NYC, too. Do it, Tim.

Before working for Trump, Betsy DeVoss's schools did poorly, but still got paid, by our government, in delivering 'education' to future workers in the US. This 'polo workers' won't come from private schools where the owners profit while the kids don't learn anything. To build robust worker pools, the schools in the poor parts of your town must be adequately funded.

Midway between New York and Boston, where housing is far cheaper than either city—where trains run frequently to both—where Amazon and Apple would have free rein to put their stamp on things—where education is about the best in the country—Hartford, Connecticut.

I'm wondering why, instead of "aggressively expanding" and driving up the cost of living in an increasing number of cities, these major tech companies don't heavily invest in the cities they're already in. If finding talent is a problem, they should cultivate new talent by investing in STEM programs at local schools and offering internships to local students. If cost of living is a problem for their employees, they should use their funds to lobby for more affordable housing in the community. These companies should be focused on repairing the damage they've done to the cities they're currently in, not looking for more cities in which to repeat the same cycle.

The article goes at some point to note that these expansions are all in already well known and relatively well off cities. They think that the wealth should be passed around. But as the article notes many of these cities are because the talent already exists. Also the workers, who are disproportionally young, want to live in an exciting place that offers great food and culture. All these cities, with the exception of Pittsburgh, do this. In a decision to open new offices it makes sense to chase the talent. But it would do nothing to open an office in St. Louis if the talent does not want to live there. As to the HB-1 visas, anyone who has been reading about this issue knows that they are not being used for techies alone. Also, it is unclear if they have to prove that have looked for US workers. Finally, if you want to motivate college students to devote their education and life to something then they have to have an expectation that the economy will offer these jobs. Remember when everyone wanted to be a lawyer, that is until the glut hit the job market and then enrollments fell. HB-1 visas should be tightly controlled and only used when they have to be. These companies have to create an American workforce.

Net, seems this is all good news, as kids in the tech world and supporting ob descriptions, based on their education can find work and become tax payers. Both the so called Tech industry and the oil and gas sector, both pay a living wage and employers have difficulty restricting their wage's, and therefore benefits, as both these industries offer job openings at this time. Big looming question of course is, we are being warned a recession is in the offering. How it will affect the Tech boys is an unknown. Our production and now exports of oil and LNG, may also be affected. Popular US cities have to get used to the fact they will be congested and traffic nightmares if these young folks can't afford to live near their work. Young folks know, commuting is a waste of life. They for one marry later and many are not having kids, equals no big push for a yard for little Johnny

Having grown up in San Francisco and returning home each year I have seen the city's once sleepy and stable existence change into a free for all. What the government and it's citizens have been unable to do, economics will. It's too expensive and growth will stop or edge back as companies and talent look elsewhere, particularly to cities where land is still plentiful. In this new industrial age it would appear that only metropolitan areas of 2 million people or more can prosper. Below that smaller cities, small downs and rural America are dying. We need policies to make living in these 21st century models attainable for all Americans. How many more small towns have to die when a single employer closes its factory and wipes out the community overnight for this message to reach our leaders.

You write that a time of stress has arrived for SF Tech, "prompted by issues in the companies’ hometowns, which have not built enough housing to keep up"with their work forces." Just a minute, here. My native Bay Area was once home to a cross-section (diverse, if you will) of America. It was a working class town, and a union town, with a tradition of leadership in the movement for the rights of the lower class. Think 1934 General Strike, the second in American history, with 1919 Seattle first, and 1946 Oakland third. Think Arnold Industrial Highway. Think Hunter's Point, Mare Island, and Oakland Army/Naval Terminal. Remember those who built the bridges, dangling 700 feet above the water to create the background accessorization for today's theme park. Don't forget those who repaired and sent back into battle our own battered and heroically victorious USS San Francisco. Gone. Gone utterly. Tech talent and its concomitant culture of superficial authenticity has driven the working class out of The City , including the famed Black areas of West Oakland and Fillmore. And gnaws at Latino Mission. You say that there are "issues" [Yuppiespeak for "problems"] involving companies’ housing? Yes, there are. See above. And the Tech juggernauts haven't "built enough housing to keep up with their growing work forces?" After taking over a region of hundreds of thousands of people? Might there not be a tad too much Bay Area housing for the Masters of the Universe?

The companies that make technologies for remote working don't seem to use their own products. Perhaps their own needs would force them to make better products even if competitive forces won't.