
One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer - treve
https://evertpot.com/a-look-back-at-sf/
======
lordnacho
As a European visitor, I had similar feelings about SF.

One moment I'm in Twitter HQ, enjoying free food from around the world, place
is buzzing with techies. Next moment we wander around a bit and there's a
whole park where the homeless are living in the bushes.

I was literally in a place where one guy I met was designing self driving
cars, and another guy was wandering the street with no shoes on, fighting with
his invisible friend.

I also thought the natural surroundings were a contrast with what people have
built. Minus the bridge and a few landmarks, the city looks kinda bland. Too
low-rise for such a popular place. But there's hills and natural features that
are quite spectacular.

~~~
scythe
When I first flew in to San Francisco, I thought it looked like Mexico City.

After a while, I came to believe that lots of attached housing up and down
hills is actually a pretty charming street form. On a flat plain, it would be
claustrophobic, but the relief creates views that open up the dense landscape.
Lots of San Francisco photography emphasizes this.

It makes me wonder why new developments today are always built in the flattest
places -- the flatness practically forces us to include a lot of empty space,
usually in the form of lawns.

~~~
dexwiz
I think your mixing the cause and effect here. Development in Flatland middle
America is not constrained by coast line. It’s much easier to build out than
up, and land is on average cheaper than coastal cities. This means
developments include large open spaces, because it’s affordable. A lawn in a
Mid West city starts at 100k instead of 10mil like in San Francisco.

~~~
sokoloff
In a lot of Midwest, you can buy a decent house and a lawn for $150K all-in,
where the land is under $25K of the assessed value.

~~~
dexwiz
That’s totally reasonable. The 100k quote was for inside a city, where prices
are a bit more but still reasonable. But once you get into the burbs it’s more
about finding a good neighborhood than an affordable price.

Source: Grew up and lived in Indiana, now live in SF.

------
komali2
>But when you go home after work, also be prepared to see the dystopia that
your industry has created as a by-product.

Has this actually been concluded? That it is the "tech industry's fault?"
Because I feel like I could fence off any claims as such by asking, "well, why
didn't the government do anything about it?"

Based on my experience in multiple major metropolitan areas, the "tech
industry" here in SF seems to be the most engaged in "doing something about
it" than anywhere else. Is it because the problem is bigger? Maybe they're
just better at marketing than the companies in other cities? Fair questions.
Maybe.

I remember reading in the local papers when I lived in Mountain View that
Google was going to assign some # of a new housing project they wanted to be
low income housing - at my understanding, to be a total loss to them. They
were going to build bridges, footpaths, and parks to "offset" the burden of
the increased number of residents in Mountain View. I have seen similar from
other companies.

In Houston, BP nuked the gulf of mexico and then fought _everyone_ over how
"responsible" they are for it. Chevron donated some fossils to the Museum of
Natural Science. I dunno, I just feel like people are being unduly critical of
the tech industry in SF, as if some homeless people poop on the streets
because rich engineers ride buses paid for by google. Why isn't there better
public transit, so the buses aren't necessary? Why block the proliferation of
scooters and bicycles, so people are far more motivated to take Lyft or Uber?
Why aren't there more public, 24/7 restrooms? And why isn't the Oil industry
taking more flack for turning Houston into a 75x75 mile square of choking
freeways? Because poop is grosser? Grosser than runaway climate change? Poop
happens in Houston, too.

I just feel like SF is a big giant target, the go-to punching bag, because Big
Tech, and yet meanwhile Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Finance, Big Ag gets away
with dramatically worse in cost and human suffering.

~~~
abalone
See the Prop C campaign (e.g. Marc Benioff) for more insight in this issue. SF
tech didn’t invent homelessness but it has clearly exacerbated it, simply by
generating a lot of demand for housing.

In a nutshell, the tech industry generally tries to point the finger at lack
of supply and blame NIMBYS for obstructing housing construction. But this can
be seen as a defensive strategy: it’s pretty clear that a sudden, massive
surge of high income earners into a constrained area in the top of a peninsula
with weak tenant protections will push a lot of poorer people out of their
housing.

It’s not only the fault of the city not to build housing fast enough. We’ve
even seen “strange” effects in other boomtowns (Seattle) where building
doesn’t solve the problem.[1]

It’s not that strange if you _truly_ understand economics 101. It contains the
concept of price inelasticity, which one might see under boomtown conditions
(insatiable demand for a necessity, essentially). But to even engage in a real
economics discussion kind of misses the point. Mostly the tech industry wants
to deflect blame for the problem.

[1] [https://knock-la.com/seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-
si...](https://knock-la.com/seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-side-housing-
advocates-5b4ca5ed6d02)

~~~
pm90
> simply by generating a lot of demand for housing.

Oh for fucks sake. You realize this is what happens when a city becomes
successful right?

If you want to blame someone, its the NIMBYs: scuttling housing projects that
would have eased the bubble and helped house a lot more people for reasonable
prices, while benefiting from the economic successes of the companies and
people moving in.

~~~
abalone
I predicted this response, right? Boomtown economics are tricky. There is just
an extraordinary amount of demand that appeared in a very short time. The
velocity and magnitude of the surge in demand matters.

When you have an entire global population of techies that suddenly want to
move to the heart of their industry, you may experience price inelasticity,
which basically means you won’t see much downward movement in price.

Think of it: before prices come down to affordable levels for the people you
see on the street, or even service industry workers and teachers and whatnot,
they would first be dirt cheap for tech. How many _more_ tech workers would
move to SF or start their companies here if they heard it was cheap now?
That’s how deep the demand goes. That’s all the demand that needs to be
satiated before market rates come down to where they could reverse
homelessness.

That’s why tech can’t just pass the buck to NIMBYS or pretend like this is any
other city. We are creating some of the most valuable companies in the world
here right now and it generally helps your prospects to co-locate. That
creates very exceptional demand conditions.

~~~
pm90
You have good points. In a hypothetical scenario where the housing market was
highly elastic, it would certainly lead to a huge movement of tech labor force
to the Bay Area.

But I feel like that is the way SFBA will grow. Every city has its secret
sauce, for SFBA it is tech. Instead of fighting it, I can imagine a scenario
where the concentration of Tech leads to a transformation of the area to be
more like NYC. Or maybe it will take a different direction.

As naive as it sounds, I still believe in Tech as a force for good (not Big
Tech necessarily). I moved here from Austin, and folks there talk about how
the tech industry is growing, but its still Satellite offices for Big Tech.
The kind of talent I see in SFBA is staggering.

~~~
abalone
Do you really feel that Prop C is “fighting” tech growth, though? Not sure if
that is your position.

I think a big reason Benioff came around is that he’s taking a long view.
Perhaps you could even draw a connection with the maturity of Salesforce as a
company vs young startups whose current teams might exit in under 10 years.
Benioff got his whole team on board not only out of altruism, but by noting
that homelessness was seriously threatening Saleforce’s future in the city.

~~~
pm90
Benioff didn't come around. He is from SF, unlike a lot of other Tech CEO's.
His company has made significant investments in the City proper. He's been
playing the long game for a while now.

I don't have an opinion on Prop C. The thrust of my argument was more around
prop 13.

------
lhorie
I'm also from Toronto living in SF. This is pretty spot on.

Some other things that struck me about living here.

\- SF is cold! (yes, this coming from a canadian) In Toronto you get "real"
seasons and snow during winter, but SF (especially in the areas closer to the
ocean) is blasted with cold wind and fog year-round so there's really never a
hot season. In addition to that, SF has its infamous micro-weathers: it might
be foggy on one patch of the city, rain on another and be sunny (but still
windy) on yet another part of town, all at the same time.

\- Food scene: SF does a lot of spins on food. If I were to describe food
here, I'd have to say it's generally "gimmicky". It's very common to see
people lining up for unique eye-catching things like asian+mexican fusion,
dashi-broth ramen and taiyaki ice cream, but finding good traditional chinese
or greek or korean food or even a half-decent shawarma is tough. Also, having
to wait in line for 30+ mins almost everywhere detracts a lot from dining
experiences. Many places are also ridiculously cramped. I've never had to walk
_through the kitchen_ to get to a restroom anywhere else before.

\- LGBT community: Toronto has a large LGBT community and one of the largest
parades in North America, but people generally don't try to be too outrageous.
In the one year I've been to SF, I've ran into butt-naked people numerous
times (in contexts ranging from them just walking down the street to them
running the Bay-to-Breakers marathon). Also ran into a leather fetish gear
festival around costco a while back. Nothing really against that sort of
stuff, but can be awkward to inadvertently run into it when you're just out
and about with the kids on a random weekend.

\- Geography and nature: Within SF, there are gorgeous places scattered
throughout the city (e.g. views from Russian Hill, around Randall museum,
presidio area). If you have a car, there are also a ton of amazing state parks
in the surrounding areas, from redwood forests to beaches. You can see wild
sea life up close at fitzgerald marine reserve and even spot whales at pigeon
point.

~~~
cirgue
> SF does a lot of spins on food. If I were to describe food here, I'd have to
> say it's generally "gimmicky".

We need a word for the disappointment experienced upon realizing that the food
in front of you has been optimized for Instagram and not for you.

~~~
dexwiz
Stop going to restaurants based on pictures and yelp reviews then. Also
Michelen Stars are horrible unless you want over priced small plates that try
to be art first and food second. If you do want to go to those places, get a
reservation. Either OpenTable or just call them like it’s the 90s.

It takes a while, but exploring neighborhoods can be really rewarding. I
rarely wait for a table, and if you do have to wait there is usually another
place right next door. Not every place is spectacular, but the overall food
quality here is decent. Finally, avoid anywhere with more than 20-30 items on
a menu (Thank you Gordon Ramsey).

There is another (realer imo) Asian area on Clement and Geary over in the
Richmond that has authentic food all over. Japan town is good, but stay away
from most of the tourist trap that is the Grant street Chinatown.

But this city does suck for Mediterranean.

~~~
amyjess
It has nothing to do with waiting for tables and everything to do with the
food being both more expensive and less tasty than the kind of food you get
from holes in the wall.

Honestly, I'd even take an everyday American Chinese restaurant over one of
those yuppie restaurants that sell overpriced Chinese-ish food aimed at white
yuppies (the Americanization bothers me less than the catering to the yuppie
community... regular old working-class American Chinese food is actually
pretty tasty, even if it's not my favorite, which is more than I can say for
Yuppie Chinese).

------
sampo
> "Queers hate techies" (from the photo)

The housing scarcity and high rents are caused by politics, by zoning, by not
allowing to build enough new homes. It's sad that techies are blamed for the
problem created by the politicians and, ultimately, by the voters.

Especially foreign tech workers, such as the author, bear no blame, as they
cannot even vote in any US elections.

~~~
jseliger
Yes. I was just going to post this:

 _Personally I can emphasize with the sentiment. Even though I don’t think
that 20-something programmers in Google buses are personally responsible for
the disparity, but the brandless tinted Google buses are a powerful symbol for
new class system._

 _I’ve never seen so much poverty and homelessness before. There’s many major
streets where wearing open shoes would be a big no-no, because of used needles
lying around in plain sight. Seeing people shooting up on Market Street is
pretty normal._

This is a political decision, or set of decisions:
[https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-
housing/](https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/). Anytime we want to,
we can build as much housing as people want to live in; we just make doing so
illegal right now.

~~~
treis
You can't build housing cheap enough for chronic drug users to afford.

~~~
adventured
> You can't build housing cheap enough for chronic drug users to afford.

You certainly easily can: effectively free (subsidized by tax payers).

The house-the-homeless programs run during the Bush and Obama administrations
dramatically reduced chronic homelessness in most of the US, pushing it to a
record low per capita.

San Francisco is one of the wealthiest places on earth. They intentionally
choose to allow the human rights violation of mass, particularly chaotic
homelessness to continue in the city. Morally they own it, period. There are
obvious, highly effective solutions that have been used elsewhere.

~~~
treis
>You certainly easily can: effectively free (subsidized by tax payers).

That's not building cheap housing that drug users can afford. It's just
getting someone else to pay.

------
ilovecaching
SF and the Bay Area are two very distinct places. The Bay Area is literally a
series of midwestern towns dotted by dot com campuses. SF is a cesspool of
homelessness and vanity. I love the bay, hate SF.

Also San Diego has tons of homeless too, and it has none of the tech scene.
People are homeless in California because A) It has weather you can be outside
in year round, especially in SoCal B) Our government is corrupt and is the
cause of a serious housing crisis to keep prices inflated C) Cost of living is
inflated by the housing crisis.

~~~
chrisseaton
> The Bay Area is literally a series of midwestern towns dotted by dot com
> campuses.

Midwestern? It's as far west as you can get.

And they're not towns - they're cities, all merged into one massive continuous
urban sprawl for 80 miles around the bay.

~~~
ilovecaching
They're like small towns dude. Definitely not cities.

~~~
chrisseaton
They are cities. San Mateo is a city. San Jose is a city. Hayward is a city.
Redwood City is... a city. Union City is... a city. Oakland isn't just a city,
it's the eighth most populated city in the whole of California!

~~~
ilovecaching
You're taking this way to literally. Union City isn't a city. It's a small
town at best. Redwood City is like a bigger town. Fremont is also town sized.
San Carlos is literally a town I've visited in Indiana. None of these places
are worthy of being called cities except for Oakland and maybe San Jose.

~~~
agency
This is a truly insane take. San Jose, the 3rd most populous city in
California and 10th most populous in the entire United States is _maybe_ a
city?

~~~
masonic
It's a city with a long-dead downtown surrounded by sprawl.

(SJ native here)

------
40acres
Software development is a relatively new job compared to others, but thinking
about the politics of the bay area highlights to me how weak politically the
"institution" of software / information technology is as a special interest
group.

You can definitely think of a senator or congressmen who is "for the banks" or
"for pharmaceuticals" even those who are "pro steel union" or "pro teachers
union" but you really can't find any of note who promote an interest that can
be specifically tied to what developers want. This is taking to account that
developers are not a monolith and probably span a wide variety of political
ideology, but I can't think of a single issue, whether or not it's in the
majority opinion that is being advocated for in government.

San Francisco in general is an interesting beacon, the city itself is not that
large, and I would expect that there are enough full time developers in the
city who live there who can at least get someone on the city council, and
yet.. it really does not seem to be the case that there is someone who you can
readily point to as an advocate. Am I drastically mistaken? Would love to hear
further perspectives from folks in the bay.

The most effective form of government is the one that is most local to you,
when will developers put their weight on the scale?

~~~
adonnjohn
I'm not from the Bay Area, but I think you present an interesting point. Is it
possible that we don't have developers in government because they would prefer
to focus on developing?

The type of people that end up spearheading campaigns and taking leadership
positions tend to be too busy with new priorities to continue previous
activities. Managing staff, setting and achieving goals across a variety of
disciplines, and ...leading may take the place of the inspiring moments that
help justify their existence as a developer, especially overtime. It takes a
specific type of person to want to take or make that change.

Though software folk are exploding in numbers (source: am one), perhaps
further care and attention is needed in balancing the social skills,
creativity, and growth of tenacity of those that are attempting to improve
their development abilities. Particularly if we want to create techies that
are smart as a whip and can also hold public office effectively.

~~~
40acres
I think traditionally you're right, but I'm noticing a sea change. With tech
companies becoming more diverse I think you're seeing a break in the cultural
stereotype of developers: the google walk out regarding sexual harassment is
marker to me.

More people who break the stereotypical mold are moving into engineering, I
think this trend will lead to the rise of something resembling a union and
special interest groups.

------
kabes
I'm a Belgian guy who lived one year (2016-2017) in SF. It took me a while to
admit to myself it really wasn't as awesome as I had envisioned it. In fact I
hated it after a year.

Besides what's already in the article (which was definitely the biggest shock)
I also felt like:

\- Nightlife is boring, not much to do for a city of about a million people
and the 2am alcohol limit.

\- Uninteresting architecture-wise

\- Dating life sucks for a heterosexual male who's used to 50/50 men/women
ratio in bars & clubs.

\- Being a hipster is the norm.

Admittedly, I did very little research before moving. And it wasn't all bad, I
loved driving my bike in the nearby hills and the work was interesting and
well paid.

~~~
rb808
Nice to hear I'm not the only one. I like tech and other developers but its
boring when virtually everyone you meet is in the same industry.

------
neurobashing
every time I read stuff like this I get that ol' rise of anger: that the
Internet, the great leveler, it will bring us all together regardless of where
we happen to be on earth ... at least, unless you want to build it, in which
case you need to be in the same small area for 40+ hours a week.

Aren't we tech types obsessed with removing single points of failure?

Aren't we moving past "you must sit in a specific chair so your manager can
have specific interactions with you, in person"?

I know there's remote work out there; believe me, I know. But read stuff like
this and browse the "who's hiring" threads, laden with ONSITE, and wonder when
I'll finally be able to sever the link between the skill in my brain and
sitting in that one specific chair in that one specific building in that one
specific town.

~~~
12elephant
Working in the same place, in my anecdotal experience, leads to better
communication. A couple orders of magnitude better.

Face-to-face communication provides much higher "bandwidth" than text-based.

~~~
bdamm
This is really it. Personally I don't think VC's care, and I don't think most
managers really care either. If they could have such a high quality experience
remotely, they'd be happy to hire remote talent. This takes dedication, self
motivation and creativity on both the manager and the employee.

In person is much easier. There are shared experiences we can have. We can
randomly bump into each other and have small reminder-type experiences. It's
easier to get a sense of what kind of person we're working with, and that
becomes an elevated sense of trust. This all matters and it's difficult to do
remotely.

I've done both. I prefer onsite. Currently I'm remote and honestly it's a
struggle, and regular onsite visits are a must to maintain those trust bonds.

------
himynameisdom
I really enjoy reading content that elicits more questions than answers
provided. This is one of those pieces and mirrors my experience as well. I
lived/grew up in Columbus, Ohio, before moving to the Bay. Columbus has a very
nice tech scene, but also boasts industry diversification. I can code, but my
neighbors/friends might be in insurance, healthcare, logistics, retail (L
Brands) and have a shared standard of living. I ended up moving back and enjoy
my $1.4k apartment in a great, quiet neighborhood and 5-7 minute commute to
work downtown. I think the Bay Area could benefit from such diversity.

------
justizin
I found this a really thoughtful read, I've lived here for almost 15 years and
have been below the federal poverty line as well as in the 90-something
percentile of US wage earners. It's heartbreaking to be surrounded by people
struggling and also to know that if you slow down too much, you could pretty
easily find yourself on the streets.

I think the author hits an important point that, if nothing else, it's
important to be aware of ourselves. It may not be my or your personal fault
that things are the way they are, but we're living in a system that
substantially rewards what we do over everyone else around us. I would posit
that this also harms us, as the author notes - a person making six figures
with a busy job can easily feel like money is just going through their fingers
like water.

This is part of why I'm going back to school to study economics. I want to
live a rich life, which to me doesn't mean having substantially more than
other people. I want to live in an enriched community where everyone who plays
an important part can live comfortably, raise a family if they want to, have
savings, pay a reasonable amount for housing, etc..

There's more to life than computers. <3

------
hirundo
> “it takes about 1-2 months to no longer really see the homeless”.

I used to live a couple hours south of SF. Once I went to a conference at
Mosconi Center that started early, and got a big shock just driving there a
bit after dawn. Right off of the freeway there was a tent city on concrete
sidewalks. The filth and poverty were overwhelming to me. I felt like a slack
jawed hick, not realizing that this kind of mass naked misery was so nearby. I
saw the oft mentioned shit and needles and condoms strewn everywhere. On foot
I made the mistake of meeting a homeless guy's eyes, who then chased me while
screaming threats for two blocks.

And this was around '95, and the consensus is that it's gotten a lot worse.
That people can ignore that after a couple of months of exposure is a
testament to human plasticity. I imagine that if it were fresh to everyone
every day people would have to either flee or actually do something about it.
It's hard to imagine what an individual could do that would be effective.

If only there were a tech solution for reversing the invisibility. Articles
like this can help a little but they're probably easier to ignore than the
homeless themselves.

------
econner
I thought this video about one developer's saga trying to build housing where
his laundromat currently is explains a lot of the problems SF has with
creating new housing:

"This Insane Battle To Block a New Apartment Building Explains Why San
Francisco and Other Cities Are So Expensive"
[https://reason.com/reasontv/2018/12/27/san-francisco-
mission...](https://reason.com/reasontv/2018/12/27/san-francisco-mission-
housing-crisis)

------
goldcd
What's tech's obsession with the bay area? It's lovely, I've visited - and
then left. I can see why companies would thrive in an area with this excellent
skill-pool - but I'd have thought they'd all want to get their employees out
of there as soon as possible, once they'd got them. Chuck them into a new
office in the mid-west, let them buy a 5 bedroom mansion for a fraction of
their salary, and make potential poaching as painful as possible. Only
possible reasons I can think of for what's happening are: 1) Insanely rich
bosses are delusional, want all their staff around them, and the 'prestige' is
over-riding sanity. 2) Staff consider Bay Area is "making it" and are happy to
flit between local employers, ranking up their salary as they go.

------
aswanson
_we wanted a 2-bedroom apartment and a reasonable commute. Ultimately this
meant that our rent was $4250 USD per month..._ Whaaa....

~~~
munchbunny
That sounds in the ballpark these days. It's in the range on the nicer end but
not a luxury apartment.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Yeah, but it's also about 3 times my entire house payment here in the midwest.

~~~
LyndsySimon
It's five times my mortgage payment on a five bedroom house on a half acre,
inside the city limits of a town ~13k.

------
mgraczyk
> But when you go home after work, also be prepared to see the dystopia that
> your industry has created as a by-product.

I think it's a bit narcissistic to believe that tech has somehow caused all of
SF's problems and unique qualities. Healthcare is a bigger and faster growing
industry, and the homeless situation is caused by lots of factors both supply
(zoning/regulation) and demand (tech/finance/healthcare workers).

There is a veneer of tech-induced culture in SF, but the true character and
complexity of the city is caused by much, much more.

------
udev
Is it just me or the writer has a really nice "voice" in this post?

Was pleasant to read, but also informative, and balanced.

Well done!

------
baron816
The Bay Area isn’t the only place that has experienced an economic boom, but
it is definitely the one that has managed it the worst.

~~~
gnopgnip
Detroit is quintessentially the city that has the worst outcome from an
economic boom. From 1940 through to about the mid 1960s the city the top, or
near the top for household income, similar to SF now.

------
imbusy111
"be prepared to see the dystopia that your industry has created as a by-
product." \- that's an assumption that is not based on fact. The software
industry is not the only factor.

~~~
elif
When I make a sandwich, I do not become a bread baker first...

It is perfectly reasonable to state as fact that the predominant economic
paradigm of the city has caused dystopia, despite there being other causal
factors or caveats baked in.

~~~
leetcrew
if I roll through NYC with a tank column and blow a bunch of stuff up, is the
ensuing chaos caused by wall street?

edit: or do I become the predominant economic paradigm?

------
w0mbat
The real experience is living in the south bay in a giant apartment complex
with a pool, driving everywhere, working on a tech campus, shopping at Fry's
and Valley Fair. I may move back.

------
sleavey
This is in the back of my mind when I think about one day working in the Bay
Area. Given that the cost of living has increased to match the high salaries,
there is little to draw me there other than cool problems to work on, which
Silicon Valley does not have a monopoly on.

~~~
falsedan
Career growth and networking opportunities is unprecedented there. Plus, if
the salaries are higher in proportion to the costs of living, then your 10%
(or whatever) savings you put aside will be much bigger.

I crunched the numbers before we moved to SF and even paying 10x more rent for
3x more salary worked out ok.

~~~
soared
People tend to forget that if you contribute 10% of your salary to a
retirement account, that 10% in CA is massively bigger than the same 10%
anywhere else. Even if you technically lose on cost of living, you can win
with proper savings strategies.

~~~
madengr
“if” is the issue. Most people won’t contribute 10%, and that too has a tax
ceiling. I contribute 15%, and I still hit the 18k limit, moving into after
tax. Make too much to contribute to a Roth also. I’m in a flyover state, and
tech salaries in SF are going to be even more limited. I just save it as cash
for my kids college.

~~~
thatfrenchguy
Working in tech, if you don't max out your 401k, what are you doing ?

~~~
madengr
Agreed. Just iterating that 10% easily hits the limit of traditional
retirement savings, and one has to use different avenues to have equivalent
retirement income of a tech salary.

------
vumgl
The housing crisis, high prices, and even homelessness is inevitable in such a
great place (climate, nature, jobs). The corrupt political system and some
people's attitude is just another indirect consequence. You can't fight the
laws of supply and demand.

------
kensai
"...the only reason Silicon Valley and the Bay Area has been so prosperous is
because it’s in a country where generally people are comfortable with having
so much wealth, while having so many people live under the poverty line."

This. So horrible. :(

~~~
bigdatadevdog
Objectively not true, it is run by the same people who complained about it and
who's solution is to increase taxes and regulations which only worsens the
problem.

The Working Class is moving into states like Texas for a reason despite
California being progressive

------
JohnFen
Honestly, I can't imagine a job that is interesting or well-paying enough to
be worth having to live in the bay area or SV.

~~~
TomVDB
Imagine this: Fantastic weather. Ski on Saturday, bike on Sunday, go to the
beach on Monday, if you feel like it. Regional parks, state park, national
park all within 15min to a few hours distance. Lots of cultural events due to
closeness of San Francisco. Huge variety of restaurants. 2 nearby
international airports that will get me anywhere quickly. The high chance of
finding a new, interesting job if the need ever arises.

And, yes, incredibly interesting and well paying job that has set me up for
retirement long before I hit 65 now matter where I'll end up (not that I'd
want to retire soon because... interesting job.)

When you're part of the group who got lucky, living in the Bay Area is really
not so bad.

~~~
JohnFen
I don't have to imagine it -- I'm very, very familiar with the area.

------
ryandrake
> “On the way I noticed that the billboards next to the highways were directly
> targetting developers.”

Funny, this was the first thing I also noticed about the Bay Area when I moved
out here years ago: the billboards. Where I came from (Deep South, Florida
panhandle), all the billboards said things like “Homeschoolers for Jesus” and
“Remember not to shake your baby,” and when I landed in SFO I was greeted by
billboards for Portal 2, some Java framework, and the unbiquitous iPhone
billboards. Definitely felt more in my element here!

------
pnw_hazor
Practically every open space in Seattle hosts an unauthorized homeless
encampment.

Many downtown workers (including me) have to step over or around garbage,
feces, used needles, tents, sleeping bags, passed out junkies/drunks, and so
on, every time they come to work or leave their office. Not to mention the
odors.

------
blobbers
I came from a similar place to yourself and agree with your comments.

When I came to SF, I couldn't help but stare at stark poverty. I came from a
much smaller place that lacked all of these problems. But what you described
is true; after a few months your brain normalizes to the dystopia, and that in
itself is scary.

I've been in the bay area 12 years now, and can't imagine moving out of
California, but at the same time feel that things here are out of balance and
somehow 'wrong'. But I also feel like I don't know where I'd go. We talk about
Vancouver, or San Diego, but realistically I don't even know what I'd do in
those cities.

------
MrZongle2
FTA: _" When I first moved to San Francisco, one of my friends told me on the
phone “it takes about 1-2 months to no longer really see the homeless”."_

That's.... pretty horrible, really.

~~~
tick_tock_tick
It worries me some days that I've become so desensitized I barely notice it.

------
EMRZ
This is not the first article about SF where i read about used needles and
people defecating everywhere.

Being from a third world country i have never seen human waste on the street.
I think something is very wrong in SF.

Also, earlier this week i read this [1] twitter thread from Casey Muratori on
the topic, looks relevant.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/cmuratori/status/1080580967268376577](https://twitter.com/cmuratori/status/1080580967268376577)

------
bigdatadevdog
Just tired of hearing about SF (and NY or Seattle for that matter), It is run
by the same people who complain about the conditions there. You can make a
good living as a SE in other cities like Austin, Houston, or even Denver which
are a lot more affordable and doesn't have the sheer concentration of
homelessness and poverty.

------
chooseaname
> I can’t help wondering though that the only reason Silicon Valley and the
> Bay Area has been so prosperous is because it’s in a country where generally
> people are comfortable with having so much wealth, while having so many
> people live under the poverty line.

------
chrisper
I lived in the South Bay for ~5 years while I was going to university there. I
liked it, but also hated it.

People everywhere, bad drivers, lots of arrogance etc, but now looking back
there many great moments that I kind of miss.

One of them is that I loved travelling and exploring in the US. There is just
always something to do. Also you meet nice people almost everywhere. So it was
quite easy to make friends instantly.

If the visa situation wasn't so bad, I think I'd go back now that I took a
break from the Bay Area Craziness.

To me living in Europe makes more sense (more stable and secure), but life in
the US is somehow more fun. That is until you run out of money (be it because
of medical bills or because you got sued...)

~~~
leetcrew
> To me living in Europe makes more sense (more stable and secure), but life
> in the US is somehow more fun. That is until you run out of money (be it
> because of medical bills or because you got sued...)

yes, European countries tend to have much better safety nets, but they also
come with significantly higher taxes. as a software engineer in the states,
you can also expect to get paid about twice as much for the same work. there
may be some good reasons to prefer Europe, but they probably aren't economic.

------
ggurgone
Funny enough I worked at Yelp too and one of the reasons why I decided to move
back to Europe was what you wrote :)

"There is a lot of money, but not a lot of wealth."

------
president
And yet nothing will change as there is too much insecurity in this climate.
Everyone is serving themselves for the sake of security down the line.

