Seattle is home to two of the five biggest tech companies in the US.
Boston has had an IPO every year for the last ten years that exceeds any in NYC history.
LA has had the only 11-digit IPO in the last five years, outside of the bay area. It's also capturing the zeitgeist in a way that NYC no longer does (that's subjective, of course, but I'd debate it).
Just by market cap, Sydney's three biggest tech co's would are more impressive than NYC's.
NYC is an awesome startup city, but the idea that it's the clear #2 is silly.
All the criteria you chose seem like bad proxies for the things that really matter. I would count the following as the fundamental metrics that really count.
- Average (high-end) programmer salary
- Amount of VC funding
- Total number of full-time tech workers
The 1st and 2nd criteria determine how attractive the city is, for employees and founders respectively.
The 3rd criteria determines how much clustering/network effects the city enjoys.
On all 3 criteria, NYC is either 1st or 2nd. NYC hedge funds have bid up programmer salaries to levels that are virtually impossible to get anywhere else besides SFBA. The data on VC-funding shows NYC as a solid #2, only behind SFBA. And the linked article shows that in terms of networking potential, NYC is #2 as well.
You get paid more gross in NYC than Seattle, but the take-home is less due to taxes. Cost of living is also approximately double. I did the math last year -- offer was 5% higher in NYC, but the after-tax and living disposable income was 50% higher in Seattle.
2/3rd the gross pay in Austin probably gives a significant "raise" in terms of relative standard of living and maybe 1/4 the money in many parts of Asia would move you even higher.
All I'm saying is that Average Salary is probably a bad way to compare across geographies.
You're right, COL adjusted salary is a more accurate metric. According to NerdWallet, COL in Brooklyn is ~22% higher than Seattle. If you're looking at Manhattan, you should be comparing Manhattan vs Seattle-Downtown. Living in Seattle outside of downtown is more comparable to living in Brooklyn.
The really lucrative jobs in NYC, are the ones with Hedge Funds that are based entirely in NYC. Places like 2-sigma, Jane-st, DE-Shaw, Jump, and others. The offers they make, are hard to match anywhere else, even after COL adjustments. If you're considering a job at a random NYC tech company though, I agree that the salary may not make up for COL.
Having lived and worked in both cities, my experience is that salaries in Seattle are higher unless you're in fin-tech. I was quoted consistently better salaries in Seattle.
Salaries in Seattle also work out to be higher given the higher COL in NYC. I owned a mid-sized house with front and back yard in West Seattle; my apartment in Brooklyn is much smaller and more expensive.
Groceries can be up to 2.5x as expensive at some places unless you travel out of your way to someplace like Trader Joe's.
I'd be curious to see more of those CoL comparisons. How big of a place are you pricing for NYC, and in which neighborhood? Are you factoring in the savings from not needing a car?
You can find CoL calculators out there, and they have their faults, but Seattle is already an expensive city in its own right, and I simply don't see how you possibly got NYC to come out double. That's way out of line with the calculators.
I've also done this math -- price per sqft is wayy better in Seattle and you don't necessarily need a car. In any case, a metro card isnt cheap. The cost of groceries/alcohol is also much much higher in nyc and at a lower quality.
I have a postdoc friend who lives in Seattle on slightly less than I do. They have a huge 1br in cap Hill with parking next to the subway with a short committee downtown or to UW. Meanwhile my apartment is the same price with a minifridge, a 40m commute, and no dishwasher/laundry/disposal.
Plus the PNW is just more enjoyable to explore than the northeast in my opinion. You definitely can make more in Nyc but the COL and QoL is just awful compared to the pnw
While I agree with your opinions here, those things are also somewhat personal. I place a lot of value on large housing, cheap car ownership and easy access to nice outdoor spaces.
A lot of other folks place more value on not needing a car ever, lots of easy food delivery options, and access to any kind or show or performance you might ever want to see without having to travel.
As someone who moved from LA to SF to Brooklyn, this exactly. There’s a ton of factors that are very personal. I need a big city; SF is just too small, among all the other reasons I disliked living there. I’m happy to pay for a place that has the things I actually prefer. This sentiment, of course, goes both ways. NYC isn’t for everyone. I don’t want to live in Midtown...
I thought while Cost of living in Seattle is relatively lesser than NYC, the house prices are exorbitant. NYC has advantage of very close proximity to NJ, Connecticut where you could probably get a better home than in Seattle-Bellvue-Redmond area.
The time, effort, and stress of commuting easily offsets any gains from living outside of NYC. Any city with decent neighborhoods will be at least a 60 minute commute door to door, plus you have to budget another 30 minutes for delays and whatnot because the public transit is terrible.
It's very difficult to plan anything on work days if you're commuting into NYC, and you get to pay super high rents and property taxes for states with huge deficits and infrastructure debt which means the situation won't get any better. Seattle offers better food, recreational activities, growing future, and no income tax. I'd say the weather is better too, but some people really miss the sun, but you can easily fly to a beach resort for multiple weekends of the year with the savings of not living in the NYC area.
As someone who has gone through this for some 20 yrs, it's usually a faster commute to travel from Hoboken to pretty much anywhere along/south of the PATH line during peak hours (so 34th down to the southern tip of Manhattan) versus a starting point of the UES/UWS (which is where the comparable housing exists).
My commute from Hoboken to various startup locations in NYC was consistently ~45 minutes door to door, versus an hour for my friends on the UES/UWS.
Hoboken might as well be a borough of NYC, as well as the waterfront part of Jersey City. I was referring to places most think of when raising a family and wanting to own a home with a driveway.
Wouldn't be bad if the train was reliable, but if you monitor njtransit.com, it's late all too often, and if you have connecting trains then it will add to the stress.
If it was like Japan and you could actually make plans, then it wouldn't be so bad.
You sort of prove the cherry picking argument. Average salary means nothing in a vacuum without cost of living considered. And when it is... Unsurprisingly NYC comes in at the bottom of the list, https://www.codementor.io/blog/best-cities-software-engineer... Seattle is actually #1
I can’t trust any of these comparisions because it’s difficult to compare apartments across cities. Average apartment costs in new york are meaningless. I know of no one paying 3k per month. Usually it’s between 1k-1.5k, which completely changes this graph.
It's not hard. And they're not. You're friends are paying 1K-1.5 to have a room. In the end if you have to pay as much for a room in city A as a whole apartment or mortgage in city B, you are getting paid less. To expand, both the the average and median price per a room per apartment is readily available and easily calculable. If a 2BD is 4K in city A and most people put 4 people in that apartment that doesn't mean all the sudden that it's the same deal as the same 2BD in city B that only cost $1K a month because most people don't share the space. The share cost is still a function of the actual cost, and easily computable and available in every city. Many people in Seattle split apartments and pay 500-600 per a room. They just aren't forced to because on average per cost of goods they get paid more. If anything Seattle has the calculations set up against it, as it has much much smaller city boundaries than NYC.
I understand that, but my argument is that people usually spend up to the amount they are comfortable with because they are not rational actors.
I made this argument a lot when the prius was becoming popular. Lots of people said it was overpriced, that is cost 30k and there were similarly equipped cars for 20k. But that completely missed who was buying the car. If someone is in the market to spend 30k on a car, they most likely will, as they have entered into a different price bracket.
Same thing with apartments. Sure in Seattle you could share a space and pay less, my hunch (with no data to back this up) is that you probably wont. If I can comfortably afford 1-1.5k, then that's what I'm going to spend, regardless of city (Please don't nitpick and say 'Oh I share and pay less', I'm not speaking in absolutes).
You obviously will get a more space/features/quality in Seattle for the money, but my argument against this guides is they say you will actually be making x, because I'll be paying more in rent. but that's not the case. Yes you can argue the missed cost of having more space, but that's not what they compare. My bank account is going to be the same after rent regardless of the major city I'm in.
While there is def some sound logic to what you're saying I think the key piece you're missing is paying the same amount of monthly payments enables developers in Seattle to buy a home, which in the end means they are building equity by default while their counterparts in NYC could live their whole lives paying rent that keeps going up.
That gets into the debate of buying vs renting, and Im honestly not sold on all the benefits of buying. While you are building equity, it’s debatable whether you could make more just nuy putting money into an index fund. Im talking about the down payment, all the maintenace costs and associated costs of owning a home.
But I don’t need to dig into it further. I planning on getting out of NYC eventually to lower my costs and be somewhere with cheaper cost of living. It’s just harder to figure out true cost of living and the amount you earn as a developer then these guides suggest.
Please tell me where anyone is paying 1k-1.5k for an apartment in NYC. I am paying 2700/mo for 650 sqft, 45 minute commute from midtown, and I haven't seen anything better without a longer commute. Studios in my neighborhood are 1.6k+, and I am not in a happenin' place.
Should have specified, but thought it would be implied...roomates or significant other. Yes it’s not an equal comparision to other areas as you can get a whole apartment there by yourself.
If your paying 2700, find some roomates, move to bushwick/east williamsburg astoria, downtown brooklyn. And now your paying 1-1.5
I lived in Harlem 30 minutes from Midtown in a 2bdrm with a roommmate for 850, I now live in Boerum Hill (really nice neighborhood) 30 minutes from Midtown in a studio for 1800. It's really not hard to find places that aren't that expensive, you just have to be patient / willing to have a roommate or two.
I agree those are good criteria but they tell only half the story. The other commenters metrics are more outcome focused.
It's great if you have a lot of VC funding, but if it's not necessarily leading to attractive outcomes for investors or early employees then that's not going to be sustainable.
in my head (a totally unscientific read of the zeitgeist), it's
1. SF/SV (by a very wide margin)
2. LA, NYC, boston (3-way tie)
3. seattle, austin (2-way tie)
4. atlanta, chicago, and everywhere else
obviously this is US-only since i don't know much about the international startup scene other than china in general has been exploding with competitive startups (although that seems to have cooled a bit?).
I feel like 2. and 3. are switched. LA/NY are tech cities because they are huge population areas with a lot of wealth, and so support almost every type of industry. Seattle and Austin both sound more like tech cultural cities, as they are smaller but more defined by tech, with both local giants (maybe ATX less so) and startups.
I'd move Boston into tier 3. It's actually an incredibly rich ecosystem, I'd put it #3 just behind SF/Seattle in terms of real-world impact, market cap of tech co's, etc. But no one really moves to Boston to start a company, they tend to be the folks who hung around after Harvard/MIT.
I was just reading pg's "Cities" essay this morning (http://www.paulgraham.com/cities.html). Much of what he said in 2008 is still relevant today. That said, I think NYC has come around a bit.
I disagree with one of his conclusions regarding his reference to money and power. specifically, I see the '2008' housing crisis proving that money is power and without money power soon wanes. I see the bailout as a debate that the government lost and proof money in an of itself is power. I bring this up because the bay derives its power from money, if the money is going elsewhere it is not only losing money, it is losing power.
In my experience the NYC tech scene is far more grounded in reality. Far far less hype, uber for lawn gnomes nonsense and a lot more companies focused on real solutions and, often, with real customers. Silicon Valley has become, well, Silicon Valley while NYC is and feels much more like a true business hub.
Seems to be a lot of B2B stuff that’s driven by the overall diversity of NYC’s economy, which is far more diverse than SF/SV.
Great point. One quote that didn't make it in was that NYC doesn't have an "infrastructure of crazy," i.e., there aren't mentors/peers here who might tell a founder not to take a risk, not to take that offer from Google for $30 billion...
I am not surprised to read this and also not sure what makes this article/publisher the assumed authority to christened NYC as #2. After Silicon Valley one might argue that Seattle has better tech than NYC but again NYC always has breadth and depth of diverse markets such finance, fashion, ads, hotel, food, law and education to name a few. Not to mention, easy access to EWR/JFK/LGA airports from European continent makes it easier for people to come here and get involved.
There are many metrics you could use, as you and a couple other commenters have suggested, including the diverse verticals in NYC. In the end we made the claim based on deal volume + total amount, using that as a proxy for company formation and growth, both now and into the future. New York is WAY behind Bay Area but ahead of New England and the Northwest. (The CB Insights/Money Tree data goes by regions.) Here's the report: https://www.cbinsights.com/reports/CB-Insights_MoneyTree-Q4-...
Seattle has better connections to Asia, given the way planes travel it is closer to Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul than any other major American city besides anchorage.
If by "better," you mean a couple of hours shorter, then Seattle may be better.
If by "better," you mean more frequent flights, more airline choices, more destinations, and more business/first class opportunities, then New York beats Seattle with just one of its three international airports. (Four if you count Stewart.)
The difference is about 3 hours actually. And having gone through ICE at JFK and EWR, I much prefer arriving in Seattle than those two train wrecks. Not to mention getting to the airport is super easy.
The best part about tech in NYC is that it isn't a non-stop, in-your-face bubble the way that it is in SF/SJ. I work in tech but enjoy having friends in fashion, finance, real estate, advertising, etc. The conversations here are much more diverse. Interestingly, that same diversity helps improve the tech sector.
I can't help but wonder if the recent tax changes will have any effect in consolidating East Coast tech jobs. Previously you could live in NJ and work in Manhattan and write off the respective taxes of each. Now it's my understanding you'd be better served (for example) living and working solely in New Jersey.
See [1] for an actual discussion on the tax law changes
State and local taxes.
Taxpayers can deduct a maximum of $10,000
from the total of their state and local income
taxes or sales taxes, and their property taxes
(added together), a measure that might hurt
itemizers in high-tax states such as California,
New York and New Jersey. The $10,000 cap applies
whether you are single or married filing jointly;
if you are married filing separately, it drops to
$5,000.
I don't see what the federal tax changes would have to do with commuting from NJ to NY?
The change in federal law has to do with deducting the total amount of state and local taxes paid, which is, going forward, capped at $10k. New Jersey credits any tax paid to New York, which is staying the same.
> New Jersey credits any tax paid to New York, which is staying the same.
1) I was concerned that may no longer be the case, so thanks for that, but 2) if your net tax burden is > $10k because of double taxation then doesn't it make sense to exit one of the two places taxing you, thus lowering your overall burden? I.E. Even if NJ Tax is $6k and NYC is $5K that still means there's a $1k incentive to no longer work in one place and live in the other. That's my point.
"Double taxation" would be if you paid income tax in full to both NJ and NY, but that's not what happens since NJ provides a dollar for dollar credit for the income tax you pay to NY. Therefore, you only ever pay the maximum of either the income tax you owe NJ or the income tax you owe NY.
You're right that the new federal tax law could incentivize people to move from places with higher state and local taxes to places with lower state and local taxes, but the differences between NJ/NY/CT are negligible. The only big difference would be moving out of New York City, as that would save you up to ~20% (federal tax rate) of 3.5% (NYC income tax rate) of your income, but I doubt many people are willing to trade in their quality of life in NYC just for that.
This was a critical factor that led to me relocating from SF to NYC. While it's nice having every tech giant and startup in close proximity, the homogenous conversations and social interactions were a huge drawback.
There's definitely a trade-off -- while it's nice being exposed to the issues people experience in a variety of industries, it was nice having easy access to engineers/friends willing to hack on ideas in SF.
Sounds like something of your own making. Actual tech employees in the Bay Area are still an overwhelming minority of people. Yes, tech is more of a minority in NY and NY is more of a hub for other industries.
But if you only hung out with tech employees in SF, that was a bubble of your own creation.
Having lived in both SOMA and the Mission, I wholeheartedly disagree. The vast majority of people I met at coffee shops, restaurants or bars in the city worked in tech.
Living in Manhattan (East Village) and Brooklyn provided a completely different experience. It was a rare to meet people who work in tech.
In both circumstances, I haven't been going out of my way to try to meet people in any specific industry.
> Having lived in both SOMA and the Mission, I wholeheartedly disagree.
No need to rely on anecdotes though. According to San Francisco’s Controller’s Office, a little over 6% of the population work in the tech industry[1]. That is an unquestionably small minority of the overall population.
If the people you have met predominantly worked in tech, it is likely due to a bubble you created yourself. Perhaps, for example, the majority of the population outside of tech cannot afford to spend time at those coffee shops and restaurants?
> the majority of the population outside of tech cannot afford to spend time at those coffee shops and restaurants?
That's probably the parent's point - your likely to see more people in your cohort in NYC that don't work in tech then those that do.
> According to San Francisco’s Controller’s Office, a little over 6% of the population work in the tech industry[1]. That is an unquestionably small minority of the overall population.
SF is just one part of the bay area. Head down to PAMPA and MV/Cupertino where the big employers are and I'd be willing to bet that % is much higher.
Now what % of people between the ages of, say 22-30 in SF work in tech? A bit more than 6%. You aren't "creating a bubble" simply by hanging out with people your own age or liking certain foods or cafes. The fact is that in NYC there are plenty of young working professionals who are not in tech, who you will meet without having to go out of your way to alter you own interests.
> You aren't "creating a bubble" simply by hanging out with people your own age or liking certain foods or cafes.
If that is not the epitome of a bubble, what is? I completely understand why someone might find themselves in that kind of bubble, and even like it that way, but that is not the same as the bubble not existing. I expect you will find that 22-30 year olds in SF themselves are a minority.
People have always hung out with their own age cohort. This isn't anything special or unique to SF, and it doesn't "make it a bubble". What makes it a bubble is that that age cohort in SF is so tech-focused, in a way that it isn't in other cities. So when you do the perfectly natural thing of hanging out with other people your own age in, say, NYC, you get a variety of professions and types of people. When you do it in SF, you end up with mostly techies.
> People have always hung out with their own age cohort.
That does not mean they are not living in a bubble. There are always people in other age cohorts that they could associate with. Nobody is saying that bubbles are not natural. You find them everywhere in nature! It is indeed natural to be in a bubble with your own age cohort, but remains a bubble of your own making. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from popping that bubble and exposing yourself to people in other age groups and careers. After all, those outside the bubble represent the majority of the population.
"If the people you have met predominantly worked in tech, it is likely due to a bubble you created yourself. Perhaps, for example, the majority of the population outside of tech cannot afford to spend time at those coffee shops and restaurants?"
And yet, since moving from SF (after nearly a decade) to NYC, I can confirm the OP's observation that I rarely encounter people who work at tech companies, anywhere in the city. Regardless of whether or not you think we're creating a bubble for ourselves by how we live our lives, the reality is that the bubble is different in New York. And it's not like there aren't tech workers here: there are just a lot more of other kinds of people.
For me, personally, it's refreshing. San Francisco has descended into a form of groupthink self-parody that is uninspiring for people who like to make new things.
> the reality is that the bubble is different in New York.
I think that goes without saying. 6% is a minority, but 6% all working in the same industry remains significant. Where I currently live one of the largest industries makes up about 3% of the workforce. And even at that lower rate it already feels like everyone I meet works in that particular industry. Just imagine what 6% is like. I am not at all surprised that it feels like nobody does anything other than tech. 6% is staggering!
Nobody denies that SF (and the Valley in general) is heavily weighted towards tech professionals. With 6% of the population involved, they are going to be everywhere. However, they still only make up a minority share of the entire population. There should be no shortage of opportunity to find people doing other things.
Sorry, I was simply sharing my own experience and point of view. Please do treat it as such.
You can also say I created my own bubble by choosing to live in SOMA and the Mission (or anywhere downtown SF in general). I'm just sharing my experience of encountering mostly tech employees in those neighborhoods. If you've experienced otherwise, kudos to you! :)
"a little over 6% of the population work in the tech industry"
That was in 2013. 5 years ago. That article doesn't provide a source for that number either, it simply quotes the chief economist for San Francisco’s Controller’s Office who also doesn't provide a source. I'm sure the number is much higher now.
I couldn't find a more recent source (this is from 2013), but it claims that 12% of SF (San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA) jobs are in "high tech" and 29% of San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA jobs. My guess is the difference between the two sources is that yours is looking at the whole population, which would include children and retired folks.
Close to a third of jobs in one region being in tech is an insanely high number, and it's no wonder that people would feel that the Bay Area is lacking diversity.
> a little over 6% of the population work in the tech industry
I'm sure many people are cooks, janitors, bus drivers and the like and I'm sure a many people work for the the state, county or city (especially including healthcare). Any city needs services both private and municipal -- but they are not the driver of the economic engine.
I imagine that 6% would be much higher if we excluded non-service, non-municipal jobs.
Seems like it's time to stop calling companies tech companies just because they hire software engineers and leverage some degree of modern technology to provide their product or service. Warby Parker sells glasses and Buzzfeed is a media company - I have a hard time seeing how either of these qualify as tech startups.
There's a meet up group here in NYC called Tech in Motion, and a few years ago launched an annual awards event. The company that won 'Best Tech Company of the Year' was Casper, and my only thought was 'selling mattresses through the mail is considered technology'?
>Then, are Uber, Lyft, on demand services even tech?
I would argue that they are not. They provide services that rely on technology and have been incredibly successful largely due to their embrace of technology, but I would describe Uber as on-demand transportation provider rather than a technology provider.
>Is Amazon only tech when it comes down to AWS and Alexa?
I understand calling Amazon a tech company because they have significant business lines as a technology provider, even if these do not constitute their entire business.
While I have intuitive responses to companies like these, I really don't know where the line is (e.g. how much business one would have to do as a tech provider). I didn't intend to suggest a hard definition but posed the question because I'm genuinely interested in seeing peoples' thoughts on what constitutes a tech company.
I used Warby Parker as an example because their business model is disruptive, they're high-growth, and they leverage technology. I think the disruption and innovation are really important aspects.
Note that PG is addressing startups generally and not limiting his discussion to tech startups. From the third sentence in the post you linked:
>"Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology..."
I absolutely agree that Warby Parker has a disruptive business model and see them as a shining example of an innovative startup, I just wouldn't call them a tech startup because tech is not their business.
Would you call pre-streaming Netflix a tech startup? It feels like a startup to me, but at first it was just Blockbuster through the mail.
Maybe the difficulty in categorizing is that every company today has to use technology. When Netflix started out, getting a DVD in the mail was pretty novel. Nowadays, e-commerce doesn't have quite the "wow" factor it used to.
>Would you call pre-streaming Netflix a tech startup?
Startup, but not a tech startup.
>Maybe the difficulty in categorizing is that every company today has to use technology.
Yep, this is exactly what I was trying to get at. That being the case, it seems more accurate to shape a definition of "tech" companies based on output (i.e. products/services offered) rather than input (i.e. tools employed).
I find statements like this both cringe and problematic. The heavy emphasis on industry defined identity is creepy, extremely impersonal, and backwards.
I've been a software developer in advertising, various startups and have friends in fashion and finance. While sure you can get some interesting insights into their industries, for example Gucci's new operating room spread is dope af, or the fact that hedge funds year over year make 20% on average using their "genius quants" (aka insider trading), I find that the actual people themselves are a relatively homogenous subculture across industries. That is a typically upper middle class white with a BS/BA in econ/finance/cs/communications who got "really drunk" in college, "loves" IPAs now and does sober February's as a challenge.
These are all various shades of yuppie identity non-diverse in thought, culture, or world perspective. They are boring.
> > The best part about tech in NYC is that it isn't a non-stop, in-your-face bubble the way that it is in SF/SJ
> I find statements like this both cringe and problematic.
I think the 1st sentence of the 1st comment is amusingly and inadvertently supported by the 2nd.
These are all various shades of yuppie identity non-diverse in thought, culture, or world perspective. They are boring.
You're painting with a pretty broad brush there, yourself.
The diversity of thought and culture in the NYC area is breathtaking. It takes a lot of effort to navigate it at times, but it's definitely there. Hundreds of years worth. It used to be that the North East of the US kinda was the US. Half of the soldiers who went to fight in Europe in WWI were from New York state alone.
A big part of US history of the 20th century has been the demographic, economic, and cultural shift away from the North East to the West and South. As a part of this, it's only natural that a new intelligentsia would arise on the West Coast and pooh-pooh the North East. It's a very common historical pattern. However, when it comes down to it, people living, thinking, and working in close proximity will create cultural value. To denigrate this is to throw out the baby with the bathwater if you are a humanist, or a progressive.
the metropolitan North East pooh-pooh-ing the West
That's the other side of the historical pattern. It also happened between Europe and the "New World."
My Louisiana Creole girlfriend (at the time) and I showed up for a concert with Joanna Newsom and Phillip Glass. Let me assure you that there are older West Coast elites who can wonder aloud about you and look down their nose at you just as much as Mainline and old New England preppies. (Basically the fans of Phillip Glass wondering about the Joanna Newsom fandom hoi polloi.)
Your “genius quants (aka insider trading)” quote is an easy target, but instead I’m going to respond to this:
> That is a typically upper middle class white with a BS/BA in econ/finance/cs/communications who got "really drunk" in college, "loves" IPAs now and does sober February's as a challenge.
These are all various shades of yuppie identity non-diverse in thought, culture, or world perspective. They are boring.
Speaking as someone who is a software engineer in NY, your broad generalization has not been my experience, nor does it apply to me. Moreover, I consider it pretty dismissive to reduce such a wide swath of people to the stereotypical yuppie. According to you, software engineers are homogenous and boring.
If you really can’t find more diversity in the conversations you’re having, I strongly encourage you to seek out more diverse people. To put this politely: the lack of self awareness you’re evidencing in this comment borders on hubris.
You're missing the point. He meant that the differences you see (what you call diversity) are superficial differences. When you look deeper past these differences (job, skin color, neighborhood, etc) you find that people in NY, professionals at least, are actually very similar.
I don't agree 100% with this sentiment, but I doubt the OP does either.
What I agree with is that "diverse" has become a stupid word. Diverse is used nowadays to indicate only superficial differences. If you see a black man, a lesbian, a asian woman, and a hispanic girl together in the same office, you have diversity. Yet they're all in the same office, have the same standard of education, are just about the same age, probably have the same political affiliations, grew up in roughly the same geographic area, etc. Is it really diverse?
Culturally, not so much. But NY is not so different from any other place. People near each other tend to be similar. I just wish we would stop regurgitating the word "diverse."
If you're not experiencing variety of culture and thought in New York City then, frankly, you're doing something very wrong.
The OP's statement wasn't limited to software developers, who I agree still tend to be a relatively homogenous group even in NYC. But you really ought to stop outside your professional circle once in a while. If you go to a bar in SV it's nothing but people in tech, talking about tech. If you go to a bar in NYC you don't see it anywhere near as much.
There are infinite subcultures in NYC. I'm as misanthropic as the next guy so I identify with what you said a little, but honestly no matter what you're into you can find your people here. Probably more than anywhere else in the world, actually.
Agreed. Although I did miss meeting engineers from other disciplines (EE, Mechanical, Chem. E., etc). I'm not sure if they are simply scarce in Manhattan, or if I was in the wrong places.
I'm assuming that a greater portion of that type of work isn't do-able in an office farm. Businesses need to make a certain amount of money per square foot, so labs and whatnot aren't feasible.
Given the share of SP500 profits that the Google/FB/Apple/Amazon gang currently capture, it's hard to describe it as a "bubble". Maybe "corporate hegemony"... but the situation is SF/SJ at this point is clearly driven by actual cash profits, not speculation, at this point. E.g. Google alone apparently owns the equivalent of 14 Salesforce Towers (the largest building in SF) worth of commercial real estate.
High stress, high pollution, rat race of a lifestyle, you are regulated and taxed on more things you even thought possible, and one of the worst imaginable places to try and raise a family. It has it's pros and cons, but I think we both agree it is certainly better than Silicon Valley. It's great if you are a young professional figuring out the world, but eventually people want their space and be able to stretch out their legs.
I am a tech worker raising my family in Brooklyn and it's quite lovely. Expensive, yes, but lovely. Whether you find it a "rat race" of a lifestyle or not is much more dependent on your internal psychology than the city itself.
It's tough even with a big tech sector salary. I don't know if your kids are in school yet, but the cost of living in a good school district or paying for private school makes things way more complicated.
Since this comment is attempting to be pedantic, I'll give you a pedantic answer: Yes I have access to google maps just like the rest of the world.
Serious answer: Yes, the landmass that constitutes Brooklyn is large. The landscape of the main neighborhoods that have gentrified over the years are not so big. If you actually live there you know which parts I am talking about.
Would you be willing to share the rough range of your household income? If you bought a house 10 years ago then it doesn't count, you can probably raise a family on almost any income in that case ;)
I'm raising my family in NYC, I disagree that it's one of the worst imaginable places to try and raise a family. There are a lot of activities for children, from the parks, to indoor play areas, to the libraries, etc. You can just about anything you need by walking. The public schools have been improving - you can try for one of the elite gifted and talented schools but even if that doesn't work out, there are many more good school options than there have been in the past. It's certainly not a cheap place to live, but I actually can't imagine a better place to raise a family.
I don't know if there's any more pollution than any other major city. There's no major manufacturing that happens in NYC, so the pollution would mostly be from cars. In general, the city is becoming less and less car friendly - they are seriously considering a congestion pricing program - so I would expect whatever pollution there may be to actually improve. Nevertheless, pollution has never been one of the major complaints of most NYC folk.
Yes, taxes can run high. You can always live outside the city if this is an issue but despite this, people prefer to live in the city as long as they can.
High stress is really more a virtue of your job, not the city.
There are many people who live here and don't want to live anywhere else. As they say, your bedroom is where you sleep - your living room is the entire city.
Until you try to raise your children somewhere elsewhere, I will take your comment with a huge grain of salt. Compared to where I am now, it just simply doesn't compare. I don't care about the city being my living room. My backyard is mountains, and trees, and fresh air, and creeks and streams, and endless opportunities for my children to go outside, get dirty, and explore.
If you don’t care about being in the city, and do care about being close to nature, then that’s an obvious choice.
That being said, I don’t want to raise my kids out there. I want my kids surrounded by many cultures, and to have access to the arts that NYC provides.
I hear ya. For me -- It was something about trying to go up and down narrow staircases to get to my upper floor apartment that I rent for 2,000 a month for 1300 SQFT and waiting for elevators holding two baby carriers with screaming babies that didn't sound appealing to me, especially when I can own, for about half the price (roughly 1,100), a 1900 SQFT house that I can walk straight into.
> High stress, high pollution, rat race of a lifestyle, you are regulated and taxed on more things you even thought possible
New York has incredibly low pollution compared to other cities of comparable size, especially in the US. As for "regulated and taxed on more things than you even thought possible"... are you sure you're not thinking of California?
Overall air quality is pretty good in NYC, but street level pollution is nasty. There isn't a day that I don't get huge whiffs of diesel exhaust or a weekend that i don't have to clean off black grime from my windows. Happens less so in cities where you're not surrounded by walls of buildings and heavy street traffic.
I think the air quality in in the city is only good because it gets quickly blown out to sea.
No I am thinking about my family and I and our experiences living there.
When I say Pollution, I am not just saying air pollution. I physically felt dirty the minute I stepped out into the street after getting ready for work. I would wash my hair and it would streak of dirt. The subway is absolutely filthy. Bathrooms anywhere but expensive restaurants are filthy. Sidewalks were filthy. Streets are filthy. The water that pools up at the sides of crosswalks was everywhere -- and was filthy. It's the definition of a big dirty city.
As far as taxes and regulation goes, yes California is getting crazy too, but no I am thinking about New York. The contrast was stark, especially when you move anywhere south of NY, which I did land in D.C. for a bit, and even that was better.
> When I say Pollution, I am not just saying air pollution. I physically felt dirty the minute I stepped out into the street after getting ready for work. I would wash my hair and it would streak of dirt. The subway is absolutely filthy. Bathrooms anywhere but expensive restaurants are filthy. Sidewalks were filthy. Streets are filthy. The water that pools up at the sides of crosswalks was everywhere -- and was filthy. It's the definition of a big dirty city.
When did you live in New York? This mostly reads like an outdated stereotype of the city from the 1980s. I grew up in Queens and lived in NYC until I was 18, and I never had to wash dirt out of my hair from pollution (unless I had been rolling around in a park as a little kid).
Hell, I was recently back in the city visiting family and was amazed at how much cleaner midtown has gotten over the past few years.
I was in NYC over the long weekend (I'm from Boston), and I can say wholeheartedly that the entire city is filthy. I'm sure relative to what it used to be, its alot cleaner. But relative to most other places, NYC is one giant pile of garbage. (For the record I love the city, and would consider moving there.)
It really depends where you are in the city. Take a stroll in some of the neighborhoods around Prospect Park, and you'll find downright pristine streets filled with single family mansions...
>New York has incredibly low pollution compared to other cities of comparable size, especially in the US.
This doesn't change the impact of pollution on health and quality of life. There may be plenty of reasons to live in NYC, but it having lower pollution than similarly sized cities is not one of them.
Glad to see NJ get some positive mention here. Been living in NJ all my life and it's always sad to see people bash it based on a few trips they've had on the Turnpike up around NYC.
The state really has it all. Expensive, but an excellent mix of suburbia, rural lands to the west and south, and (somewhat) easy access to one of the greatest cities in the world.
Everything but the weather. Lots of NJ transplants in Atlanta and Florida. They make the trip back up to walk the boards and rub elbows with their old friends for a few weeks but spend most of the year where it's warm.
This past year I moved from NYC (Queens) to Central NJ and it's been a positive experience. It's surprising how beautiful this state really is. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), those who's experience with NJ solely consist of driving along the Turnpike, or landing in EWR, really have no idea.
I grew up in NJ and still have family there and I agree.
It also an incredibly diverse state and, as of now, that diversity is reflected in the state government - more so, I think, than any state government in the country.
Yeah, but the public transit options make it realistic to live in lots of different suburbs that are much cheaper and much better for family life, which seems to be something you can't say about most of the other contenders.
The problem with these numbers is that adjusting an entire salary for cost of living only makes sense for people living paycheck to paycheck. The real question is how much wealth a tech worker can accumulate in each city. If you're saving 10% a year no matter where you live, you're best optimizing for salary and ignoring cost of living.
Except that saving 10% makes you a homeowner in some places and a roommate in others.
If you view your job as temporary pain and plan to relocate or retire before starting “real life,” that makes sense. If you’re trying to build a long-term sustainable and fulfilling life that includes a tech job, not so much. Nominal value in a bank account is useless; you need purchasing power.
Well, the argument is the same with respect to most consumer goods. The new XPS 13 is the same price in Wyoming and San Fransisco. Adjusting the electronics budget of a household for cost of living generally doesn't make sense, which was my actual point.
What kind of household is spending enough on consumer goods for that to matter? I am not exactly thrifty or a Luddite, but electronics, clothes, etc. have never been more than 5% of my spending. I don’t feel comfortable spending on travel at all given the Herculean savings targets needed for an emergency fund or down payment here. Rent is 67% of my outflows, followed by food (my main luxury purchase is not having to cook).
Regardless, good cost of living calculators don’t just take the ratio of housing prices, they use a typical consumer’s basket of goods, some of which may be the same price.
I live in NYC and the main difference I noticed about food in CA is how produce-centric it is. NYC food is incredible, but eating out usually means meat, cheese, and bread.
Even if you love meat, cheese, and bread, there are other cities that do it as well (pizza debates aside) or better. For example, the taco scene in NYC basically doesn't exist. The burrito scene is Chipotle-style places.
Frankly, the rent is just too high to be too innovative at a reasonable price.
I'm sure NYC is doing quite well, but a New York based website is saying NYC is doing great without any context or even a reporting of the full list? You could write the same article about Boston, Denver, Austin, etc.
In absolute numbers, New York would be at or near the top of the list just out of sheer size. New York has a lot of people doing IT work because it's a huge city and every business needs some IT to a greater or lesser degree.
I really want to move to NYC. As a full stack developer in SF I only get interest from companies in the Bay Area. All my NYC applications get no response even if it's the same resume with locations removed. Am I missing something? Can someone who has mde a similar move cue me in?
I have 4 years of full stack experience. Do people tailor their resume for NYC companies?
As someone who has been on both sides of the table (an employee living outside of NYC and looking to move and a hiring manager in NYC who has received applications from remote candidates), it's way easier to get hired if you live in the area.
There are a few reasons for this (smaller companies don't want to risk flying you in and it not working out, longer interview process, recruiters limiting searches to a geographic area), but my advice would be to just take the plunge and move here without a gig. My partner and I made the jump that way many years ago and had new jobs within weeks. I don't think we're special, it's just a testament to how valuable tech sector is in NYC at the moment and how limited the talent pool really is.
You have a very employable set of skills and the market in NYC is great at the moment, so this is a low risk move.
I was worried about this when I first moved to NYC. I got in touch with a placement company, had an intro chat, and told them I'd be in NYC for a certain week. They lined up 4 interviews for me.
I very much enjoyed forcing a timetable on possible employers, as I got choices all at the same time.
I don't always enjoy recruiters. In this case, mine was very valuable!
I moved to NYC 3 years ago with no job and have managed to make it through freelancing, contract and regular part time work, but it has certainly been harder than I thought it would to find full time work.
The city is expensive and there is a lot of competition from recent graduates as well as talented people attracted to the magnetic island at the center of the world.
It does feel like a constant race, but the city is full of art and inspiration and I have learned and grown a lot here and recommend coming for the experience, even if you decide to leave afterwards.
you haven't found a full-time role in 3 years?? i want to move back to NYC from Boston next year, but i'd prefer to have something lined up before doing so
I haven't had any problems getting leads in NYC from SF. I don't tailor my resume in any way.
One thing to consider is that it's a bigger bet than trying to recruit someone that's a little more local. They'd have to fly you out and it's not uncommon for people to say they want to move, but then decide it's not for them after going through the entire interview pipeline.
Larger companies are more willing to take on this risk, so if you're only applying for smaller ones, that might be a reason why you're not hearing back.
Try this: find a recruiter at the companies that you want to apply for on LinkedIn and message them directly. Convey both your interest in working for their company and your desire to be in NYC.
NYC has a lot of java based jobs. Some python, very few ruby ones (compared to the Bay Area at least). It isn't so easy finding certain types of jobs in NYC.
To chime in from the employers perspective, we've found it hard to find full-stack web developers in NYC with more than a years' experience in a dynamic language (we use ruby, but are happy to train people on the specific stack). There's a lot of talent at the recent boot camp grad level and experienced folks in finance. Would love any tips on attracting solid mid-senior talent in NYC.
First, what does your careers page look like? Sometimes the job description is unclear or you might be filtering out qualified people. Second, mid-senior is really tough to hire for, I just experienced it first-hand while hiring for my last employer. Regardless of experience level, you are forced to compete on two fronts: interesting work, or high compensation. Mid-senior devs can afford to be very picky and if something seems a little bit off, they'll look elsewhere.
Have you partnered yet with a recruiting company? I personally just went through TripleByte and they could use a few more NYC partners. They do their own pre-selection of candidates to save everyone involved a lot of time. Another good one is FunctionalWorks. Meetups are also pretty good for making organic connections with higher-quality devs. Every time I go to a tech meetup at least 3 or 4 employers are represented and hiring.
Our careers page is https://www.sevenfifty.com/careers/full_stack, but we really only use it as a link our team members can send personal referrals. Our main pipelines are Hired, Vettery, HN who's hiring post, recruiters, and referrals. Posting on job boards has historically never led to anyone stellar and a disproportionate number of candidates who couldn't pass fizzbuzz.
Recruiters have been a mixed bag. They're very time consuming, but tend to have better access to people who are currently employed and passively looking, which is where most of the best mid-senior people are.
I've done some speaking at meetups and we made a junior hire off of one. I've found the more niche meetups to be more likely to have stronger people, the more general web / rails / ruby ones are dominated by recent boot camp grads looking for their first gig (nothing against those people, we hire them, but we also desire more senior people too).
HN's who's hiring has been great for finding sharp junior people with high potential.
The job description is to-the-point and doesn't ask for anything out of the ordinary. Other than mentioning a CS degree, I give it two-thumbs up.
Hiring is definitely a tough nut to crack. Personal referrals are by far the best source to get solid people quickly, but it's also a finite pool. Recruiters are definitely a mixed bag. I would suggest also sending a representative to a job fair (face-to-face still works!). It sounds like you're doing the best you can besides creating some really unique opportunity.
We had some luck bringing in people interested in functional programming, but ended up having to go heavy on junior devs since that's what's easy to hire for. We had some mid-level and a couple senior people which were hard to come by.
It's going to be a grind no matter how you approach it. All I can suggest is to make a really compelling offer, technologically, financially, or otherwise. Also consider finding older developers interested in part-time or remote work.
This also applies to all the companies in general. If a company uses Applicant Tracking Systems like Taleo, Workday you can rest assured anyone with an existing job would not apply. It's really time consuming.
Also, mid-senior is definitely rare, like it means they have a good job already and unless there are really good perks like flexible WFH etc apart from the compensation, it's definitely hard.
I moved from Australia to NYC, the one trick I worked out was changing my location on LinkedIn prior to the move. You'll show up on all the recruiters radars then (if that's what you want).
I'd be happy to talk with you, my company is always keen to speak with talented engineers.
What is Boston doing wrong? In the 80s thanks to the 128 Tech Row, it was on par with Silicon Valley as the top spot, then it lost ground and now NYC is considered #2? We have the highest concentration of collegiate tech talent, the same weather as NYC (obviously worse than SV), lower cost of living than both cities, and there's been a ton of investment in real estate for tech companies in the Seaport District. Too little, too late, perhaps?
What did Boston do wrong? Enforce non-competes. Non-competes may be "business friendly" for individual businesses, but for health of business as a whole, they just allow entrenched mediocre management to stifle technology by preventing employees who see they could do it better from out-competing them.
The traitorous eight and the many who have done similar things are what made Silicon Valley.
I know it's a minor point, but Boston absolutely does not have the same weather as NYC. The winters are so much worse in Boston.
I'm a current NYC-er finding NYC too expensive to raise my family and the winter there is the only thing pulling me away from Boston, which is otherwise quite attractive.
Yeah, the weather this past holiday season, for instance, was a once-a-decade sort of event and 20-40 degrees colder than usual. Our compatriots in Boston were laughing at us, saying "that's just another Tuesday up here".
Boston has a lot more than biotech. You have a fairly large amount of internet companies (beyond the top 4 names, you have companies like for example Akamai), and robotics is a big field. (Kiva now part of Amazon, Boston Dynamics). Other engineering fields are well represented too.
Historically, it might be because the T (the Boston Subway) doesn't run 24 hours, it shuts around 1am, so most people have to make arrangements to get home well before then or risk having to take a pricey cab home.
The article says, "tech companies -- defined as those whose principal business is tech and its applications" but then their examples are companies that are largely shops. There's nothing wrong with shops(!!) but these people aren't developing any technology, and aren't really taking advantage of new technology any more tahn (and probably less than) Target, Wal-mart or McDonald's. Perhaps a better way to put it is we call UAL, AA, etc "airlines" rather than "aircraft companies". We don't call comcast, or sprint "tech" companies even though they have a lot of engineers on their staff.
In one sense, who cares? If these companies are successful and good for their customers, employees and investors that's great.
(of course to me Cummins engines and 3M are pretty high tech businesses too, even if little computation or electronics is discussed by them).
But I am quite interested in tech businesses and products, and this all seems a bit weird.
I'm sorry if this is off topic, but I'm just looking for some advice I guess. I'm currently an electronics engineer in NY and I've been trying to switch to something in software for about a year now because there are essentially no electronics jobs here in my field. I've had a hard time convincing employers how my electronics experience is relevant or how well it would translate to a software role, because, basically, no one knows what electrical engineers actually do, much less how similar it is to software engineering. How do I convince people that I'd be a good hire, despite not having "production" software experience apart from a few embedded projects? I know for certain I can do the work, I just don't know how to prove that to someone doing the hiring.
Some companies in NY hire for software engineering without requiring a comp-sci degree. Used to work at Bloomberg and a lot of the people there were hired without a classical programming background but still with some programming experience even if not professional; a lot of physics, biology, and mathematics people for example. Then they put them through a 4 month internal coding course teaching them C++, JS, git, etc. and a lot become surprisingly competent. And then they go to Google once they are all trained up :)
Edit: point being is that there a number of companies that don't look only for traditional hires. Networking (via Meetup for example) helps. Also going through a recruiter or (Recurse if you have the time!) is also helpful.
I guess it might be easier at a bigger company like that, so I could focus more on those types of roles. Thanks for the ideas. Just have to keep at it I guess.
Build a website and an iOS (and/or Android) app and get them up and running and give them away for free. It may be a lot harder and take a lot longer than you think to convert hardware -> software skills. If you do it in your spare time as a hobby you will ramp up at your own pace and have something to show future employers.
Thanks for the advice. This is basically what I've been doing for the past year, every spare second I've had devoted to side projects. I don't think my expectations are too out of whack because whenever I've gotten a code challenge from an employer, it was pretty easy and I made it through to the next round. But it probably takes longer to build up a portfolio that is actually meaningful.
If you have the time and interest, consider enrolling in an online CS degree from a reputable institute like the OMSCS from Georgia Tech
http://www.omscs.gatech.edu/
Side projects, generic comp sci interviews help, but essentially to get started bootcamps/udacity nano degree might help. Like you can take a mobile app or full stack online course and quickly build a portfolio.
I think he might find work in some HFT specialty firms looking at custom hardware. But yeah I’d be looking at SF or even Boston to leverage the EE degree.
My guess is a bootcamp would help out on the resume.
> On Wall Street, new computer engineers get hired at $120,000, but senior managers can make $400,000 plus the bonuses Wall Street hands out every winter
This always bums me out. Why do managers make so much more money than engineers?
A group of 5 engineers, left to their own devices, would probably produce about $100k worth of value. An effective manager can extract two million dollars worth of value out of those same 5 engineers.
If you don't believe this, you may have never had a great manager.
Of course coaching matters! The point, I believe, is that the relationship between management and creative can be mutually beneficial, with both parties earning considerably more through a partnership than they would on their own.
The fact that developers become much more valuable with a good manager doesn't, in itself, explain why managers are paid more.
For example, let's say a manager without a good developer would be worth 100k of value a year, and a developer without a good manager would produce 100k, but working together, they produce 500k. There is now a surplus.
Now, if it's easy to be a developer and very difficult to be a manager, then it would make sense that the manager would capture most of the surplus, because he or she could always just go and find a new talented developer to work with. The Rolling Stones can find a new manager more easily than a manager can find a new Rolling Stones.
However, ahem, it seems to be the managers constantly bemoaning the difficulty of hiring good developers. Share a bit more of that surplus, and you may find those hiring woes aren't quite so woeful?
And an effective manager given engineers who can't write a for loop will produce $0 worth of value (or worse). I don't find this line of thought convincing.
A better answer is "that's the market clearing price for good managers".
Difference is accountability. Managers are taking on responsibility for their teams delivery and usually owning some budget and timeline that's critical to the business. In finance, that could be worth millions or even hundreds of millions. Managing Directors at top tier investment banks absorb a ludicrous amount of pressure to earn their bonuses.
That's not the case everywhere. Some companies pay managers less than engineers. From the company's perspective, a manager deals with a larger chunk of the business, while an engineer solves just one small part. Not saying it's right, but that's my simple guess.
This is changing. Maybe less so in banks, but at my hedge fund, its more about individual contribution rather than how many people you manage. We are also a bit different in that we are actively modeling ourselves like a tech company.
FTEs is one way to slice it, but kind of dumb.
Seattle is home to two of the five biggest tech companies in the US.
Boston has had an IPO every year for the last ten years that exceeds any in NYC history.
LA has had the only 11-digit IPO in the last five years, outside of the bay area. It's also capturing the zeitgeist in a way that NYC no longer does (that's subjective, of course, but I'd debate it).
Just by market cap, Sydney's three biggest tech co's would are more impressive than NYC's.
NYC is an awesome startup city, but the idea that it's the clear #2 is silly.