The San Francisco Safety Net

Anyone who lived through 2002-2005 might beg to differ. It's a great town, tons of opportunity, but downturns do happen, and the folks at big companies did much better than the startup surfers. There's (honestly) a lot that's different this time. For one thing, many more companies are making actual money, and the non-coder costs (hardware, marketing blitzes) are much lower. But that doesn't mean winter won't come again.<p>Fortunately, when it does, you can probably get a rent decrease.

It is adorable that the poster feels like unemployed developers line the streets of New York, Boston and other non-sf tech hubs. That's really what I love most about being in NYC - it's so <i>easy</i> to hire developers.<p>Come on. We get that SF is rightly proud of its startup culture. It was the first and still the biggest. But really. There are other places too with their own very distinct advantages over SF for whole swathes of startups. Lets finally get past this SF is the best mentality and just remember that it is hard enough running a startup - let's help each other succeed wherever we are.

I enjoyed this article, but it's worth pointing out that this safety net exists in any tech-heavy city. In fact, that safety net is one of the biggest advantages of cities to begin with (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration</a>). Anyone who knows one of the web development stacks that are currently in vogue could have a job in Austin tomorrow (if tomorrow weren't Sunday). Has the author lived in any of the other cities he mentioned or asked people if the same phenomenon exists there?

Written by someone who should really get out in the world more before drawing conclusions.<p>There are many, many more places outside SF with a high(er) standard of living and about zero risk of being unemployed as a developer. Most of theses places outside the US also have decent social security, public healthcare and other facilities in case you should fall through the cracks at some point. (No amount of ninja rockstar tech skills will protect you against getting burned out or other misfortunes.)<p>This ignorant exceptionalism is something I really hate about these SF/SV types. I guess it illustrates why so many stick around: not because it's so great, but out of uninformed fear.

I don't agree with any of the points - that you'll necessarily work on interesting stuff at a startup, that a big company means you'll not work on interesting stuff, or that startups form a safety net. Glass, Kinect, AWS and iOS devices are pretty interesting, and they all occurred inside of a large company.<p>In contrast, I remember a lot of dealing with server crashes, browser incompatibilities and other painful and boring stuff when I worked at startups. It also seems like many of my startup co-workers who were older than about age 35 seem to have disappeared off the face of the earth.

Kind of tired of this emo bullshit.<p>If you can learn something new, you can work in many growing sectors in many cities. New York and LA have many more opportunities to grow in many more fields than SF.<p>And if you're really adventurous, move to the mid-east or northern africa, where you can be very successful doing an arbitrage play between successful business models in first world countries and third world developing countries.<p>If you're bitching about SF and Austin, you're a bozo and are not anywhere close to being a true risk taker.

Clearly not written by a semiconductor process engineer in 1986 or a web designer in 2000 but the basic truth is that when the system is engaged its pretty effective at consuming available resources and putting them to work.

Aside from the article: I really liked the layout here. First time seeing a blog laid out more like an actual newspaper. Not sure if this is a trend or not, but I like it.

I completely agree with the gist of this article - taking a risk right now as an engineer is in no way dangerous. Not saying it won't be 12 months or even 6 months from now and taking a risky job can set you up for a bad time later.<p>That being said, for those of us who are hiring engineers, this should be a great opportunity to bring in some of the folks who are more risk adverse because it is safer.<p>Also, I'm not sure what the author is talking about with regards to murder rates. Unless I am missing something this map [1] seems to suggest there have been 7 homicides in SF total this year, which is a pittance for a major city.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.crimemapping.com/map.aspx?ll=-13628867.85079543,4547985.268927572&#38;z=12&#38;mc=world-street&#38;cc=HO&#38;db=1/01/2013&#38;de=4/06/2013" rel="nofollow">http://www.crimemapping.com/map.aspx?ll=-13628867.85079543,4...</a>

1. San Francisco is a tech boom town. That means as a half-decent developer you're practically guaranteed a job. Until you're not. A lot of people learned this the hard way in the late 90s.<p>2. It's ironic that the author recognizes most startups fail, and suggests that startups in San Francisco have been particularly blessed with the ability to spend millions on "crazy" ideas more likely to fail, yet he doesn't at all question the sustainability of this. His assumption: investors will continue to pour money into startups indefinitely regardless of the returns, and the "talent" will continue to be a primary recipient of this investment regardless of the value it creates.<p>3. Personal savings is the only true safety net most people can rely on. Ironically, the author is "bad at saving money" which explains why he confuses a "currently hot job market" for a "safety net."

I agree it is trivially easy to jump ship to another startup every month in SF if you we're so inclined. For entrepreneurs, this culture makes it a challenge to build a lasting company though... the focus employees have in SF &#38; the Valley seems much more short term IMHO.<p>Besides, the safety net alluded to exists in any big city these days. I'm in Dallas and a good developer or designer showing up here today would have several job offers in a few days.

Summary: San Francisco is terrible but, hey, you can get paid a lot without trying very hard! Of course, you aren't likely to save any money.

It's amusing to me that this person's idea of a "safety net" is something that enables him to continue what he knows and acknowledges is irresponsible behavior. Don't want to put in the time to learn to handle yourself in a traditional environment? Don't feel like figuring out how to actually manage your finances like an adult? Come to Silicon Valley!<p>There are many reasons to move to such a tech hub, and many of them have at least some basis in real, positive factors. This post doesn't showcase any of them. All it displays is the author's haughty attitude and an inability to address his own shortcomings.

It is really sad that most of the comments here on HN would rather attack the author (or I guess SF in this case) than make better arguments against the author's comments. Not saying I agree with all of it, and honestly not even sure if the author is shining SF in that great of a light. But I guess the tone or topic of the article struck a deep chord in a lot of people.

I stopped reading at "smell of urine" :-)

I think I speak for both San Franciscans and Silicon Valley denizens when I say that it's time to stop conflating both regions as if they were the same thing.

Complete horseshit. Worked at a great startup till January. Company had to pivot, extend runway, I was laid off. Damn I miss working with those guys. The team was super helpful, gave me a decent severance and have been trying to help place me with other companies. I've been unemployed since then. There is <i>no</i> safety net in this city, nor any other.

Typical YC type post. Full of BS...

&#62; Once you spend a month in one company you can, if you like, send a few emails and be making more money in a matter of days.<p>Why wouldn't I like this? Who am I supposed to be emailing?