Intel has fallen so far behind over the years. Intel's CEO has a business administration background vs AMD whose CEO has a PhD in electrical engineering from MIT. I suspect that has something to do with why Intel has made decisions over the years that have favored short-term financial gains over long-term technology investments.
What long-term technology investments has AMD made that Intel hasn't? Especially ones that are relevant to manufacturing?
This seems very much a "Intel did invest, failed at hard problem, considers buying from someone who succeeded" vs "AMD couldn't afford own fabs, sold own fabs, when formerly-own fabs couldn't afford to develop an upgrade AMD was free to buy manufacturing from someone who succeeded".
In developing countries many of the best and brightest leave. Society in those countries finds it harder to advance and improve without talent to drive innovation. In the developed world, the talent is there, but it's used inefficiently. Would society be better off if smart people directed their energy towards developing vaccines instead of high frequency trading? The writer of the article thinks so, but the incentive systems direct talent towards the latter activity.
In developing countries the best and brightest can't do much without a supporting eco system. For example, several Indians come to the US and get jobs as software engineers in the best companies. But the same employees wouldn't be able to produce similar work while working from India in the same companies (anecdotal evidence) as more is needed for a functioning team than just developers. This is the case for most jobs.
I get the thrust of the article. I just think he's totally misunderstood the world. In America, if you are one of the best and brightest (or if you're not) you're on your own. No one will pay for your education. But then, when you're done, you don't owe anyone else. If you want to go do HFT, that's up to you. There is no social argument to be made there. In Europe, life is different.
The same logic applies to his "meritocracy" soap box: if America was a meritocracy then... Oh wait it's not so why would I complete a sentence based on a false premis?
And that's without getting into whether we actually need more vaccines or whether HFT is useful even if you don't know why...
Large U.S. cities are very different from big cities in rest of the developed world. I live in NYC. I've spent a lot of time in places like London, Tokyo, Sydney, etc.
London has a higher standard of living in many respects. The Tube is cleaner, operates more efficiently and you don't run into homeless and crazy people as often. Public spaces are more respected.
NYC has garbage all over the place outside of Manhattan and major social problems (homelessness, racial disparity issues that lead to resentment and crime). The school situation is horrible compared to the suburbs. These issues stem from America's historical racial problems. American's don't want to invest in public transit because many people think public transit will bring crime and underrepresented minorities. Schools in cities are bad because of a history of segregation. Garbage is strewn about the streets since public services are cut and people don't respect public spaces.
However, if you're rich and live in Manhattan you can largely avoid these issues by sending your kids to private schools and living around other rich people. Streets are cleaner, even subway stations are better.
Yes, agreed, there are bad stations in Manhattan too, but the nicest ones are in Manhattan, especially on the new Upper East Side extension and 7 line.
I've overly simplified why American cities are the way they are. It's not just racial issues, but general lack of public funding, political reasons, etc. Having said that, places like London and Tokyo don't have the same overt racial issues as NYC. I often see homeless people and panhandlers in the subway who are down on their luck, often with psychological problems. They are frequently non-white and it's sad that the city isn't taking care of them. I don't see that in large international cities in other developed countries to the same extent. In London, for example, I rarely see non-white people in such dire circumstances in public areas compared to NYC.
My general point is that cities like London, Sydney and Tokyo are cleaner, nicer and have better public services. Personally, I would feel more comfortable raising a family in those cities rather than a U.S. city. In the U.S. with a family I think it's better to raise a family in the suburbs, but that's my personal preference.
The author wrote this tongue-in-cheek, but he has a point about the appeal of a low cost of living, family-oriented lifestyle in fly over country. I'm from the Midwest and this sounds like several of my friends' lives. I made a different choice than they did. After college I moved to Seattle, Silicon Valley and then New York, working at several big name tech firms. I made decent money and kept my costs as low as a could within reason. Silicon Valley and engineering culture is a lot of hype. After 15 years of working in tech and living in high cost places, I occasionally toy with the idea of cashing out and moving back home into a big, reasonably priced house, starting a family, and living off my small fortune. I suppose you always crave what you don't have.
I'm not a big fan of Windows 8. I do development on my desktop Linux box or Mac laptop. What Linux distro did you have trouble with using 4K? Any idea if Ubuntu 14.10 (Utopic Unicorn released this month) addresses any of the 4K driver issues?
Linux mint was the the distro I was using for their HiDpi support. I'm not sure if it matters that much as it's really the drivers that let it down. I also tried the latest Fedora but that failed to even boot on my machine... (probably wasn't monitor related).
To be honest you could probably get it to work with perseverance and Linux nohow. One of the problems I was having was that whenever I would wake the screen from sleep it wouldn't give me a login dialog and would require a hard reset. When I searched the problem I got the open-source blame shift, "it's their implementation that's broken. We're not changing our code" so I ragequit and went back to Bill.
Many of the best jobs in areas such as technology, design and finance are on the coasts. No doubt that costs are lower in the middle of the country, but pay is also substantially lower. I wonder why more top companies don't try to take advantage of the cost savings of setting up in middle America vs. outsourcing jobs abroad?
I don't think pay is as much lower as you think it is.
I keep in touch with a lot of people in tech from all around the country. Those in flyover country (Denver, OKC, Austin) make less money than those in comparable positions on the coast, but it might be 10% less. Meanwhile their housing costs are typically less than half.
The net result is that, on a developer salary in a place like Denver, KC, or Salt Lake, you can afford the same luxuries as on a developer salary in SF, and quite possibly more.
There's an understatement. This is a problem with recruitment to the coasts. I can't tolerate the hit in the quality of life that moving to Mountain View would require. They offered me like $50K more than I am currently getting, which sounds nice, but to live the same lifestyle with respect to house and school district would have taken at least $100K more per year probably more like $150K more as per my calculations. I just couldn't do that to my wife and kids and they aren't willing to pay enough and they responded with some ridiculous BS about the nobility of poverty which I wasn't buying.
There's also the cultural hit. Living where I am, I can afford to travel to and attend any cultural activity I want, even if the locals at my travel destination can't afford it. I went to Ireland a decade ago this year purely for the heck of it, because I can afford it, not living on the coasts. I can take a 90 minute train to downtown Chicago and afford anything there, especially stuff the locals can't afford. That really burns up an old school friend of mine who lives near-ish the stadium but can't ever afford to go given his mortgage payment vs mine. I'm not a big cultural activities guy I only go to symphony and museums like once a year, if that. But it would totally burn me up to move to a coast and be right next to something cool I'd never be able to afford to experience.
All I want is an acre of suburban land, a modest size house (not a mcmansion but not a shack), in a mostly crime free neighborhood, in a school district that regularly places highly at the nationals in the academic decathlon (I was on the team in '92 in the same district, and maybe my stupidity is why we only made 4th at state during my year LOL). And the city has 1080 acres of free city parks across about 6 square miles of city (mostly unbuildable river land, but still I googled to make sure). Then there are the county and state parks too. And the lakes with public access. What would a house like that cost in SV, maybe $5M or so? More? It cost me an eighth of a mil here before the housing bubble took off, and a paltry $50K/yr isn't going to make up the balance. I don't think my kids would be able to afford music lessons and tutoring in CA, thats for sure, we'd be lucky to afford a 2 bedroom rental at the income I was offered, despite it being about a 50% raise.
(edited to add, if it helps in comparison, my mortgage including prop tax and services is $1100/mo, so offering me an extra pre-tax $1K/week means it would be quite realistic for me to spend $2100/month in CA if I moved there.... I checked this padmapper site and that gets me a 1 bedroom apartment near Stanford? That's the best I can hope for? My whole family living in one bedroom and one bathroom? No thanks guys, I'm staying here on my "landed estate")
Jobs are hard to get around here, I admit. Most CS grads probably are pulling cable or at call centers. Pretty much everyone in WI is underemployed except the usual peter principle victims like politicians. But if you make it, you can do incredibly well, better than on the coasts.
Sounds like you're in the Milwaukee area? I'm from there, but likely won't move back due to the lack of job opportunities. For others curious about Wisconsin, Madison isn't much more expensive and has significantly better tech job opportunities, so far as I hear.
Maybe slightly OT, but wtf do you do with an acre of land? Have horses or an orchard? 'An acre' seems like many people's ideal size, but 1/5th of an acre would already be too much work for me.
There are landscaping options that don't require a lot of maintenance, and an acre is just big enough to make a private micro-park that you can feel lost in if you have enough trees. There's also the option of growing a sizable vegetable garden for unbeatable quality fresh food.
Small orchard, far enough away that loud neighbors are quiet, don't have to look out my window directly into my neighbors facing window 5 feet away. Also ham radio antennas.
It does get kind of park like as per other responses. The kids can simultaneously set up the badminton court, the swing set, and the pool and still have space to run around.
It wouldn't be worth the money at $1500K/acre but at $15K/acre its pretty reasonable as an extra luxury. For the price of a couple nice gaming PC I can buy enough land to not be packed like sardine next to my neighbor, its worth it to me.
WRT maint we go low maintenance so its not bad. Perennials instead of annuals. Mulch so that it'll last and look good for five years at a time rather than fix it every year. You don't have to mow ornamental bushes and the slower growing ones only need to be pruned once or twice a year. "Stuff that grows slowly in general" requires less maint time. You don't mow herb gardens or vegetable gardens although veg gardens are a severe labor cost (like the whole rest of the yard put together scale of cost) There are old retired guys in the neighborhood who try to turn their yard into a golf course or something by working seemingly full time on gardening, I donno about those guys. If you go for a relaxed low maint design the yardwork is a decent workout, not a back breaker.
> I can't tolerate the hit in the quality of life that moving to Mountain View would require.
Exactly.
I live in Huntsville, Alabama, and I live very, very well here. A 50+% pay raise to move to SF or SV looks nice until you really start to work the numbers and realize that you would actually come out worse off in many ways.
* A mortgage on a 3,500 square foot house, on a 1/3 acre lot in a very nice neighborhood runs me a hair over $1,200 a month. Including taxes and insurance. Everything except the HOA, and that's an extra $30 or so a month.
* I live in a nice family-oriented area with great schools. Don't have to worry about gang violence or anything. My biggest annoyance is the teen with the loud scooter.
* Utilities are dirt cheap thanks to TVA.
* Property taxes are dirt cheap. Income taxes are on the low side. Sales tax is a tad on the high side, but it's not bad.
* I have a 15 minute commute to and from the office every day, maybe 20 on a bad day. I'm home every night for dinner with my family.
And while Huntsville won't win any awards for high culture (although there is actually a surprisingly vibrant arts scene here considering its size, not really what I was expecting to find), Nashville and Birmingham are only 90 minutes away in either direction - great for a day trip. Atlanta or Memphis are weekend trips of a few hours away. And I can be on great beaches in a few hours as well.
With my extra income, I can afford to save and do fun things. After our daughter was born, we needed a larger car, so we bought one and paid cash for it. We go skiing in West Virginia during the holidays. We did two weeks in Hawaii for our honeymoon, a week in London a few years and a week in Jamaica a couple years ago. Just because we wanted to. We're currently planning to go all out and go to Tahiti in a few years to celebrate our 10th. Also saving for the inevitable trip to Disney World once our daughter is old enough. A lot of this is possible because my cost of living here is so low that it allows me a large amount of discretionary income.
Of course, it's not without its problems. We have a real problem with severe weather here in the Spring, and it can be kind of rough sometimes (fun fact, Alabama has had more F-5/EF-5 tornadoes than any other state). Our politicians are really idiotic and can be counted on to say very, very stupid things. We have some pretty backwards laws. And, unfortunately, there is some level of truth to the stereotypes people have of Alabama (although they are pretty uncommon here in Huntsville - it's more of a rural thing), but it's also nowhere near the level people think it is either.
But, on the whole, every time I go to look at the tradeoffs, the math always works for me to stay put here. No one has yet shown me that I can live the equivalent lifestyle in SF or SV that I live here on an average developer's salary.
Eventually you will run out of available, qualified local talent and you will need to hire someone from a coastal tech hub. Only most Californians/New Yorkers don't want to move to Salt Lake City, or Oklahoma, or Houston, or anywhere else in the middle. The flag is the same but the culture is drastically different.
I can assure you given vast experience that there's a severe underemployment problem in tech everywhere other than NYC SFO SV. Lack of talent is just not a serious issue.
The group think is there is "a" culture or political outlook for each area. The reality is its more multicultural and the difference is in the ratios. For example the LGBT community in Milwaukee is healthy, according to my friends in it, but its much smaller than SFO. If you just want to live the suburban kid raising life there's a lot more of them here, than in Manhattan, but that doesn't mean there's no flannel wearing hipsters at all LOL.
Regarding Houston, it's among the fastest growing cities in the US. People are moving there in droves from the coasts. It's also not even remotely as cheap as a lot of people think.
When you get south of Houston into the Clear Lake region Houston living gets much cheaper - but you run the risk of everything being obliterated by a hurricane.
You have to remember that lot of inner Houston is funded by oil money, so people are willing and capable of spending quite a bit of money on housing/meals.
You will never be so short of people that you will have to hire someone from SF or NY. Those places don't have an excess of programmers, they have a deficit, and it's one that is continually resupplied from middle America and overseas.
From a broad climate change perspective, is it really so good that SF and New York are contributing to faster population growth in the South/Southwest, where water resources are more scarce? And cities are less dense, facilitating more driving and consumption of gas?
Just made the trek over 50 to NV last weekend and was shocked how little water was flowing in the 'rivers' in the Sierra Nevada. We (CA) are going to have to get serious about alternative water sources, as the groundwater is going to deplete just as fast as the snowpack at the rate farmers are drilling wells.
If we were smart, we'd drop the delta tunnel idea and start investing in desalinization plants, at the very least investing in some test sites using some of the newer desal technologies which are showing promise.
That said, the situation is far worse in the Southwest. They don't even have desalinization as a viable option.
More on the original topic, I am sensing an increase in entrepreneurial/tech activity in the Sacramento area. No idea if any of it has come from the bay, or if it's all home grown. Haven't found anything stating one or the other, curious though, as startup and living expenses are about half of what they are in the valley.
> If we were smart, we'd drop the delta tunnel idea and start investing in desalinization plants, at the very least investing in some test sites using some of the newer desal technologies which are showing promise.
The surfer lobby has made desalinization plants a political impossibility. I'm only half-joking.
I know Google, Facebook, Apple, and others have been visibly increasing their presence in Austin. Apple was putting up offices across the street from my old apartment complex, and the scuttlebutt was they were adding 4,000-some-odd-employees here over the next few years.
Google has an office here in Austin, but it's mostly for sales and marketing. Apple's campus is going to be for sales and customer support, not product development.
What parts of Austin are those big companies located in? (When I left Austin in 2007 Google had just announced an office, which they closed a couple years later.)
However, These things take time. It's a big risk to move your company to a different place. It's a even bigger risk if you can't hire people in that new place.
