Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Businesses Technology

Five Cities Account For Vast Majority of Growth In Tech Jobs, Study Finds (go.com) 110

Posted by BeauHD from the tech-talent dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal: Just five metropolitan areas -- Boston; San Diego; San Francisco; Seattle; and San Jose, Calif. -- accounted for 90% of all U.S. high-tech job growth between 2005 to 2017 (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source), according to the research (PDF) by think-tank scholars Mark Muro and Jacob Whiton of the Brookings Institution and Rob Atkinson of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. The nation's 377 other metro areas accounted for 10% of the 256,063 jobs created during that period in 13 high-tech industries such as software publishing, pharmaceutical manufacturing and semiconductor production. Among the smaller cities that gained tech jobs were Madison, Wis.; Albany, N.Y.; Provo, Utah; and Pittsburgh. Some prominent cities -- including New York and Austin -- lagged in tech job creation, according to the study.

The result is increased concentration of high-tech resources in just a few places and a strengthening of economic forces that are dividing the nation. Tech industries find they are most productive when they have resources clustered in few places. Such clustering -- which economists call "agglomeration" -- allows for the fast spread of new ideas and a concentrated talent pool from which businesses recruit. The forces of agglomeration, economists say, run counter to the idea that technology might allow people to work from anywhere, even in remote places. The trend is creating problems for the cities that have these concentrations of workers and for those places that don't. High-tech cities like San Francisco and Boston are becoming increasingly unaffordable as home prices soar, while cities outside of these high-tech hubs are missing out on the dynamism that technology creates.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Five Cities Account For Vast Majority of Growth In Tech Jobs, Study Finds More

Five Cities Account For Vast Majority of Growth In Tech Jobs, Study Finds

Comments Filter:

  • "Dynamism"? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lucasnate1 ( 4682951 ) on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @08:05AM (#59503974) Homepage

    "missing out on the dynamism that technology creates" the article says. If dynamism is another word for increasing social anxiety and rising prices, I think that whoever misses out on it is pretty lucky.

    • ...says a person on the internet.

      Maybe they meant something more along the lines of "high wage job opportunities created by technology" but shortened it to a single word that they looked up in a thesaurus. A lot of people tacitly assume that technology will improve quality of life, and it often does but is not without undesirable side effects.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kick6 ( 1081615 )

        Maybe they meant something more along the lines of "high wage job opportunities created by technology" but shortened it to a single word that they looked up in a thesaurus. A lot of people tacitly assume that technology will improve quality of life, and it often does but is not without undesirable side effects.

        They talk about high wage opportunities and dyanmism. So you're saying they're missing out on high wage job oppourtunities and...high wage job opportunities? No, your definition can't be correct.

      • Dynamism is just a nicer word for Disruption.
  • San Jose and San Francisco don't seem like separate metro areas to me.

    • Re:Seems more like 4 cities. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nadass ( 3963991 ) on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @08:39AM (#59504074)
      They're entirely separate metro areas; one is at the tip of a peninsula, the other is in the valley adjacent to large fields; they each have their own airports (with similar airlines who distinctly travel to them); and there's more distinctions between these two metros that separating them out (and recognizing the dozens of cities separating them) is indeed a fair classification.

      By similar comparison, you're saying they should cluster Philadelphia and NYC into the same metro (which they do not) despite New Jersey standing between them.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        "By similar comparison, you're saying they should cluster"

        They do, it's called the northeast megalopolis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalopolis

        You can make a fair argument that most of northern IL and eastern WI is all the chicago Megalopolis as well.

        Only 146 out of 3000 counties contain half the population, making sure the other 2,854 have some kind of say in the laws that prevail in their homes is the purpose of the electoral college and the senate.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

          is the purpose of the electoral college

          Nope. The EC was created as an extension of the 3/5ths Compromise to the Presidential election, on account of the fact that a direct election of the Executive would never be agreed upon in the South since only land owners were allowed to vote there, and thus they had very small absolute voting numbers.

          and the senate.

          No, the Senate was create to represent States in the federal government. It was moved to a popular election long after the fact.

          Really, the House of Representatives is the body designed to represent those pe

          • Nope. The EC was created as an extension of the 3/5ths Compromise to the Presidential election, on account of the fact that a direct election of the Executive would never be agreed upon in the South since only land owners were allowed to vote there, and thus they had very small absolute voting numbers.

            You think the small and tiny northeastern states would have agreed to having New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston [wikipedia.org] decide the nation's elections? Note that the next two cities were south of the Mason-Dixo

            • You think the small and tiny northeastern states would have agreed to having New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston [wikipedia.org] decide the nation's elections?

              Elections for what? Representatives had nothing to do with national population concentrations. Senators were selected by state legislators. The President was (minus the South) either going to be selected by the Federal legislature, or a direct election by the country's voting population.
              How you try to ponder their logic is irrelevant- because they fucking documented it.

              Also note suffrage based on owning property was the rule rather than the exception for all the states at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified.

              Nope.
              I'll just go ahead and let the authority on the matter answer-
              Notes from the Constitutional Convention [yale.edu]

              Mr. MADISON. If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

              • That Madison quote, the opinion of only one man, does nothing to invalidate my claims about the small Northeast states; if you accept that premise, at most it can be construed as saying this problem was worse with the Southern states, and institution of the Electoral College solved both, while also providing a Kevin Bacon N degrees of separation republican style answer to many problems.

                That is, you would be unlikely to know much about a Presidential candidate, his real character and so on. But you could kn

                • That Madison quote, the opinion of only one man, does nothing to invalidate my claims about the small Northeast states;

                  In a way it does, because mine is a historical viewpoint, yours is some asshole's on the internet.

                  and institution of the Electoral College solved both, while also providing a Kevin Bacon N degrees of separation republican style answer to many problems.

                  You're trying to conflate your perceived usefulness of the EC with its intent. That's logically fallacious.


                  Let's get back to your small northeastern states though-
                  Popular vote tallies for the first Presidential election (from the States that did popular votes- the rest simply selected their electors via their legislature, as is the right of a State)
                  Delaware: 685 / 8887 - 7.7%
                  Virginia: 4333 / 691937 - .6%

                  • The fact that you're resorting to puerile insults shows everyone except perhaps yourself who's having the better of this debate. That you can't see that your supplied statistics about small Delaware and populous Pennsylvania prove my initial major point....

                    • The fact that you're resorting to puerile insults shows everyone except perhaps yourself who's having the better of this debate.

                      Another logical fallacy- implying that because I don't respect you that my argument is wrong ;)

                      That you can't see that your supplied statistics about small Delaware and populous Pennsylvania prove my initial major point....

                      Your point was never in question, only your assertion that your point was relevant. I have proven that it is not, by both backing up with historical context the intent of the EC, and by giving examples of how it played out to the stated historical intent.

                      You have given... your opinion, and an apparent argument that the 8000 people of Delaware were a larger concern to the formation of the Union than the 700,000 p

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            "Really, the House of Representatives is the body designed to represent those people."

            That is exactly the opposite of the case, house districts are divided by population. If you have a high population area you divide it up into yet more districts. The house better represents the HIGH population districts and under represents the low population districts. In states with high urban populations the rest of the state only gets any kind of voice at all if extreme gerrymandering has occurred.

            "Nope. The EC was cre

            • That is exactly the opposite of the case, house districts are divided by population. If you have a high population area you divide it up into yet more districts. The house better represents the HIGH population districts and under represents the low population districts. In states with high urban populations the rest of the state only gets any kind of voice at all if extreme gerrymandering has occurred.

              This is complete fucking nonsense.
              Every single state has less representation per person the larger the district, and larger districts the more people they have.
              This is because ultimately, there must be a minimum of one, and less representatives than people- so lesser people will *always* be favored.
              Hypthetical example:
              New York has 3 districts.
              Rhode Island has 1.
              Sure, New York has more power as a whole- but you're trying to lump some place with far more than 3x the population of Rhode Island as a singl

    • San Jose and San Francisco don't seem like separate metro areas to me.

      If you'd spent time in the area, you'd know better.

      • I've visited both San Jose and San Francisco a few times. I have not lived in either, so my perspective is that of an outsider.

        • If you drove on the freeway from SF to San Jose and didn't notice all the stuff in between, just stop talking because you know you didn't look out the window.

    • What? Of course they're separate. 50 miles apart, different attitudes, etc. Neither however are part of the original "Silicon Valley", though San Jose has assumed that title over time. San Francisco is cold, cramped, and dense inner city urban core with a parochial attitude that everything on the other side of the border is to be avoided, and the SF idea of "tech" is mostly about content. San Jose is sprawling, houses have lawns, it gets disparaged as a "suburb" by SF, and there is still tech that invo

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Etcetera ( 14711 )

        What? Of course they're separate. 50 miles apart, different attitudes, etc. Neither however are part of the original "Silicon Valley", though San Jose has assumed that title over time. San Francisco is cold, cramped, and dense inner city urban core with a parochial attitude that everything on the other side of the border is to be avoided, and the SF idea of "tech" is mostly about content. San Jose is sprawling, houses have lawns, it gets disparaged as a "suburb" by SF, and there is still tech that involves silicon. In between the two are a whole lot of other cities, those in the south have more in common with SJ and those further north are more similar to SF.

        The "metro area" may be shared but it's like claiming the tech areas south of Newark is in the same metro area as Manhattan.

        Speaking as a San Diegan, we hate them both... But we're also quite used to considering anything north of Orange County (arguably Camp Pendleton in the past) and south of Ventura to be "Greater Los Angeles." San Diego has a patchwork of neighborhoods, incorporated cities, and county regions, with the City-of San Diego stretching and wrapping around like an amoeba, and even long-time residents would be hard-pressed to tell which was which. It's all just "Greater San Diego" to us unless you run a business or

        • Hate to say this, as I spent 13 years in San Diego, but I've run across people who lumped San Diego into the Great Southern California Metropolis, not realizing how distinct and separate it was from Orange County and LA.

  • Huh (Score:4)

    by LatencyKills ( 1213908 ) on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @08:25AM (#59504026)
    Three of them are in that supposed shithole state of CA where it seems every day I read a news story about people fleeing its awfulness in droves.

    • Re:Huh (Score:4, Insightful)

      by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 ) on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @08:31AM (#59504048) Homepage

      Amazing, isn't it? You don't think conservatives could be wrong about things, do you?

      • People with $600k mortgages on ranch style starter houses could be wrong. But everybody gets to choose whats important to them.

        • People with $600k mortgages on ... houses ...

          Don't live in SF. That isn't even enough for a small condo in a bad neighborhood.

      • I just looked at the methodology in their full report.

        The numbers show that these cities have become more focused on tech R&D jobs than they used to be, as opposed to other cities which have grown various types of jobs. For example, Texas has added a shit ton of jobs while diversifying into a wider variety of jobs. So they aren't on this list, because it's not only high tech R&D jobs. In other words, in those areas you better be a data scientist or Rust programmer, or you're not going to get a job.

        • In other words, in those areas you better be a data scientist or Rust programmer, or you're not going to get a job.

          I'm in Seattle, and I'm neither a data scientist or a Rust programmer ;)

          That doesn't necessarily mean it's not crappy.

          We certainly don't think so.
          I think we're doing alright. [washingtonstatewire.com]
          Not quite double Texas' GDP growth, but working on it.

    • The people leaving are mainly the previous middle class sort that can't afford the raising costs and the technology sector pays extremely well and can afford to continue displacing the existing population. It's really the existing population's own fault anyhow since they greedily prohibited new building to raise the value of their own property without fully understanding the unfortunate side effects.

      If you're a young person with the kind of degree or skills those companies are hiring for there's no reaso

      • Many of those leaving are doing so because just by selling the house they've owned for 10-50 years they're able to profit enough to completely retire elsewhere.

    • Three of them are in that supposed shithole state of CA where it seems every day I read a news story about people fleeing its awfulness in droves.

      So the fact that an army of young idiots are willing to work for subpar wages and live in their cars just to have "Google" on their resume doesn't mean that the middle class isn't leaving the rest of the state? Is all of that Cal-to-Surrounding States movement smoke and mirrors?

      The only people coming to California in appreciable numbers are illegal aliens. California is becoming a LOT like a third world country: a place of extremes where you have the very very well to do living in gated communities and ever

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tsqr ( 808554 )

        And oh, people shitting in the streets. That doesn't happen in first world places.

        Shitting in the streets has been classified as a "quality of life crime" by San Francisco's Attorney General, and will not be prosecuted. Likewise prostitution, panhandling, unlicensed street vendors, and more. I'm wondering how long it will be until SF suffers a typhus outbreak like Los Angeles.

      • The only people coming to California in appreciable numbers are illegal aliens.

        This is ridiculously false.
        Immigrants are padding a falling population in California- absolutely.
        Between 2007 and 2016, 6 million people moved away from California.
        But 5 *million* people moved *to* California.
        Immigrant influx masked this deficit, but still the vast majority of people who moved to California were legal.

    • They're always leaving in droves, but usually only after they're rich and retiring early.

      It's a shithole in that when they have no reason to stay, they often leave. But it is a "shithole" in a metaphorical way, since they're rich and pay well.

    • Three of them are in that supposed shithole state of CA...

      For those still doubting whether these shitholes really exist, a convenient online map for tourists has been created to help guide you to the best human shit sightings.

      Literally [openthebooks.com]

  • Likely a different story now that Amazon has chosen the DC/Northern VA area for a HQ2. Frankly I am surprised the DC area didn't make the list regardless.

    • The D.C. area has a work ethos that's twisted by the way the Federal government and its contractors work, which just doesn't seem to result in long term success for tech companies, except for outposts like AWS's biggest region. It's biggest strength, very much related to that Amazon region, is communications, and that got nuked in the "dot.com" crash, which was much more a telecom than website company crash.

      It doesn't have anything that directly helps a region to become a high tech center, like the non-com

  • Sounds like another example of the Pareto principle [wikipedia.org] and nothing we should find alarming.
    • It's not alarming because a term has been defined to describe it?

      From where I sit it seems increasingly apparent that various Americans inhabit practically different universes and it's becoming increasingly difficult for them to get along.

  • Coastal elitism in this assessment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fortythirteen ( 5606969 ) on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @08:53AM (#59504096)
    I have a hard time believing this assessment when Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh-Durham aren't in the list. Of course, let the coastal elites think there aren't any good jobs outside of their bubbles. The last thing we need is more competition for these almost equally paying tech jobs in areas with half the cost of living.

    • Last time I checked, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh-Durham are so close to the Atlantic coast they might as well count, certainly Seattle isn't directly on the Pacific Coast.

      But the metric is very straight forward, so you're saying either the researchers are sloppy, lying, or they're working from poor data and not recognizing that. Any combination of those is plausible, but you ought to make a real case, instead of throwing out a wild accusation.

      • Ok, here's a direct accusation. They made their list directly based on the number of tech jobs, not the number of tech jobs, per capita or the number of unfilled tech jobs, per capita. They made no adjustment for quality of life. They made no intelligent adjustments whatsoever. They simply said, "this city has x number of tech jobs" with no account for how many people live in that fucking city. Who cares if NY has x number of tech jobs, if you're also not accounting for the fact that there are almost 9 mill

        • Who cares if NY has x number of tech jobs, if you're also not accounting for the fact that there are almost 9 million residents?!

          Actually, these numbers are adjusted for local population changes, which is why NYC is graded poorly. By the report "New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA" added 7162 jobs from 2005-17, but when adjusted for employee population that came out to a -0.2% growth.

          NYC has a big tech workforce, but it has grown roughly the same as other workforces in NYC... which is actually healthy. Being completely dependent on a single industry isn't a good idea.

          The main premise of the article(that places that aren

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

          Ok, here's a direct accusation. They made their list directly based on the number of tech jobs, not the number of tech jobs, per capita or the number of unfilled tech jobs, per capita. They made no adjustment for quality of life. They made no intelligent adjustments whatsoever. They simply said, "this city has x number of tech jobs" with no account for how many people live in that fucking city. Who cares if NY has x number of tech jobs, if you're also not accounting for the fact that there are almost 9 million residents?!

          Your comments are unrelated to the study. The study (heck, even the summary) said: "Just five metropolitan areas—Boston; San Diego; San Francisco; Seattle; and San Jose, Calif.—accounted for 90% of all U.S. high-tech job growth between 2005 to 2017"

          You said: "I have a hard time believing this assessment when Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh-Durham aren't in the list."

          If you have a hard time believing this assessment, it means you think that Austin+Atlanta+Charlotte+Raleigh someone contrib

        • They made their list directly based on the number of tech jobs, not the number of tech jobs, per capita or the number of unfilled tech jobs, per capita. They made no adjustment for quality of life.

          Why should the research make that adjustment if the research is focused on growth alone? The research argues that "X" % of growth occurred in certain areas. And that's it.

          The research is not making an argument of where it is occurring best, or about growth wrt to changes in quality of life or COL or whatever.

          That would be an interesting research mind you, but neither is what they are presenting nor is something they are precluded from pursuing (if they aren't doing it now.)

          You are just making a stra

      • certainly Seattle isn't directly on the Pacific Coast.

        I don't know. That requires some pretty serious pedantry. The Puget Sound is an inlet of the Pacific Ocean.
        I can walk down to the water front, hop in a boat, and be in the Pacific Ocean proper in short order without transitioning between salt/fresh/brackish water, or any locks.

    • I have a hard time believing this assessment when Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh-Durham aren't in the list. Of course, let the coastal elites think there aren't any good jobs outside of their bubbles. The last thing we need is more competition for these almost equally paying tech jobs in areas with half the cost of living.

      Shhhhh ...

    • I have a hard time believing this assessment when Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh-Durham aren't in the list.

      Why? All of those are places people don't want to move to.

      • Yeah, because who would want to live in a place without a need for a phone app to tell you where people are shitting in the street.
    • Equally paying...
      I mean, the median income in Seattle is nearly double that of Austin, but OK.
      Most job offers I get range from 150-250k/yr total compensation. A quick glace at Glassdoor indicates jobs in Austin doing what I do go for somewhere between 50-100k less.

      I think you have trouble believing this because you have trouble separating facts from what you want to be true.

    • The text of the report specifically mentions that Atlanta and Raleigh increased their share somewhat but not as much as the top five.
      Raleigh, NC 12,238 0.3%
      Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 5,736 0.1%

      In addition, the text of the report specifically mentions that Charlotte added jobs but not as fast as the industry overall so it's share did not increase. Also, the tabluar data at the end of the report shows that Austin too added jobs but at a rate slower than the industry so it lost share.
      Charlotte-Concord-G

    • I have a hard time believing this assessment when Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh-Durham aren't in the list.

      It is not that hard to believe when you consider the number of jobs (and wealth) being created in the aforementioned 5 cities compared to the four you mentioned. The assessment is not making a claim that tech growth only occurs in those 5 cities (or that it does not occur elsewhere.)

      Of course, let the coastal elites think there aren't any good jobs outside of their bubbles. The last thing we need is more competition for these almost equally paying tech jobs in areas with half the cost of living.

      And herein lies the true reason of your rant: hurr durr coastal l33t hurr durr. Put your bias aside and try to read the assessment. Or not, feel free to hump strawmen, but don't complain later when you develop blisters.

  • This Study Is Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nova Express ( 100383 ) <lawrenceperson AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @09:02AM (#59504114) Homepage Journal

    The idea that Austin has lagged behind isn't born out by the huge tech boom buildout, or population figures, or traffic, or personal experience.

    Then we get to this section:

    Advanced industries” are America’s 50 high-R&D, high-STEM manufacturing, energy, and services industries, ranging from aerospace and automobile manufacturing to solar electricity generation to internet publishing to bio-tech.

    “Innovation industries” are a subset of advanced industries that include the 13 most STEM- and R&D-intensive industries.

    So evidently only the most sparkling unicorn industries count. This suggests that the entire 14 magic industries were selected to give the results the writer wanted.

    The Brookings Institution should go back to doing what it does best: Sucking up money from terrorist supporting Arab kingdoms [freebeacon.com].

  • Fast spread of buzzwords, and slavish adherence to fashion. Yes, that does tend to produce "conglomerations".

  • "think tank" (Score:3)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @09:11AM (#59504132) Homepage Journal

    Beware of any "think tank" report. They aren't doing this for free. There is some purpose to every report.

  • But I thought diversity was our strength!

  • Why??? (Score:3)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @10:45AM (#59504510) Homepage

    In my job, except for the parts that actually involve interacting with people, I work from wherever I happen to be. Usually at home. I find this a lot more productive, as well as a lot more pleasant. The down side is the danger of working too much. Sudden idea Sunday evening...no, stop. You have to have times that you do not work, so maybe you write the idea down and look at it the next morning.

    My wife is currently freelancing as a translator. In her last big contract, she never - not once - had to meet a live human being. Everything was online.

    Anyway, my point is simply this: Given today's communication possibilities, there is almost no reason for people to concentrate themselves in office buildings in particular cities. You can program from Outer Bumf*ck just as well as (and probably better than) you can in Boston or San Diego. The scenery is better, the cost of living is cheaper, what's not to like?

    • Given today's communication possibilities, there is almost no reason for people to concentrate themselves in office buildings in particular cities.

      You're ignoring, besides the obvious issues of managerial lack of confidence and competence, that a bunch of companies set up open offices so that they can show the next set of potential investors that you're working hard. Not productively, of course, let alone how low it sets the ceiling of the difficultly of what your serfs can do while they're in the office

  • Salary negotiation usually begins with previous salary. Salary often varies based on the cost-of-living in an area. Understanding this is key to landing roles, remote or otherwise. If I low-ball the salary on a position, regardless of my qualification, I may be perceived as unqualified for said position. If I high-ball the position, the prospective employer may feel that they cannot adequately meet my salary expectations.

    So it is that I expect that I won't ever be invited to work a position in one of these

  • I'll bet the tech people can't wait for flying cars so they can stay above it all like Blade Runner.

  • please don't lump us in with the Bay Area. Not only do we largely despise that area with the fire of a thousand suns (along with LA, which is closer and still sends us their smog from time to time), but the market forces affecting San Diego and the Bay Area tech scenes are vastly different.

    San Diego is still primarily a tourism-based and military-based town. People come here to vacation, and then like it so much the settle down and/or retire here once they can afford it. We have a long legacy of mil-tech an

  • Could it be all the meth addicts and users here, perhaps??? Impossible to walk down a city street without hearing one screaming their heads off or running around naked (not a sweet sight, BTW)!
    • Sorry, should have included the city name: Seattle
    • Hyperbole much? I work on 6th Avenue. While I do occasionally see the kind of people you're referring to, it's rare.
      • You are soooo full of crap --- you obviously never get out and about in town, nor listen to the news, yahoo bubba!
        • Being I work downtown, I get "out and about in town" every single day when I go for coffee and lunch.
          Where do you work, the McDonalds across from the WBX building?
  • These cities will take the biggest hit in a recession, because the first thing people will stop buying is tech products, apps, software, services.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close