Amazon HQ2 thread

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But the actual rapid growth of companies has been geographically pretty well dispersed: NYC, DC, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, etc

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

VC is a Silicon-Valley focused measure--after all, the VC model is in part what the Valley hangs its hat on, and will always be that way; yet it makes the Valley look unusually prodigious compared to the rest of the nation. I also think VC numbers have warped the impressions people have of regions above and beyond their actual levels of wealth and ability to produce new companies. In a way, VC is really just a measure of inbreeding. How much money are we ploughing back into ourselves?

I would imagine that a better measure is the Inc 5000 or something of the like, which is a list of the fastest growing small companies in the world. This list is far more dispersed

When talking about tech startups, there is no equivalent to the Bay Area, in this era. There is no equivalent of an Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, PayPal, or Stripe outside of the SF Bay Area. The biggest unicorn outside of the Bay Area and China right now is WeWork, which isn't even a tech company.

It indeed is a self-fulfilling prophecy because it takes so much to start a tech company, and the Bay Area has both structural advantages and also a certain culture that makes it work there.

[the urban politician]

^ I'm talking about "new companies" as a whole, not "tech startups".

I'm not talking about fads. I'm just trying to offer some perspective in a world that has gotten a bit too obsessed with VC.

Here is the list, by Metro area, of fastest growing new companies according to this year's Inc 5000:

1. NYC -- 381 companies
2. DC -- 321 companies
3. LA -- 298 companies
4. Chicago -- 230 companies
5. Atlanta -- 197 companies

San Francisco lands at number 7. Yet if you look at VC dollars, it gets about 10 times more than the next city.

Perspective, my friend.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I'm talking about "new companies" as a whole, not "tech startups".

I'm not talking about fads. I'm just trying to offer some perspective in a world that has gotten a bit too obsessed with VC.

Here is the list, by Metro area, of fastest growing new companies according to this year's Inc 5000:

1. NYC -- 381 companies
2. DC -- 321 companies
3. LA -- 298 companies
4. Chicago -- 230 companies
5. Atlanta -- 197 companies

San Francisco lands at number 7. Yet if you look at VC dollars, it gets about 10 times more than the next city.

Perspective, my friend.

Which makes sense, but... we're talking about tech, right? I'm not commenting on anything other than Silicon Valley being the undisputed King of tech.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Which makes sense, but... we're talking about tech, right? I'm not commenting on anything other than Silicon Valley being the undisputed King of tech.

But is it, really? This is the breakdown from Inc 5000 (Chicago is only highlighted because this post is from the Chicago Economy Thread):

Originally Posted by marothisu

By the way, you mentioned the INC 5000. I thought it would be interesting to take a look but only of more tech related industries.

That is companies that fall under Software, Computer Hardware, IT Management, IT System Development, and IT Services.

Total (all the above put together) by MSA, 2018

1. NYC: 75 companies
2. Washington DC: 74 companies
3. Chicago: 50 companies
4. San Francisco: 48 companies
5. Atlanta: 45 companies
6. Los Angeles: 44 companies
7. Dallas: 27 companies
8. Boston: 25 companies
9T. Denver: 21 companies
9T. Philadelphia: 21 companies
11. San Jose: 20 companies
12. Minneapolis: 19 companies
13. Austin: 18 companies
14. Phoenix: 16 companies
15. Baltimore: 15 companies

Not as many as NYC and DC, but still more than San Francisco, Atlanta, Los Angeles, etc.

Software companies by MSA, 2018
1. NYC: 45 companies
2. San Francisco: 36 companies
3. Los Angeles: 29 companies
4. Chicago: 22 companies
5. Washington DC: 21 companies
6. Atlanta: 20 companies
7. Dallas: 15 companies
8. Austin: 13 companies
9T. Boston: 12 companies
9T. San Jose: 12 companies
11T. Denver: 11 companies
11T. Minneapolis: 11 companies
13T. Philadelphia: 10 companies
13T. Seattle: 10 companies
15T. Baltimore: 9 companies
15T. Phoenix: 9 companies

NYC and Bay Area far ahead with LA next, but Chicago and DC not far behind LA.

IT Management companies by MSA, 2018
1. Washington DC: 25 companies
2T. Chicago: 17 companies
2T. NYC: 17 companies
4. Atlanta: 14 companies
5. Boston: 12 companies
6. Los Angeles: 11 companies
7. Philadelphia: 8 companies
8T. Dallas: 7 companies
8T. Denver: 7 companies
10T. Minneapolis: 6 companies
10T. San Francisco: 6 companies
12. Phoenix: 5 companies
13T. With 4 companies each ==> Baltimore, San Diego, Miami, Houston, and Nashville

Chicago tied with NYC. Ahead of the Bay Area, Los Angeles, etc.

IT System Development companies by MSA, 2018
1. Washington DC: 28 companies
2. NYC: 13 companies
3. Chicago: 11 companies
4. Atlanta: 10 companies
5. San Francisco: 6 companies
6T. Dallas: 5 companies
6T. San Jose: 5 companies
6T. Detroit: 5 companies
9. Los Angeles: 4 companies
10T. Philadelphia: 3 companies
10T. Denver: 3 companies
10T. Houston: 3 companies
10T. Charlotte: 3 companies
10T. Portland: 3 companies
15T. With 2 companies each: Austin, Baltimore, Seattle, Phoenix, Minneapolis


The number of companies in Computer Hardware and IT Services were pretty low individually. Chicago is tied 3rd for Computer Hardware.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But is it, really? This is the breakdown from Inc 5000 (Chicago is only highlighted because this post is from the Chicago Economy Thread):

Yes, it is. There is nothing like the companies which I mentioned before in Chicago, or anywhere else, besides the Bay Area and Seattle.

[the urban politician]

^ Sure, but those numbers don't point to SF being an "undisputed King" of tech.

We can't always look just at numbers that support our world views, which happens too often

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Sure, but those numbers don't point to SF being an "undisputed King" of tech.

We can't always look just at numbers that support our world views, which happens too often

Define tech.

[dubu]

tech is something that came from the military. before tech people in office buildings just passed paper around. the military made work a little less boring. but no way could i sit all day at a computer.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by dubu

before tech people in office buildings just passed paper around.

They passed paper around and drank 25 cent coffee, were able to converse freely without fear of offending somebody.

Now, they forward emails around and drink $5 cups of syrup/cream Starbucks, while looking over their shoulder to not offend those sensitive types lurking around the corner.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

They passed paper around and drank 25 cent coffee, were able to converse freely without fear of offending somebody.

Now, they forward emails around and drink $5 cups of syrup/cream Starbucks, while looking over their shoulder to not offend those sensitive types lurking around the corner.

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

[dubu]

thats ironic its in ny because i read something about how they were thinking it would be better for amazon to build a new city and we build things just on the internet now mostly. ny is a classic old city, we wouldnt go and build a ny today because today is all about google and everything. but theres some cool tech like electric bikes.

i think amazon should make a city without all things that makes ny so expencive, it would look like a boring city but you dont have freeways and subways. its just flat ground good for bikes and regular trains.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

Dude, honestly, I can't tell either. It was a response to dubu.

[SIGSEGV]

I'm not sure that WeWork counts as a tech company. There is a lot of tech talent in NYC, but I bet most good people work in finance (which are by now to a large extent tech companies anyway...they just don't sell consumer facing tech) and it won't be easy or cheap for AMZN to poach them. I know I keep getting recruitment emails promising me $$$$ if I stop wasting my time doing physics and instead move to NYC to "algorithmic trading, no financial experience required" which I assume is some way to play funny games with people's money

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by dubu

tech is something that came from the military. before tech people in office buildings just passed paper around. the military made work a little less boring. but no way could i sit all day at a computer.

Microsoft started in Albuquerque. Seattle only became a center of tech because Bill Gates and Paul Allen happened to be from there and moved the company to be closer to mommy and daddy.

One of the first centers of "tech" was Dayton, OH. National Cash Register started building business computers in Dayton in the 1960s. 50 miles south, Cincinnati Milacron built the "George" business computer in the 1970s. Here is a link to the original "George" brochure: https://microship.com/cincinnati-milacron-george/

Unfortunately Cincinnati Milacron's overall business (lathes, injection molding machines, etc.) was decimated by Japanese competition (Mazak, etc.) in the 1980s and like so many other U.S. electronics manufacturers, they were forced to scrap r&d and quickly fell behind in the exploding world of computers and software.

It's really by total and complete chance that the tech world ended up in a dull suburb between San Jose and San Francisco. If Steve Jobs had been born in St. Louis or Buffalo or Shreveport or Quad Cities and started Apple in one of those places, that single-handedly would have diverted a lot of tech activity to some other locale.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It's really by total and complete chance that the tech world ended up in a dull suburb between San Jose and San Francisco. If Steve Jobs had been born in St. Louis or Buffalo or Shreveport or Quad Cities and started Apple in one of those places, that single-handedly would have diverted a lot of tech activity to some other locale.

Eh, I think Fred Terman has some responsibility for that.

[C.]

Originally Posted by fleonzo

I haven't been wanting to comment on this thread but since it's practically (and literally) hitting right at home (My wife and I have been living in LIC, NYC since '12), there's some mixed feelings on this. It's always great to see this "neighborhood" growing and ever changing as well as seeing our three daughters growing up here but people who are not too familiar with this area must realize that the infrastructure is bursting at the seams....subway, water taxis, roads, ramps to the bridges and tunnels, etc....The City should really look to make a multi billion dollar investment in completely upgrading this over burden infrastructure.

The only time things get done in this country is when it's crisis levels. With Amazon and the overburdening on existing infrastructure the follows, so will the improvements to the subway, water taxis, roads, ramps to the bridges and tunnels, etc...

You'll be holding your breath forever if the America did the responsible thing and upgrade infrastructure first before new development. It simply doesn't happen that way. The priority is solving the immediate crisis.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It's really by total and complete chance that the tech world ended up in a dull suburb between San Jose and San Francisco. If Steve Jobs had been born in St. Louis or Buffalo or Shreveport or Quad Cities and started Apple in one of those places, that single-handedly would have diverted a lot of tech activity to some other locale.

I wouldn't go that far. Clearly Stanford + heavily regionalized Cold War defense spending + NASA (originating in SV) + liberalized immigration rules favorable to Asian-heavy metros played major roles. H-P is an old company, long before anyone heard of SV.

Yes, there was some degree of luck, but I'm not sure if SV could have been anywhere else. Perhaps Southern CA or Central NJ (both had heavy postwar govt. spending in tandem with major science-oriented research universities feeding innovation cycles).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I know I keep getting recruitment emails promising me $$$$ if I stop wasting my time doing physics and instead move to NYC to "algorithmic trading, no financial experience required" which I assume is some way to play funny games with people's money

They're recruiting you to be a quant or algo trader. Quants/algos are heavily in demand on Wall Street and are paid quite well.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

One of the first centers of "tech" was Dayton, OH. National Cash Register started building business computers in Dayton in the 1960s. 50 miles south, Cincinnati Milacron built the "George" business computer in the 1970s. Here is a link to the original "George" brochure: https://microship.com/cincinnati-milacron-george/ .

Surely some kudos also needs to be given to IBM (founded 1911), i think they also had an early presence in Dayton, OH.

[ocman]

Everything is always from someone or some company that started the chain reaction that follows, but the semiconductor industry that developed in the bay area and from which everything sprouted from was much more than chance. They organically developed an ecosystem that supported that growth.