<p>
</p>
<p>As Paul Graham once said, entrepreneurial locales are less of a technological phenomenon than a social one, meaning that while technology has become ever-cheaper over time, what is not cheap - and in fact, what is nearly impossible to replicate - is the social culture. That is precisely why so many countries have tried to build their own versions of Silicon Valley, with most having failed miserably. What those countries usually ended up creating was an economic zone that has the best technology infrastructure in the world and that may be filled with large tech firms (who have probably been enticed by tax incentives), but little startup activity. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am fudging on nothing - I am simply saying that Silicon Valley is the top startup locale, which I doubt that anybody disputes. But if you want to talk about other ones such as the Boston Technology Highway or Seattle, we could do that too. </p>
<p>But the bottom line is clear. You only get to live in one place at one time, so if you want to enter the startup world, why wouldn’t you place yourself in the best possible place to do it, unless you had an excellent reason to be elsewhere? Why settle for anything else when you can have #1? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s the same idea: what’s the best way to develop sufficient social trust necessary for somebody to endorse you for a job? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Distributed work is a fact of life - but so is the monotonic trend of global urbanization. </p>
<p>In fact, I might actually argue that the spread of telecommunications technology will mean that social connections and physical proximity will become more important for the American worker over time, not less. For example, you say that some employees of your company were given jobs characterized by 100% telecommuting. Well, then I would ask, what would stop the company from just offshoring that job completely to India or some other developing country? After all, if the job really can be completed from anywhere in the world, then it probably will be sent to whoever in the world can do it the cheapest. The competitive advantage of the American worker will have to be that he is in America and can therefore perform tasks for which physical proximity provides an advantage, whether due to fixed capital or due to social propinquity. I would be extraordinarily paranoid going forward knowing that my job could be completed on a pure telecommuting basis. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet the trend of urbanization continues. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I said all sorts of Ibankers live in Manhattan. I never said that all Ibankers live in Manhattan. Please read more carefully next time. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please see above and respond to what I actually said, not what you think I said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like an argument over shrinking the finance industry in general, not about where is the best place to be if you want to obtain a job in that industry. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe I’ve made any. You, on the other hand, seem to have made quite a few. </p>
<p>But in any case, I’m glad that you’re repudiating what you said before. Welcome aboard, I’m pleased to make your acquaintance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So now you’re agreeing with me that people may put up with moving to a place they don’t really like in order to receive other benefits that they do like. That is why people work offshore in some of the most hostile territory in the world. That is also why Ibankers may choose a career with such a low quality of life, at least in the first few years. </p>
<p>And that is also why some people will move to a location they don’t really like, if it offers opportunities. For example, I know many people who don’t really like Silicon Valley. But, hey, that’s where the venture funding is. That’s also where the entrepreneurial culture is. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More importantly - why is it keeping its hq in Boston? And why? </p>
<p>Like I said before, headquarters is where the political power lies. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but you seem to be a great fan of mine. Thank you for the support. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re fudging again. Obviously I have never disputed that there are a variety of reasons for anybody to live anywhere. But at the end of the day, people do move for career reasons. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, I never said that everyone was flocking to the cities. I said that the trend was for people to move to the cities. </p>
<p>Secondly, I never said that Boston itself had a lot of VC activity. I said the Boston area did. Most of the VC’s are not actually located within Boston at all, but rather in Waltham (or to some extent, Cambridge). </p>
<p>But to your point, it is certainly true that those who are interested in startup activity are indeed flocking to the Boston area. </p>
<p>On the other hand, like I said before, there are many dying industries in Boston and in Massachusetts in general. Manufacturing, in particular, used to employ far more people than it does now, and the slow death of manufacturing has resulted in a large population exodus, and manufacturing employs far more people than the tech industry probably ever will. Hence, I certainly agree that if you want a manufacturing career, Massachusetts is probably a poor choice. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have never once disagreed that other factors of life impact what you should do with your life. When have I ever said otherwise? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that only career factors matter, and nothing else. </p>
<p>But on the other hand, I think you would not disagree with me that career is certainly an important factor. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess you didn’t read about the fact that the entire Massachusetts economy is losing jobs. On a relative basis, academia in Massachusetts is still a bright spot.</p>