I moved from Austin to SV, tried to do a start up there and all.
In my experience the average startup scene (angels, VCs, tech talents, etc) are pretty much all bush league when compared to Silicon Valley, despite some of the glaring flaws of SV startup scene. There are exceptions to the rules, but I was mostly unimpressed during my time there.
Austin Ventures was the biggest VC in town back then (probably still is), and I've heard that the unwritten rule for the firm is that they do not invest in first time founders.
That tells you how risk-averse and "open minded" Austin tech scene is.
But with Tim Ferriss's reputation and background, Austin is a great place to be because he gets to be the big fish in the small, growing pond. I'm sure he's doing very well at the local speaker scene.
Agreed. I'll also point out in his supposed wise and truth-telling reddit post he also includes this point:
> 6) Golden Gate and tech are terrorist targets, and I don't like being close to the bullseye. This is based on good information from friends who work full-time in threat assessment.
This debate always reminds me of the quote by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty.
"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own."
This quote seem to talk about a group controlling the judicial process, which is unlike the situation Tim Ferris describe where people are punished in an extrajudicial manner without due process.
Interesting take. I interpret "against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties" as saying that the penalties are explicitly extrajudicial (exile or censure of some kind, presumably). I'm totally open to the possibility that I'm wrong though!
I think it’s quote extraordinary the way opinions are currently imposed at large scale by mob rule, enabled by social media and other technology that made this much more feasible. It’s tech that is used to identify, research, shame, coercing corporations into punishing, and as a tool for spreading the word on the action to any other that might hold that opinion.
In the past, as far as I know, the only way to do this was to impose through the judicial process because of limits in organizational capability.
I think I follow. My understanding of your point is that in the past due to limited tools for organization and communication, this level of mass public shaming or mob-based response wouldn't have been feasible. Is that a fair characterization?
If so, while it's true that the scale was more limited, there are certainly ample examples of extrajudicial responses for unpopular ideas and actions, from simple social ostracizing, up to getting tarred and feathered (which happened to British loyalists during the American Revolution).
Yes, that is my point. Technology acts as a large amplifier to extend reach and increase effectiveness.
Previously you could at best expect to impose on a relatively small geographic area around you, and it was much harder to organize and needed a majority to agree with the action. It seems like the mobs, like before, are comprised of a minority while the quiet majority is trying to avoid the crosshairs.
Unfortunately that quiet majority voted Trump when no one was looking. In the same way as belittling your partner rarely leads to anything good, doing the same at scale in a democracy does the same.
Living in Austin, TX I don't think we're any better than SF: Sure things are still cheaper here and we got live music venues (that are dying out) but from a tech perspective we're lagging behind. Additionally, the
transport infrastructure here is poor, the gentrification is out of control and what once was a warm and welcoming community for creatives is turning more and more into a pay-for-access sh^tshow
I'm a native Texan[0] and I have to say, I wonder where all of the angst about gentrifying Texas has come from over the last twenty years. Everyone has been gentrifying Texas for as long as I've been alive[1]. I watched my hometown go from a sleepy Dallas bedroom suburb 30 minutes from anything to six-figures of population and now a proper business headquarters in its own right. It even has its own live music venue and three (THREE!) actual rail public transportation stations. I never thought I'd see the day.
Nobody seemed to much care when it was Californians[2] selling off their million-dollar beach houses and buying four-acre ranchettes in the Dallas, Houston, and Austin suburbs. But now that Californians[2] are selling off their two-million-dollar inland houses and buying townhouses in the city, people cry foul.
What do people expect to happen when a lot of folks show up and want to live in an area? Folks have always gone where the jobs are and now some of those jobs pay a shitload of money and are actually located inside the urban area. I mean, I guess we could keep doing the other thing we've been doing in abundance, which is making one solid Metroplex from the Red River to Hillsboro, but that seems a little wasteful these days, especially since the reservoirs don't look like they can keep up...
0 - I write this only as "where I come from," not as any particular authority on anything besides my own vision.
1 - A lot longer than the average tech worker these days, for sure.
2 - Not a dog on Californians, just they're the most common folks to pack up and move east, particularly since moving west gets a little damp.
I should have said "Gentrification + Poor choice of how you're tearing down neighborhoods to create super-cool multiplex buildings"
It's not much the fact that gentrification happens, but how it is been happening. Usually - find an old building that's been abandoned or a depot. or some poor folk's homes - buy it for little, nuke it down and rebuild something that doesn't blend in and is usually so tall that hides the sun, but that you can slot up and resell for a big margin.
But that's the thing and was kind of my point, too. People have been building where other people didn't like it for a really long time but now it's in the city so all of the city slickers[0] are more vocal about it. Those four-acre ranchettes I mentioned? Those were built on native prairie that had been farmed or ranched by the same family since Texas was its own Republic. Then some developer comes in, clear cuts all of the trees, and plops down a bunch of "garish monstrosities" (to quote the Dallas Morning Snooze[1]) and, poof, the town of Prosper is now a city.
Another story: anybody remember what used to be under what is now Jerryworld out in Arlington next to the Ballpark[2]? I do, a bunch of houses that people had owned since the the 40s, all bulldozed so somebody could build a new stadium and eminent domained out of existence by the city. Think that stops anybody, new arrival or long-time resident, from going there for a football game or a concert? Nope.
I dunno what my overall point is except that things change, people do things that other people don't like, and life moves on. That's the way it has been since before I was on this planet and will be that way after I'm gone unless the heat wave of doom kills us all. Just, now, it's happening more in those areas that used to be "crime-ridden inner cities," which is probably more good than bad given we're covering the rest of the state with pavement at our own peril.
0 - Great movie.
1 - Not to be outdone by the Fort Worth Startlegram's breathless editorials about how development in Far North Fort Worth is going to ruin everything.
2 - Lest my Rangers get off the hook, they've also begged for taxpayer money to build their shiny new stadium and Arlington used eminent domain to boot one landowner (versus 150 for Jerryworld) off before the stadium could be built.
I don't disagree but there needs to be a balance at some point - if there hasn't been one before where the four-acre ranches used to sit why can't there be one now? Surely someone should be able to notice that adding more condominiums downtown and near-downtown isn't going to help the city's traffic and congestion go away?
Things do change, but they must change for the better - not for the worse...and not only for locals - people who are moving in will notice it and that will de-value Austin's USPs ( incl. the cool city vibe)
He is on point. The common way to approach any questioning of the common way of thinking is to always deny, never admit to anything and make counter accusations.
The questions are never answered, and the counter accusations are aggressive charicatures that most often has little relation to what was claimed.
I personally find this more scary than McCarthyism because while it used the judicial process, the current attitude is to rule by mob with no process and without hearing both sides.
Our democracy is fragile and rely on us respecting the rule of law . These people have the power to ruin people’s lives and use it. They should be ashamed for risking our democracy in this way for short term gain, in the naive belief that democracy is the default state of a society.
I suspect Ferris's move is secretly more to do with house prices and cost of living. Unless you are actively working in the valley there's no reason to be there because you can cut your living expenses significantly if your work is location independent anyway. I suspect Tim is on the proud side of admitting this.
In the Reddit thread, he very, very begrudgingly mentioned lower income tax rates in TX, and several Redditors surmised that this was more important than anything else.
He was an early investor in Uber, AirBnB, amongst others, not to mention that he’s probably making 10s of thousands per month off his podcast alone. Money is not factoring in to this decision.
What benefit do you think it would have to bring up what he dissents on if he is correct? Assuming he is correct that would risk proving his point in a way that distracts from the debate he is trying to start.
Many of the comments here seem to miss the context of Ferriss's quote, possibly it wasn't clear in the business insider article.
Ferriss indicated he doesn't want to be involved particularly in startups anymore, negating that advantage of living in SV, he was NOT claiming that Austin is a good or better place for startups.
As for close-minded, I believe he is saying something very similar to what Sam Altman wrote in a recent essay; just so everyone knows what to disagree/agree with.
I, a New Yorker, have zero opinion on either place.
Never thought I'd see the day when somebody got defensive about McNeil. I remember when they built the high school there, near where my sister lived. It was almost "out in the middle of nowhere..."
It's gone downhill since they built the 360 Parkway bridge. /s (it's something different for everybody). I think when I left they started building a Walmart on 2244 at the end near Bee Cave and there was one subdivision between Austin and Bee Cave besides the Barton Creek intersection, and I assume by now the entire road is lined with either subdivisions or businesses now.
In my experience the average startup scene (angels, VCs, tech talents, etc) are pretty much all bush league when compared to Silicon Valley, despite some of the glaring flaws of SV startup scene. There are exceptions to the rules, but I was mostly unimpressed during my time there.
Austin Ventures was the biggest VC in town back then (probably still is), and I've heard that the unwritten rule for the firm is that they do not invest in first time founders.
That tells you how risk-averse and "open minded" Austin tech scene is.
But with Tim Ferriss's reputation and background, Austin is a great place to be because he gets to be the big fish in the small, growing pond. I'm sure he's doing very well at the local speaker scene.