It is well-known that  big tech companies are the cause of insane levels of rent, with the many flow-on effects that creates (homelessness, crime).

But it also is a disservice to those employees. Purely because of the location of their employer, much of their high rewards for their tech skills disappears into living costs. It seems that landlords are the only true winners, versus these tech giants existing elsewhere.

The ideal solution is for each major tech company to inhabit their own city, spreading the wealth and inequality across the USA. But this discounts why Silicon Valley grew to start with, because having such businesses in close proximity was helpful for mutual growth.

A solution that can work looks like this:

Identify which workers benefit the most (for the themselves and their employers) by being in a major tech city, with synergy and competition.

Move everyone else to somewhere else. Possibly multiple places.

The new places can be extremely innovative. I wouldn’t advocate for isolated cities built from scratch – these would tend to fail, while organic evolution is preferable.

Key selection criteria for a new place would include:

• ease of transport to HQ (small cities where getting to an airport is easy + direct routes)
• tax incentives from local authorities, where the balance actually helps the new city
• exisiting culture, leisure or weather that inspires people to make the shift
• room for agricultural development

I imagine a small city where upper management exist, and major corporate meetings are held. Probably an existing “destination” that is not too populated, but might not be cheap, with existing infrastructure that would please corporate types. But nothing too excessive.

The existing staff who stay in San Francisco, perhaps 30-50% of the staff, are people who are young and hungry, quite mobile between companies, but also not (yet) critical to the business.

Support staff who need little or no integration with the rest of the business – these could be currently outsourced overseas – could be placed in a brand new community that is progressive but not necessarily easy to reach from the other business centres.

And finally, the key to all of this. The indispensable, non-corporate staff. They might be 20% of the business. They get a brand new community on the outskirts of an existing city. There is an organic, rural aspect to life there, for those who want it. With fraternal socialising and even shared housing. Optionally, you can just live in the existing city, with a small commute. These people are very dynamic. They travel to the other business locations regularly, perhaps with a company-owned small airline. But where they live is highly desirable and affordable. Every other employee who is not corporate will crave to work there.

A promotion is not just a higher role and more pay, but a better place to live. It will be a mini smart city, with shared electric cars, eco-housing and so on. And cheaper living costs, substantially cheaper. Possibly the option to live on a working farm – a real farm where employees contribute and share. It can be occasional instead of permanent. Possibly childcare and schooling is provided, also optional.

The benefits of this model:

• San Francisco becomes more affordable, and has the right people to make it more interesting and dynamic again
• Multiple regional cities get an economic boost
• Improved benefits for all employees (lower rent, nicer environments)
• An incentive to perform better and move somewhere nicer

Location ideas:

Salt Lake City / Park City UT
Las Vegas NV
Denver CO
San Diego CA
Albuquerque  NM
Sacramento CA
Portland OR

Work out for yourself which employee types would go where. I can see the corporates in Sacramento or Park City.

I’d put the Indispensables in rural locations near Denver or Portland.

Denver is 90 minutes to Salt Lake City. Portland is 105 minutes to San Fransisco.

Sacramento to San Francisco is around 1 hour.

UPDATE / SEP 2022: Denver has been growing, in terms of tech workers, up 23% in 5 years. But Salt Lake City is up 29%
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/biggest-tech-talent-hubs-in-us-and-canada/ 

Sacramento might take more time for people to work it out.

• A business decides that hiring some entrepreneurial types would be a smart move – young people with bright ideas.
• Entrepreneurial types often can’t work on their own ideas if they have full-time employment as well.
• Some entrepreneurs choose co-working spaces for networking, energy and affordability

  The idea is for a co-working space to be combined with part-time employment. You work for a tech company in the mornings, and do your own thing in the afternoon, from the same desk (just swap laptops and put a sign above you). You get enough pay to survive and enough time to work on your idea. You get to network with like-minded people.

  It would work best for a large company, with job-sharing. The whole first floor could be morning employees, and the second floor could be afternoon employees.

  The secret sauce: the company includes mentor-ship, and will invest in ideas it likes, so it is also an incubator.

  Keep in mind that this type of thinking worked well at Google with their “20% time”, giving us Google News, Gmail and AdSense.