[michaelochurch]

Yes, but the anger at the Google buses and the people who ride them is misplaced. These people really don't want to be paying $3000 per month for housing, and they have no power. In fact, many would be happy to live in low-COL regions (instead of cramming into SF) if it weren't for the career-limiting effects (at least at Google, you have to work in MTV if you want a decent shot at getting a real project; there are good projects elsewhere, but far fewer of them.)

Google's rank and file are not the bad guys. Irritating them does no good to anyone. When poor proletariat fight somewhat richer proletariat over their rides in "luxury buses", the real bad guys win. Divide and conquer.

The real bad guys aren't "techno riche". They invest in and manage software companies, but they don't know (or care) about technology. They couldn't write a line of code to save their lives. Those software execs making $250k++ per year while working 11-to-3 are MBA-culture colonists (Damaso Effect) who came in because we, as technologists, failed to prevent them from conquering us and drawing off almost all of the wealth we produce. We're very good at busting our balls (and ovaries) to solve hard technical problems, but we're terrible at protecting our own interests, especially as a group.

[11thEarlOfMar]

Any company with $250k++ execs working 11:00-3:00 is not going to be around very long. Among the execs in those ranks I've known, if you're a corporate exec making $500k+, the company owns you. When the CEO calls at 2:00 AM Sunday and says, "We've got a problem is Shenzhen", you're on a plane a 6:00 AM, too bad if your daughter's senior recital is 2:00 PM that day.

[michaelochurch]

Any company with $250k++ execs working 11:00-3:00 is not going to be around very long.

Actually, there's something worse for a typical company than a typical exec making $250k++ while working 11-3: that same exec working a full day.

if you're a corporate exec making $500k+, the company owns you. When the CEO calls at 2:00 AM Sunday and says, "We've got a problem is Shenzhen", you're on a plane a 6:00 AM, too bad if your daughter's senior recital is 2:00 PM that day.

That's what they want you to think, so you don't hate them or covet their jobs. Ever hear of the complain-brag? It's not true. The politicking involved in getting those jobs is quite competitive, but once you're in the club, it's a pretty easy life if you want it to be. [ETA: being a CEO of a small or mid-sized company, on the other hand, is usually quite demanding.]

[yuhong]

Note the words typical company though, it depends a lot on the culture I think. Reminds me of this BTW: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2011013

[wmf]

many would be happy to live in low-COL regions (instead of cramming into SF)

Isn't Mountain View (or pretty much anywhere else in the valley) cheaper than SF? If these people have no time outside of work to appreciate SF and can barely afford the rent, why are they living there?

[mbesto]

It probably correlates more to age than anything. SF is a more popular place to live if you are young, single, and outgoing (i.e. more to do there). Mountain View (and areas like PA, Menlo Park, etc) are much more appealing to people with families.

[nostrademons]

And introverts. I've never understood the complaints about the South Bay being socially dead. I've got a very busy social life here with a number of friends within walking distance, it's just my idea of socializing involves going out to dinner or over to someone's house for Starcraft or board games or a movie instead of doing a pub crawl of half a dozen bars or having a raucous house party.