[BostonCard]

With Twitter announcing that their employees will be able to work from home forever, even after the reopening, and facebook telling employees more or less the same thing (with the caveat that they will be paid less if they don't live in the Bay Area), I thought this article was interesting:

https://www.sfgate.com/living-in-sf/arti...289316.php

Two out of three tech workers would leave San Francisco if they could work remotely.  Now, not all will be able to, and even among those that will be able to, I'm sure some people appreciate the local area.  But if you had a young family, and were given the option of working remotely, why wouldn't you go somewhere where you could get a much larger house (with a home office for you to actually work from home) with a larger yard, for much less money?

The Bay Area has survived the dot.com bust and the financial crisis, so I expect it will survive the coronavirus pandemic just fine.  But I think that one of the biggest sources of fuel for the area: young, well paid, well educated, tech workers may provide less fuel to the area than before.

BC

[BostonCard]

With Twitter announcing that their employees will be able to work from home forever, even after the reopening, and facebook telling employees more or less the same thing (with the caveat that they will be paid less if they don't live in the Bay Area), I thought this article was interesting:

https://www.sfgate.com/living-in-sf/arti...289316.php

Two out of three tech workers would leave San Francisco if they could work remotely.  Now, not all will be able to, and even among those that will be able to, I'm sure some people appreciate the local area.  But if you had a young family, and were given the option of working remotely, why wouldn't you go somewhere where you could get a much larger house (with a home office for you to actually work from home) with a larger yard, for much less money?

The Bay Area has survived the dot.com bust and the financial crisis, so I expect it will survive the coronavirus pandemic just fine.  But I think that one of the biggest sources of fuel for the area: young, well paid, well educated, tech workers may provide less fuel to the area than before.

BC

[2006alum]

I would bet most of those polled are exhibiting a recency bias. What happens when you lose your job, or want to change jobs? Do you network from Salt Lake City on zoom to find out about other opportunities? If you work in venture or startups, are you doing all your pitches by zoom and worrying that those who can meet face to face will provide a more compelling pitch or be able to have better access to the latest 20-year-old founders? When Facebook makes you take a 30% pay cut and you're responsible for all your meals, dry cleaning, etc., do you envy your office-based colleagues who are enjoying the considerable perks of onsite work?

At the present moment, the value add of SF is at a nadir (because everything is closed) and the ease of WFH is at a peak (everyone's doing it, no one's looking for a new job, and most funds and funding rounds, etc. are minimally active at the moment). When things start to go back to normal, I think the over-under from WFH outside of the Bay Area on a permanent basis will not seem as attractive as jobs where you can WFH 30-50% of the time but still benefit from relatively easy face-to-face work as well as the networking.

[2006alum]

I would bet most of those polled are exhibiting a recency bias. What happens when you lose your job, or want to change jobs? Do you network from Salt Lake City on zoom to find out about other opportunities? If you work in venture or startups, are you doing all your pitches by zoom and worrying that those who can meet face to face will provide a more compelling pitch or be able to have better access to the latest 20-year-old founders? When Facebook makes you take a 30% pay cut and you're responsible for all your meals, dry cleaning, etc., do you envy your office-based colleagues who are enjoying the considerable perks of onsite work?

At the present moment, the value add of SF is at a nadir (because everything is closed) and the ease of WFH is at a peak (everyone's doing it, no one's looking for a new job, and most funds and funding rounds, etc. are minimally active at the moment). When things start to go back to normal, I think the over-under from WFH outside of the Bay Area on a permanent basis will not seem as attractive as jobs where you can WFH 30-50% of the time but still benefit from relatively easy face-to-face work as well as the networking.

[Snorlax94]

My wife and I work in tech, and we were discussing this very thing last night.

We looked at each other and said, we could work and live in Hawaii? The example companies we've seen will adjust salaries based on the cost of living, which may deter some from moving to low-cost areas or India, but I think in Hawaii has an even higher cost of living.

But we decided not to look at it for now for a few reasons:
1) I think it puts employees a little bit at risk, depending on how unique their skill set is. When there are layoffs, remote employees may be less protected. Also, one of the things that makes sure you get treated well as an employee in the Bay Area is the ease with which you can hop companies. If you're living out in a forest in Oregon, maybe your employer *knows* you're harder to discover for competing recruiters, and that could impact which projects you are assigned and how much you're paid. On the flipside, if you're the #1 data scientist in the world and you always wanted to live next to a beach, good news for you!

#2) I think we're in the euphoric, honeymoon phase of work from home and I think it's not going to work nearly as well as people think. Let's say you have 20 people working on a new offering prototype. Normally, whenever you need feedback, you could just swing by a co-workers office and get input. You'd have weekly face-to-face review meetings to make sure you're on the right track. I've seen multiple instances during the Shelter-In-Place where millions of dollars were wasted because teams ran off on their own for 4-8 weeks without enough feedback, and their work had to be tossed after their plan belatedly received a broader review.

Also, it's usually already difficult to interview and train new employees with the staff on hand, and it'll be even harder without on-site employees. I think it'd be weird and risky to hire people without having a whole team of people meet them on-site and could increase the risk of fraud. And it'll be hard to get up-to-speed and build teamwork and good relations without face-to-face time. Companies can run for a while with their current teams that have already been recruited and trained, but eventually, they'll need more people on-site.

Greedy tech companies already tried this during the giant Outsource to India/China/Ireland/Eastern Europe/The Midwest  Campaigns -- when they could've gotten away with paying a fraction of Bay Area salaries -- and it didn't work.

Many people in tech are hopeful that this could lead to people getting to spend more days a week working from home -- maybe 2-3 instead of 1. But my prediction is that there are intrinsic, substantial drawbacks to having everyone work from home that will become more apparent over time.

[Snorlax94]

My wife and I work in tech, and we were discussing this very thing last night.

We looked at each other and said, we could work and live in Hawaii? The example companies we've seen will adjust salaries based on the cost of living, which may deter some from moving to low-cost areas or India, but I think in Hawaii has an even higher cost of living.

But we decided not to look at it for now for a few reasons:
1) I think it puts employees a little bit at risk, depending on how unique their skill set is. When there are layoffs, remote employees may be less protected. Also, one of the things that makes sure you get treated well as an employee in the Bay Area is the ease with which you can hop companies. If you're living out in a forest in Oregon, maybe your employer *knows* you're harder to discover for competing recruiters, and that could impact which projects you are assigned and how much you're paid. On the flipside, if you're the #1 data scientist in the world and you always wanted to live next to a beach, good news for you!

#2) I think we're in the euphoric, honeymoon phase of work from home and I think it's not going to work nearly as well as people think. Let's say you have 20 people working on a new offering prototype. Normally, whenever you need feedback, you could just swing by a co-workers office and get input. You'd have weekly face-to-face review meetings to make sure you're on the right track. I've seen multiple instances during the Shelter-In-Place where millions of dollars were wasted because teams ran off on their own for 4-8 weeks without enough feedback, and their work had to be tossed after their plan belatedly received a broader review.

Also, it's usually already difficult to interview and train new employees with the staff on hand, and it'll be even harder without on-site employees. I think it'd be weird and risky to hire people without having a whole team of people meet them on-site and could increase the risk of fraud. And it'll be hard to get up-to-speed and build teamwork and good relations without face-to-face time. Companies can run for a while with their current teams that have already been recruited and trained, but eventually, they'll need more people on-site.

Greedy tech companies already tried this during the giant Outsource to India/China/Ireland/Eastern Europe/The Midwest  Campaigns -- when they could've gotten away with paying a fraction of Bay Area salaries -- and it didn't work.

Many people in tech are hopeful that this could lead to people getting to spend more days a week working from home -- maybe 2-3 instead of 1. But my prediction is that there are intrinsic, substantial drawbacks to having everyone work from home that will become more apparent over time.

[Mick]

With Twitter announcing that their employees will be able to work from home forever, even after the reopening, and facebook telling employees more or less the same thing (with the caveat that they will be paid less if they don't live in the Bay Area), I thought this article was interesting:

https://www.sfgate.com/living-in-sf/arti...289316.php

Two out of three tech workers would leave San Francisco if they could work remotely.  Now, not all will be able to, and even among those that will be able to, I'm sure some people appreciate the local area.  But if you had a young family, and were given the option of working remotely, why wouldn't you go somewhere where you could get a much larger house (with a home office for you to actually work from home) with a larger yard, for much less money?

The Bay Area has survived the dot.com bust and the financial crisis, so I expect it will survive the coronavirus pandemic just fine.  But I think that one of the biggest sources of fuel for the area: young, well paid, well educated, tech workers may provide less fuel to the area than before.

BC

Could very well be.  My 24 year old lives in an apartment in the East Cut (Rincon Hill, by the SalesForce HQ), chiefly because he can walk quickly to the train.  It looks like he'll only have to go to the office two days a week, so he and his roommate (Lazard Freres) want to move further north.  They're thinking Marina, Nob Hill, North Beach.  My older son lived in Sea Cliff for six years before he moved to Santa Monica, but both my sons prefer SF.

[Mick]

With Twitter announcing that their employees will be able to work from home forever, even after the reopening, and facebook telling employees more or less the same thing (with the caveat that they will be paid less if they don't live in the Bay Area), I thought this article was interesting:

https://www.sfgate.com/living-in-sf/arti...289316.php

Two out of three tech workers would leave San Francisco if they could work remotely.  Now, not all will be able to, and even among those that will be able to, I'm sure some people appreciate the local area.  But if you had a young family, and were given the option of working remotely, why wouldn't you go somewhere where you could get a much larger house (with a home office for you to actually work from home) with a larger yard, for much less money?

The Bay Area has survived the dot.com bust and the financial crisis, so I expect it will survive the coronavirus pandemic just fine.  But I think that one of the biggest sources of fuel for the area: young, well paid, well educated, tech workers may provide less fuel to the area than before.

BC

Could very well be.  My 24 year old lives in an apartment in the East Cut (Rincon Hill, by the SalesForce HQ), chiefly because he can walk quickly to the train.  It looks like he'll only have to go to the office two days a week, so he and his roommate (Lazard Freres) want to move further north.  They're thinking Marina, Nob Hill, North Beach.  My older son lived in Sea Cliff for six years before he moved to Santa Monica, but both my sons prefer SF.

[stupac2]

Many people in tech are hopeful that this could lead to people getting to spend more days a week working from home -- maybe 2-3 instead of 1. But my prediction is that there are intrinsic, substantial drawbacks to having everyone work from home that will become more apparent over time.

I think it depends on the job. My job is virtually impossible to do from home fully because I interface with hardware, but my wife's seems to be easy enough (PM for an environmental remediation firm). I think that a lot of the software development done by junior staff at these big companies falls more toward the latter, but the actual innovation is the former. So you could end up with a system where the people taking permanent WFH essentially slot themselves as "code monkeys" forever, even if it's with a nice salary.

But agglomeration effects exist for a reason and you can't just wave a magic wand and make them go away. The Bay Area could certainly decline in importance, but it would be due to housing policies restricting growth and a new cluster forming in a better location, not massive amounts of WFH. (And I'm skeptical that would happen within 20 years, it's hard to make new clusters.)

[stupac2]

Many people in tech are hopeful that this could lead to people getting to spend more days a week working from home -- maybe 2-3 instead of 1. But my prediction is that there are intrinsic, substantial drawbacks to having everyone work from home that will become more apparent over time.

I think it depends on the job. My job is virtually impossible to do from home fully because I interface with hardware, but my wife's seems to be easy enough (PM for an environmental remediation firm). I think that a lot of the software development done by junior staff at these big companies falls more toward the latter, but the actual innovation is the former. So you could end up with a system where the people taking permanent WFH essentially slot themselves as "code monkeys" forever, even if it's with a nice salary.

But agglomeration effects exist for a reason and you can't just wave a magic wand and make them go away. The Bay Area could certainly decline in importance, but it would be due to housing policies restricting growth and a new cluster forming in a better location, not massive amounts of WFH. (And I'm skeptical that would happen within 20 years, it's hard to make new clusters.)

[BostonCard]

Here’s an economist article suggesting that COVID-19 May have resulted in “peak London”.  Many of the arguments apply to the Bay Area as well.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/0...ed-decline

BC

[BostonCard]

Here’s an economist article suggesting that COVID-19 May have resulted in “peak London”.  Many of the arguments apply to the Bay Area as well.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/0...ed-decline

BC

[82lsju]

while the headline of the article says 

2 out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely

the article is a little less bold in its prediction

 two thirds of employees would consider leaving the Bay Area if they had the option to work remotely

[82lsju]

while the headline of the article says 

2 out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely

the article is a little less bold in its prediction

 two thirds of employees would consider leaving the Bay Area if they had the option to work remotely

[Genuine Realist]

while the headline of the article says 

2 out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely

the article is a little less bold in its prediction

 two thirds of employees would consider leaving the Bay Area if they had the option to work remotely

Having been a native here for all practical purposes (67 years out of 73), I'd love to see it.

But this is only one of many, many ways in which the virus is going to change all the social interactions in the world.

[Genuine Realist]

while the headline of the article says 

2 out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely

the article is a little less bold in its prediction

 two thirds of employees would consider leaving the Bay Area if they had the option to work remotely

Having been a native here for all practical purposes (67 years out of 73), I'd love to see it.

But this is only one of many, many ways in which the virus is going to change all the social interactions in the world.

[BostonCard]

Hard to judge in the context of the acute shock of COVID-19, but Bay Area rents are down substantially:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/art...307118.php

Rents for a one-bedroom apartment dropped most in the cities richest in high-paying tech jobs, falling 9.4% in San Francisco compared with May of 2019. In Mountain View, home to Google, rents fell 15.9% year over year, while in Apple’s hometown of Cupertino rents dipped 14.3%, according to the rental search engine Zumper. In San Bruno, where YouTube has its offices, rents tumbled 14.9%.

We'll see how things change moving forward, but a bit of a cooling off with regards to rents in the Bay Area is probably not a bad thing.

BC

[BostonCard]

Hard to judge in the context of the acute shock of COVID-19, but Bay Area rents are down substantially:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/art...307118.php

Rents for a one-bedroom apartment dropped most in the cities richest in high-paying tech jobs, falling 9.4% in San Francisco compared with May of 2019. In Mountain View, home to Google, rents fell 15.9% year over year, while in Apple’s hometown of Cupertino rents dipped 14.3%, according to the rental search engine Zumper. In San Bruno, where YouTube has its offices, rents tumbled 14.9%.

We'll see how things change moving forward, but a bit of a cooling off with regards to rents in the Bay Area is probably not a bad thing.

BC

[stupac2]

Hard to judge in the context of the acute shock of COVID-19, but Bay Area rents are down substantially:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/art...307118.php

Rents for a one-bedroom apartment dropped most in the cities richest in high-paying tech jobs, falling 9.4% in San Francisco compared with May of 2019. In Mountain View, home to Google, rents fell 15.9% year over year, while in Apple’s hometown of Cupertino rents dipped 14.3%, according to the rental search engine Zumper. In San Bruno, where YouTube has its offices, rents tumbled 14.9%.

We'll see how things change moving forward, but a bit of a cooling off with regards to rents in the Bay Area is probably not a bad thing.

BC

Also, if you have a rate above ~3.5% on your mortgage, look at doing a refi. We're in the process of dropping from 4 to 3.125.

[stupac2]

Hard to judge in the context of the acute shock of COVID-19, but Bay Area rents are down substantially:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/art...307118.php

Rents for a one-bedroom apartment dropped most in the cities richest in high-paying tech jobs, falling 9.4% in San Francisco compared with May of 2019. In Mountain View, home to Google, rents fell 15.9% year over year, while in Apple’s hometown of Cupertino rents dipped 14.3%, according to the rental search engine Zumper. In San Bruno, where YouTube has its offices, rents tumbled 14.9%.

We'll see how things change moving forward, but a bit of a cooling off with regards to rents in the Bay Area is probably not a bad thing.

BC

Also, if you have a rate above ~3.5% on your mortgage, look at doing a refi. We're in the process of dropping from 4 to 3.125.

[BostonCard]

Also, if you have a rate above ~3.5% on your mortgage, look at doing a refi. We're in the process of dropping from 4 to 3.125.

Yeah, we're at 3.625% and looking at it; it's right at the edge of being worth it.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, if you have a rate above ~3.5% on your mortgage, look at doing a refi. We're in the process of dropping from 4 to 3.125.

Yeah, we're at 3.625% and looking at it; it's right at the edge of being worth it.

BC

[rudruff]

I have been hearing the "everyone is leaving California" stories for 40+ years now.

[rudruff]

I have been hearing the "everyone is leaving California" stories for 40+ years now.

[CornFed]

I have been hearing the "everyone is leaving California" stories for 40+ years now.

California has more out-migration, both as a percentage of population and in absolute terms, than any other of the fifty states.  It has been in the top five "worst" for quite a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U...._migration

[CornFed]

I have been hearing the "everyone is leaving California" stories for 40+ years now.

California has more out-migration, both as a percentage of population and in absolute terms, than any other of the fifty states.  It has been in the top five "worst" for quite a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U...._migration

[2006alum]

I have been hearing the "everyone is leaving California" stories for 40+ years now.

California has more out-migration, both as a percentage of population and in absolute terms, than any other of the fifty states.  It has been in the top five "worst" for quite a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U...._migration

Ironically, California has had net in-migration of the wealthier and highly educated, even as other demographic groups flee: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c...story.html. As a recent transplant, I suppose I count too, at least in the latter category. 

Got to say, seeing how other places have handled the pandemic, I've never been happier to be in the Bay Area than I am right now. And there are probably more friends of mine from Stanford undergrad back in the Bay Area than at any point since we graduated in 2006, if that's any measure of who stays, who comes, and who goes.

[2006alum]

I have been hearing the "everyone is leaving California" stories for 40+ years now.

California has more out-migration, both as a percentage of population and in absolute terms, than any other of the fifty states.  It has been in the top five "worst" for quite a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U...._migration

Ironically, California has had net in-migration of the wealthier and highly educated, even as other demographic groups flee: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c...story.html. As a recent transplant, I suppose I count too, at least in the latter category. 

Got to say, seeing how other places have handled the pandemic, I've never been happier to be in the Bay Area than I am right now. And there are probably more friends of mine from Stanford undergrad back in the Bay Area than at any point since we graduated in 2006, if that's any measure of who stays, who comes, and who goes.

[Genuine Realist]

I have been hearing the "everyone is leaving California" stories for 40+ years now.

California has more out-migration, both as a percentage of population and in absolute terms, than any other of the fifty states.  It has been in the top five "worst" for quite a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U...._migration

Ironically, California has had net in-migration of the wealthier and highly educated, even as other demographic groups flee: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c...story.html. As a recent transplant, I suppose I count too, at least in the latter category. 

Got to say, seeing how other places have handled the pandemic, I've never been happier to be in the Bay Area than I am right now. And there are probably more friends of mine from Stanford undergrad back in the Bay Area than at any point since we graduated in 2006, if that's any measure of who stays, who comes, and who goes.

You should have lived in Santa Clara County in the 50's and early 60's. It was a spectacular suburb then. The attractiveness is a big factor in what brought Silicon Valley into being.

Mind you, I was a middle class kid then, in Los Altos, though back then the different towns didn't signify too much (other than Palo Alto). There was poverty around, still a number of migratory farm workers in Mountain View, Milpitas, and down in Gilroy and Salinas, though they were a long way off. Steinbeck Country - I'm talking 'Tortilla Flats' and 'Cannery Row', not 'Grapes of Wrath' - still existed. My family wasn't rich, but not poor either. Considerations of how the other half lived was way beyond the ken of a kid under 15.

Now everyone (figuratively speaking) is rich. Mountain View, where I live now, used to be one of the poorest towns in the County. Now Castro Street is right out of Paris. Even Milpitas looks classy - sort of - and Gilroy is a bedroom community for Silicon Valley. My family is not displeased with the way property values have risen, and we were fortunate enough to buy a couple of third-class tickets on the Silicon Valley express - enough to live here, anyway. But even so, something has been lost. I would discourage any young family from settling here, unless you're with Google or Facebook or the like.

You would never guess what the game changer was. Not the tech, as such, but the building of 280 in 1964. The placement of the freeway destroyed the lovely rural character of much of the Valley.

[Genuine Realist]

I have been hearing the "everyone is leaving California" stories for 40+ years now.

California has more out-migration, both as a percentage of population and in absolute terms, than any other of the fifty states.  It has been in the top five "worst" for quite a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U...._migration

Ironically, California has had net in-migration of the wealthier and highly educated, even as other demographic groups flee: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c...story.html. As a recent transplant, I suppose I count too, at least in the latter category. 

Got to say, seeing how other places have handled the pandemic, I've never been happier to be in the Bay Area than I am right now. And there are probably more friends of mine from Stanford undergrad back in the Bay Area than at any point since we graduated in 2006, if that's any measure of who stays, who comes, and who goes.

You should have lived in Santa Clara County in the 50's and early 60's. It was a spectacular suburb then. The attractiveness is a big factor in what brought Silicon Valley into being.

Mind you, I was a middle class kid then, in Los Altos, though back then the different towns didn't signify too much (other than Palo Alto). There was poverty around, still a number of migratory farm workers in Mountain View, Milpitas, and down in Gilroy and Salinas, though they were a long way off. Steinbeck Country - I'm talking 'Tortilla Flats' and 'Cannery Row', not 'Grapes of Wrath' - still existed. My family wasn't rich, but not poor either. Considerations of how the other half lived was way beyond the ken of a kid under 15.

Now everyone (figuratively speaking) is rich. Mountain View, where I live now, used to be one of the poorest towns in the County. Now Castro Street is right out of Paris. Even Milpitas looks classy - sort of - and Gilroy is a bedroom community for Silicon Valley. My family is not displeased with the way property values have risen, and we were fortunate enough to buy a couple of third-class tickets on the Silicon Valley express - enough to live here, anyway. But even so, something has been lost. I would discourage any young family from settling here, unless you're with Google or Facebook or the like.

You would never guess what the game changer was. Not the tech, as such, but the building of 280 in 1964. The placement of the freeway destroyed the lovely rural character of much of the Valley.

[Mick]

You would never guess what the game changer was. Not the tech, as such, but the building of 280 in 1964. The placement of the freeway destroyed the lovely rural character of much of the Valley.

85 and 87 too.

[Mick]

You would never guess what the game changer was. Not the tech, as such, but the building of 280 in 1964. The placement of the freeway destroyed the lovely rural character of much of the Valley.

85 and 87 too.

[2006alum]

Wasn't alive for pre-280 times, but gotta say, it's probably my favorite freeway in the U.S. Well laid out, spacious, beautiful views, and so much more pleasant than 101. I'm very grateful for it, and it definitely makes commuting between SF, PA, and SJ way way easier.

[2006alum]

Wasn't alive for pre-280 times, but gotta say, it's probably my favorite freeway in the U.S. Well laid out, spacious, beautiful views, and so much more pleasant than 101. I'm very grateful for it, and it definitely makes commuting between SF, PA, and SJ way way easier.

[terry]

California has more out-migration, both as a percentage of population and in absolute terms, than any other of the fifty states.  It has been in the top five "worst" for quite a few years.

Ironically, California has had net in-migration of the wealthier and highly educated, even as other demographic groups flee

For the last several years, California has ranked #1 in outgoing migration to other states. On the other hand, California has ranked #3 in incoming migration from other states, and #1 in incoming migration from other countries.

[terry]

California has more out-migration, both as a percentage of population and in absolute terms, than any other of the fifty states.  It has been in the top five "worst" for quite a few years.

Ironically, California has had net in-migration of the wealthier and highly educated, even as other demographic groups flee

For the last several years, California has ranked #1 in outgoing migration to other states. On the other hand, California has ranked #3 in incoming migration from other states, and #1 in incoming migration from other countries.

[Mick]

Wasn't alive for pre-280 times, but gotta say, it's probably my favorite freeway in the U.S. Well laid out, spacious, beautiful views, and so much more pleasant than 101. I'm very grateful for it, and it definitely makes commuting between SF, PA, and SJ way way easier.

Going in the other direction, I definitely agree for the 101 vs. the 5.  The 101 south of Monterey County is very pleasant during and immediately after the rainy season.  Very scenic.  I've timed it to be exactly 42 minutes longer than the 5 going north.

And as a native Californian, I'm almost ashamed to say that I never took the PCH all the way south from Big Sur to Southern California until I was 42 years old.  Amazing, amazing trip.  I've done it three times and even loved it in inclement weather.

[Mick]

Wasn't alive for pre-280 times, but gotta say, it's probably my favorite freeway in the U.S. Well laid out, spacious, beautiful views, and so much more pleasant than 101. I'm very grateful for it, and it definitely makes commuting between SF, PA, and SJ way way easier.

Going in the other direction, I definitely agree for the 101 vs. the 5.  The 101 south of Monterey County is very pleasant during and immediately after the rainy season.  Very scenic.  I've timed it to be exactly 42 minutes longer than the 5 going north.

And as a native Californian, I'm almost ashamed to say that I never took the PCH all the way south from Big Sur to Southern California until I was 42 years old.  Amazing, amazing trip.  I've done it three times and even loved it in inclement weather.

[magnus]

85 and 87 too.

Going in the other direction, I definitely agree for the 101 vs. the 5.  The 101 south of Monterey County is very pleasant during and immediately after the rainy season.  
<snip>
And as a native Californian

This mixed article usage confused me.  I had to double check it was the same person. =)
My only guess is Mick was raised in NorCal (or just not SoCal) and either temporarily lived in SoCal enough to pick up the important highway designations, or has lots of SoCal friends that have slowly converted him over time.

Or...maybe I'm just misremembering how it works.  Is "the" only reserved for the major highways?  With ever present Google Maps, it's been a while since I talked directions with a SoCal influenced person.

Apologies, completely off topic. =)

[magnus]

85 and 87 too.

Going in the other direction, I definitely agree for the 101 vs. the 5.  The 101 south of Monterey County is very pleasant during and immediately after the rainy season.  
<snip>
And as a native Californian

This mixed article usage confused me.  I had to double check it was the same person. =)
My only guess is Mick was raised in NorCal (or just not SoCal) and either temporarily lived in SoCal enough to pick up the important highway designations, or has lots of SoCal friends that have slowly converted him over time.

Or...maybe I'm just misremembering how it works.  Is "the" only reserved for the major highways?  With ever present Google Maps, it's been a while since I talked directions with a SoCal influenced person.

Apologies, completely off topic. =)