Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project |

Cost of Doing Business and Regulation

Updated February 2020

Overview

In 2015, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and Silicon Valley Community Foundation hosted a series of public policy strategy sessions with federal, state and local officials, CEOs, education administrators, and community leaders. The following public policy recommendations emerged as priorities to enhance the health of Silicon Valley’s economy.

Five years later, some recommendations still need legislative action; others require implementation or administrative adjustments. These recommendations will continue to be raised with city, county, state and federal government elected and administration leaders.

Comparatively high business costs and regulatory barriers in Silicon Valley are an important issue for a variety of reasons including:

Among companies considering expanding into the Valley, these impede expansion or opening of large-scale production/operations facilities due to higher real estate, labor and tax costs and regulatory burden, in comparison to other regions.
Among businesses deciding whether to continue operations in the region, these erode profitability and place pressure on the ability to remain in business in the region.

Quick Facts

In 2017, Silicon Valley (proxied by the San Jose Metropolitan Area) was the third most expensive U.S. metro region in which to conduct business, while the San Francisco MSA was the most expensive. (Meanwhile, annual worker productivity in Silicon Valley was highest of the innovation regions in 2014.)
The San Francisco MSA was 74% higher and the San Jose MSA was 51% higher than the national average for overall business costs in 2017.

Sources & Analysis: Moody's Analytics, Cost of Doing Business Index

Policy Priorities

Modernize the California Environmental Quality Act – CEQA. (State Action)
Augment tax credits and incentives to encourage business expansion locally. (State, Local Action)
Automate local permitting systems. (Local Action)

Progress in 2015-2019

Progress on cost of doing business and regulation policies were limited in 2015-2017, given state and federal contexts.
Opportunity Funds: In 2018, Governor Brown identified several areas in the greater Silicon Valley as eligible for new tax relief through a new investment vehicle called Opportunity Funds. Parts of Redwood City, East Palo Alto, San Jose and Fremont will benefit from these Funds, which were created through the 2017 federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to help direct investment to low-income communities, known as Qualified Opportunity Zones. The incentives for investment include deferral of capital gain, possible reduction in the amount of gain, and possible exclusion of gain on appreciation of the investment in a Qualified Opportunity Fund.

Research and Development

Updated February 2020

Overview

In 2015, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and Silicon Valley Community Foundation hosted a series of public policy strategy sessions with federal, state and local officials, CEOs, education administrators, and community leaders. The following public policy recommendations emerged as priorities to enhance the health of Silicon Valley’s economy.

Five years later, some recommendations still need legislative action; others require implementation or administrative adjustments. These recommendations will continue to be raised with city, county, state and federal government elected and administration leaders.

Falling R&D funding to Silicon Valley is an issue for a range of reasons, including:

reducing Silicon Valley’s pipeline of basic and applied research, which may translate to fewer innovations and breakthrough technologies; and,
eroding the region’s (and nation’s) leadership in research and innovation, as other countries simultaneously ramp up R&D funding.

Quick Facts

R&D expenditures in Silicon Valley universities (including U.C. Berkeley) grew 26 percent between 2007 and 2016, lagging behind most of the innovation regions. However, academic R&D expenditures rose 11 percent between 2014 and 2016, along with the New York City metro area, the fastest among the innovation regions.
While the U.S. had highest gross R&D spending globally in 2013 (US$433 billion), China’s spending more than quadrupled between 2004 and 2013 to US$318 billion.

Sources & Analysis: National Science Foundation, OECD Main Science & Technology Indicators Collaborative Economics

Policy Priorities

Develop R&D funding matching program for areas such as biotechnology, clean energy and DARPA. (Federal, State Action)
Implement permanent R&D (and R&D equipment) tax credits. (Federal, State)
Emphasize return on investment in funding formula, tax credits. (Federal, State)

Progress in 2015-2020

SVCIP partners advocated for H.R. 880, the “American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015,” which would make the federal R&D tax credit permanent. (Federal)
In late 2015, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations and tax extender legislation, making the Research and Development (R&D) credit permanent. (Federal)
The federal R&D tax credit, which had been threatened as part of the 2017 federal tax overhaul, was preserved in the final legislation. The R&D tax credit is among the best policy tools for encouraging investments in research and development and the positive externalities that come with them.

High-Skill Immigration

Updated February 2020

Overview

In 2015, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and Silicon Valley Community Foundation hosted a series of public policy strategy sessions with federal, state and local officials, CEOs, education administrators, and community leaders. The following public policy recommendations emerged as priorities to enhance the health of Silicon Valley’s economy..

Five years later, some recommendations still need legislative action; others require implementation or administrative adjustments. These recommendations will continue to be raised with city, county, state and federal government elected and administration leaders.

Permanent reform around high-skill immigration is needed for the long-term health of Silicon Valley, without which the region faces issues including:

forgoing access to highly skilled talent that could strengthen local companies; and,
encouraging immigrant entrepreneurs to start their companies abroad rather than within the region because they were unable to remain within the U.S.

Quick Facts

59 percent of scientists and engineers in Silicon Valley in 2018 were born in a foreign country.
43.9 percent of startups in Silicon Valley were founded by entrepreneurs in the 2006-2012 period, down from 52.4 percent during 1995-2005.

Sources & Analysis: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Collaborative Economics.
Wadhwa, Vivek, AnnaLee Saxenian and F.Daniel Siciliano. “Then and Now: America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part VII.” Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation; 2012.

Policy Priorities

Streamline the visa process for permanent residents and non-immigration visas. (Federal Action)
Broaden eligibility criteria for EB-5, to better reflect start-up company growth. (Federal Action)
Maximize O-1 visas, especially for high-talent entrepreneurs. (Federal Action)

Progress in 2015-2019

Progress on high-skill immigration policies were limited in 2015-2017 given state and federal contexts.
More Restrictive Immigration Rules: The federal government proposed or enacted various measures in 2018 to tighten immigration rules affecting technology workers:
- Proposed eliminating the International Entrepreneur Rule, which granted international entrepreneurs temporary visas if they provide evidence of venture funding and jobs to be created.
- Proposed eliminating the work authorization for H-4 spouses of H-1B recipients.
- Cancelled premium, or accelerated, review of H-1B visas.
- Subjected Chinese visa applicants to heightened scrutiny and shorter visa stays, in response to suspected IP theft by Chinese nationals.
- Proposed revision of the definition of “specialty occupation” under the H-1B program to increase its focus on obtaining the best and brightest foreign workers.
- Proposed revision of the definition of “employment” and “employer & employee relationship” to better protect US workers and wages.
- Announced plans to propose additional requirements to ensure employers pay appropriate wages to H-1B visa holders.

Housing and Transportation

Updated February 2020

Overview

In 2015, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and Silicon Valley Community Foundation hosted a series of public policy strategy sessions with federal, state and local officials, CEOs, education administrators, and community leaders. The following public policy recommendations emerged as priorities to enhance the health of Silicon Valley’s economy.

Five years later, some recommendations still need legislative action; others require implementation or administrative adjustments. These recommendations will continue to be raised with city, county, state and federal government elected and administration leaders.

High cost of living and increasing commute times are issues for Silicon Valley for several reasons, including:

reducing the attractiveness of the region for drawing and retaining talent;
shifting the balance between worker productivity and labor costs from a business perspective. While Silicon Valley’s labor productivity is currently high enough to warrant compensating workers for the higher cost of living, rapid increases in living costs and the associated increase in wage requirements places pressure on businesses in the region; and,
pressuring the ability of residents not employed in high-compensation jobs to find housing within the region.

Quick Facts

65 percent of Silicon Valley CEOs surveyed in 2013 reported employee housing costs as one of their top five challenges for doing business in the region.
Home values decreased 7 percent in Silicon Valley (proxied by the San Jose Metropolitan Area) between October 2018 and October 2019 to a median value of $1,176,540.
Average monthly rent for a 2 bedroom unit in Silicon Valley (proxied by the San Jose Metropolitan Area) was $3,283 in 2019 through November, behind only New York City and Boston.
Collectively, the Greater Silicon Valley region (including the East Bay) lost $5.4 billion in economic value, due to traffic congestion in 2014.
Average commute time rose about 21.5 percent between 2010 and 2018, the fastest increase among innovation regions; the region’s average commute time is second only to New York City.

Sources & Analysis: Zillow, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, TomTom Traffic Index, Collaborative Economics

Policy Priorities

Mobilize business voices in support of additional housing development in the region. Businesses can play a key role in testifying about the importance of additional housing development during the local government review processes for new construction.
Advocate for a permanent funding source for affordable housing at the state level.
Increase funding for BART and Caltrain, leveraging New Starts, Cap & Trade funds, local ballot initiatives and infrastructure financing districts (Federal, State, Local Action)
Invest in transportation infrastructure and housing across cities within the region to promote livable cities, aligning with regional planning efforts such as Plan Bay Area developed by MTC in 2013 as required by SB375.

Progress in 2015-2019

In June 2015, the state Supreme Court upheld San Jose’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, ensuring a requirement for the inclusion of affordable housing in Silicon Valley. (State)
SVCIP partners built support for a potential 2016 ballot measure to promote a systems-based approach for local transportation funding, spanning several Silicon Valley counties, including Santa Clara County (lead role), Santa Cruz County (advisory role) and San Francisco County (supportive role). (Local)
SVCF, along with ten cities and two counties in Silicon Valley, launched the Grand Nexus Study for Affordable Housing Impact Fees. The project explores policy solutions for funding affordable housing in the future. (Local)
In 2016, Governor Brown signed AB 2584 (Daly) into law, which law will remove certain NIMBY roadblocks for affordable housing projects. (State)
In 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1069 (Wieckowski) into law, which made secondary housing units easier and less expensive to build. (State)
Santa Clara County voters passed Measure A for Affordable Housing in 2016, which will generate $950 million in affordable housing funds for vulnerable populations and support for first-time homebuyers. (Local)
San Mateo County voters passed Measure K, Neighborhoods for Affordable Housing and Quality of Life, in 2016 which extends the current sales tax another 20 years to generate $80 million annually for affordable housing and other community services. (Local)
BART’s Phase II extension from north San Jose downtown and on to Santa Clara University received an initial $20 million in transportation funds from the State of California. (State)
Santa Clara County voters passed Measure B which will provide $6.5 billion in local dollars to fund a wide range of transit and road improvements throughout the county. This effort was led by Silicon Valley Leadership Group. (Local)
Santa Cruz voters approved Measure D, the county’s first local transportation funding measure, with 67.78 percent of the vote. The measure, which was led by the Santa Cruz Business Council with support from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, will raise $500 million for transit and road improvements over 30 years, directly affecting more than 22,000 Silicon Valley workers who commute from Santa Cruz County.

Many years of work by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and many others to secure a permanent source of funding for affordable housing came to fruition in 2017 with the passage of Senate Bill 2 championed by then-Senator and soon to be Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins. This legislation will provide more than $250 million annually to address the impact of California’s housing crisis on low income residents.
Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 35, Senator Scott Wiener’s bold and successful effort to streamline the construction of much needed housing where project proposals have satisfied local zoning requirements, in jurisdictions that have not met their housing construction obligations. Both Silicon Valley Community Foundation and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group were early backers of the legislation.
The passage of Senator Jim Beall’s Senate Bill 3 in 2017 opened the door for voters to approve a $4 billion veterans and affordable housing bond in 2018, to complement the funding that will come through the passage of Senate Bill 2. That measure will appear on the November 2018 ballot.

The Legislature also passed and the Governor signed Assemblymember Richard Bloom’s Assembly Bill 1505 that allows for jurisdictions to once again require a percentage of affordable housing rental units from new market-rate rental housing projects, an essential tool cities utilize to build new affordable housing in their communities.

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group worked with Governor Jerry Brown and Senator Jim Beall to move the massive transportation funding bill through the California State Legislature. SB 1 will provide $52 billion over the next 10 years to address both the aging and growing pains of California’s transportation system.
In the face of threats to federal funding that would imperil electrification of Caltrain, Senator Dianne Feinstein and the Bay Area Congressional delegation, together with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and regional leaders, rallied to secure a full funding grant agreement from the federal government for the project. Caltrain electrification will result in an 80% increase in capacity, growing to roughly 110,000 daily trips, reducing traffic on the heavily congested Highway 101 corridor between San Jose and San Francisco.
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group co-sponsored Senate Bill 595, authored by Senator Jim Beall, which the governor signed into law. This legislation allows for a consolidated election across the nine Bay Area counties to approve $4.45 billion in regional traffic relief projects as part of the Regional Measure 3 (RM3), which will appear on the June 2018 ballot. The Leadership Group has also partnered with the Bay Area Council and SPUR to lead a successful Bay Area campaign for RM3.

SVLG partnered with Senator Jerry Hill to sponsor and successfully pass Senate Bill 797. SB 797 was signed into law by Governor Brown in 2017, allowing for a consolidated election across Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties in order to establish a dedicated source of revenue for Caltrain operations, maintenance and capacity improvements.
The BART extension to Silicon Valley hit several key milestones. In April 2018, the California State Transportation Agency announced $730M in funding from Senate Bill 1, the state transportation infrastructure package signed into law by Governor Brown in 2017 after a bruising fight in the legislature. In May 2018, the Federal Transit Administration issued a Record of Decision for the project – a critical step in securing the $1.5B in federal funds needed for the project to extend BART to downtown San José.
Regional Measure 3: The Leadership Group joined SPUR and the Bay Area Council to lead passage of Regional Measure 3 in June 2018, which will raise approximately $4.5B over 30 years for regional transportation improvements – including funding to refurbish Diridon Station in preparation for BART’s arrival, and to purchase new BART cars.
Beating Back Threats to Transportation Funding: The Leadership Group joined a coalition of labor, business and transportation leaders to defeat Proposition 6 on the November 2018 ballot, which would have rolled back a critical 2017 state transportation package that provided $5B annually for 10 years to maintain our state’s aging transportation infrastructure.
2018 Statewide Affordable Housing Bond: The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and three partner organization across California led the successful statewide campaign to pass Proposition 1 on the November 2018 ballot, which will provide $4 billion for affordable housing financing and home loans for veterans. Championed in the State Senate by Housing & Transportation Committee Chair Jim Beall, the bond proceeds, leveraged substantially by federal, state, and local housing funds, will produce an estimated 50,000 new affordable homes across California.
Transit-oriented development near BART stations: Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 2923 (Chiu, Grayson), which requires the BART Board to adopt transit-oriented development (TOD) zoning standards for BART-owned land. It would also require cities to adopt these TOD standards, which include minimum heights and eased parking requirements depending on the type of community where the BART station is located.
Proposition 2 – 2018 No Place Like Home Statewide Ballot Measure: In addition to passing Proposition 1 in November 2018, the Leadership Group and its campaign partners led the effort to pass Proposition 2, which will provide funding for homes for Californians experiencing homelessness and mental illness.
RHNA Reform: Governor Brown signed several important reforms to the process by which regional housing production goals are developed across the state (the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA). The Leadership Group co-sponsored Senate Bill 828 (Wiener) strengthening the state’s role in accurately assessing each region’s housing needs. AB 1771 (Bloom) requires that localities are then allocated production targets that are data-driven and more equitable across income levels.
Renter Protections: The Governor signed into law a 10-year rent stabilization measure (AB 1482 – Chiu) that creates certainty for 8 million Californian renters by limiting rent increases to a maximum of 5% per year, plus inflation not to exceed 10%, and requiring “just cause” for eviction. SVCF and the Leadership Group worked with a broad coalition of housing, tenant and business groups towards its passage.
Streamlining New Moderate-Income Housing: The Governor signed into law AB 1485 (Wicks), which expands housing streamlining regulations passed in 2017 (SB 35 – Weiner) to include new developments in which at least 20% of units are moderate-income, if those developments are located in a jurisdiction that is not meeting its housing needs for this category.
New Home Production: The Governor signed several other laws designed to bolster housing production, with support from SVCF:
SB 330 (Skinner) temporarily suspends specific local rules and regulations that are recognized as obstacles to housing production (such as parking and fees), and establishes reasonable time periods for processing housing permits.
AB 68 (Ting) removes barriers to the development of Accessory Dueling Units (ADUs or “Granny Units”) across California.
AB 1483 (Grayson) improves data collection for projects at the local level to help ensure a more streamlined local review process.
Securing Federal Funds for BART Extension to Silicon Valley: In August 2019, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announced the approval of $125 million in funds to help BART Phase II, the project to extend BART to downtown San José. The Valley Transportation Authority was the first agency in the nation to be awarded funds under this new pilot project, after the Leadership Group sent two teams to Washington in early 2019 to help make the case for VTA’s application.

Education: STEM Education & Pre-K

Updated February 2020

Overview

In 2015, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and Silicon Valley Community Foundation hosted a series of public policy strategy sessions with federal, state and local officials, CEOs, education administrators, and community leaders. The following public policy recommendations emerged as priorities to enhance the health of Silicon Valley’s economy.

Five years later, some recommendations still need legislative action; others require implementation or administrative adjustments. These recommendations will continue to be raised with city, county, state and federal government elected and administration leaders.

Improving education outcomes (particularly STEM) is important for Silicon Valley’s long-term success for several reasons, including:

Reducing reliance on foreign-born or other U.S.-born talent;
Increasing access of the locally born population to job opportunities in innovation industries; and,
Narrowing the achievement gap among females and minorities in STEM fields.

Quick Facts

62 percent of Silicon Valley’s 3-4 year olds were enrolled in preschool in 2016.
59 percent of Silicon Valley’s 3rd graders met or exceeded the new standards for English Language Arts in 2019, compared to 52 percent in 2015.
54 percent of Silicon Valley’s 8th grade students met or exceeded the new state standard for mathematics in 2019, compared to 49 percent in 2015.
Only 23 percent of Black or African American students and 25 percent of Hispanic or Latino students in 2019 met or exceeded standards for Mathematics in 8^th grade.

Sources & Analysis: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, California Department of Education. Collaborative Economics

Policy Priorities

Increase funding for public preschool education programs, particularly targeting at-risk populations (State, Local Action)
Increase student opportunities to engage with STEM in pre-K and K-12 (State, Local Action)
Accept more STEM courses as A-G requirements (e.g. engineering, science courses) for UC/CSU admission (State Action)
Increase student proficiency in 3^rd grade reading and 8^th grade Algebra (State, Local Action)

Progress in 2015-2019

In October 2015, California Senate Bill 359, the “California Mathematics Placement Act”, was signed into law. Sponsored by SVCF, this law requires school districts to develop and adopt math placement policies that are fair, transparent and based on objective measures of student performance thereby eliminating key leaks in the STEM talent pipeline in California, especially for students of color. Other SVCIP partners played a significant advocacy role in this legislation. (State)
The Governor’s budget in 2015 expanded the state preschool program by 2,500 part-timeslots slots. (State)
San Mateo County committed $15M in Measure A funding in 2015 to the Big Lift a bold social venture that is co-led by SVCF and aims to dramatically improve third-grade reading proficiency. (Local)
Senate Bill 172 passed in 2015, correcting a legal inconsistency related to high school exit exams, which sunset after 2015. The law also allows qualifying students to still obtain their high school diploma retroactively. (State)
The state’s 2016 budget included an additional $145 million investment for child care and preschool programs with a commitment to build up to more than $500 million over the next 4 years. The budget also included funding for in the creation of over 8,800 additional preschool spaces for low-income 3- and 4-year old children over the next 4 years. (State)
Governor Brown signed AB 2329 (Bonilla) into law in 2016, which creates a strategic advisory board to expand access to computer science education with a focus on students under-represented in the computer science field. (State)
Computer Science Education: The State Board of Education (SBE) adopted standards for K-12 computer science education in September 2018. Though they are not mandatory, they are expected to increase California K-12 student access to computer science classes.
Advancing Computer Science Education: The 2019 State budget appropriated $1M to fund a statewide K-12 Computer Science (CS) Coordinator role housed in the California Department of Education to support the rollout of CS across the state. State investment – in particular, a statewide coordinator and funds for teacher professional development – is vital in order to expand CS access throughout the K-12 system, especially to low-income and other underrepresented student populations. The Leadership Group was part of a coalition of CS advocacy organizations that supported these critical state investments.
Improving Student Performance through Better Measurement: The 2019 State budget included $10M to establish the California Cradle-to-Career Data System Working Group to help integrate data from various state entities responsible for the education and workforce development of Californians at all levels. A stronger student data infrastructure is critical for understanding what strategies are helping our students succeed.

Cost of Doing Business and Regulation

Updated January 2015

Overview

Comparatively high business costs and regulatory barriers in Silicon Valley are an important issue for a variety of reasons including:

Among companies considering expanding into the Valley, these impede expansion or opening of large-scale production/operations facilities due to higher real estate, labor and tax costs and regulatory burden, in comparison to other regions.
Among businesses deciding whether to continue operations in the region, these erode profitability and pressuring the ability to remain in business in the region.

Quick Facts

Silicon Valley (proxied by San Jose) was the 4th highest cost metro region in the U.S. in which to conduct business in 2012.
On an index basis, office rental costs in San Jose were estimated to be 11 percent above the U.S. average, 7th highest in the U.S., lower than New York City and Boston.

Sources & Analysis: Moody's Analytics, Cost of Doing Business Index

Policy Action Examples

Modernize the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to reduce hurdles to development and business expansion that are in accordance with the environmental protection intent of the law.
Promote fairness in business property tax valuations by working with County Assessors to improve the auditing process, and make valuation tables more reasonable and transparent.

Transportation and Housing

Updated January 2015

Overview

High cost of living and increasing commute times are issues for Silicon Valley for several reasons, including:

reducing the attractiveness of the region for drawing and retaining talent;
shifting the balance between worker productivity and labor costs from a business perspective. While Silicon Valley’s labor productivity is currently high enough to warrant compensating workers for the higher cost of living, rapid increases in living costs and the associated increase in wage requirements places pressure on businesses in the region; and,
pressuring the ability of residents not employed in high-compensation jobs to find housing within the region.

Quick Facts

65 percent of Silicon Valley CEOs surveyed in 2013 reported employee housing costs as one of their top five challenges for doing business in the region.
Housing sale prices increased 33 percent in Silicon Valley (proxied by San Jose) between 2012 and 2014 (through September), and the price per square foot was higher than all other main innovation regions in 2014.
Average commute times in Silicon Valley rose faster than other innovation regions, +8 percent between 2010 and 2013, versus +5.5 percent in Seattle, and +4 percent in Austin.
Commuters in Silicon Valley (proxied by San Jose) wasted 84 hours per year for a half-hour commute in 2013 from delays from traffic congestion, lagging only Southern California (proxied by Los Angeles) at 90 hours per year.

Sources & Analysis: Zillow, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, TomTom Traffic Index, Collaborative Economics

Policy Action Examples

Mobilize business voices in support of additional housing development in the region. Businesses can play a key role in testifying about the importance of additional housing development during the local government review processes for new construction.
Advocate for a permanent funding source for affordable housing at the state level.
Invest in transportation infrastructure and housing across cities within the region to promote livable cities, aligning with regional planning efforts such as Plan Bay Area developed by MTC in 2013 as required by SB375.

Research and Development

Updated January 2015

Overview

Falling R&D; funding to Silicon Valley is an issue for a range of reasons, including:

reducing Silicon Valley’s pipeline of basic and applied research, which may translate to fewer innovations and breakthrough technologies; and,
eroding the region’s (and nation’s) leadership in research and innovation, as other countries simultaneously ramp up R&D; funding.

Quick Facts

Federal R&D; funding to Silicon Valley’s universities fell 2 percent from 2011 to 2012.
In the U.S. overall, non-defense federal R&D; funding fell 5 percent between 2012 and 2013, to its lowest level since 2001.

Sources & Analysis: National Science Foundation, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Collaborative Economics

Policy Action Examples

Develop a single regional voice in Washington, D.C. on federal R&D; funding, expanding the coalition of supportive businesses and organizations.
Promote and strengthen permanent R&D; tax credits at the state and federal levels, and a permanent state R&D; equipment tax exemption.

	Strong and gaining ground	Needs attention, losing ground to other regions	Critical need for attention, trending down
Assets
Talent
Change in Educational Attainment
High Technology STEM Talent Pool
STEM Degrees Conferred
International Talent
Talent Migration
Capital
Venture Capital
Early Stage Investment
R&D;
Universities’ R&D; Expenditures

Innovation Processes
Idea Generation
Patents
Commercialization
Follow-On Investment by Series
Entrepreneurship
New Companies Launching
Establishment Churn in Innovation Industries
Business Innovation
Company Pre-Exit Valuations
Exits: Initial Public Offerings

Outcomes
Business Competitiveness
Cost of Doing Business
Labor Productivity
Quality of Life
Home Prices
Commute Times

Results
Opportunity
Pre-School Enrollment
Reading and Algebra Proficiency
Income Inequality and Economic Mobility
Jobs
Employment in Innovation Industries
Regional Output

Evolution of Silicon Valley's Economy