The Influence Project

An archive is not a museum. It is a record of what you noticed, what you missed and what the world taught you to ask next. Here I find myself revisiting a post from the archive with a fresh take.

I first wrote about Europe’s emerging technology hubs in November 2015. I returned to the article in June 2026 as part of a larger project: going back through my own archive and testing old ideas against the questions that define my work now.

That is part of what I am developing through The Influence Project, Generationisms and my applied research. I am interested not only in whether an old prediction held up, but in how our assumptions about technology, ambition, work, trust and progress changed around it.

In 2015, my scorecard for a technology city was familiar: founders, capital, engineers, accelerators and digital infrastructure. Those variables still matter. Reading the article now, I was more interested in what the list did not capture.

Where can ambitious people build lives as well as companies? Which places make professional risk possible without requiring personal instability? What helps a city attract talent, and what gives people enough confidence to stay?

Those questions feel especially relevant from California. I was part of the first dot-com boom in the late 1990s, and I have watched the state sell more than sunshine ever since. It sold a working theory of ambition: if you wanted to build the future, you came here, worked harder than felt reasonable, paid more than seemed rational and accepted the trade because the talent, capital and velocity were supposed to be worth it.

California’s 2026 Proposition 40 debate is one reason this old article feels newly relevant. It has pulled wealth, residency, taxes, public services and technology leadership into the same uncomfortable conversation. This is not evidence that companies are already fleeing California en masse. It is a reason to revisit the larger question behind the original article: what makes a technology city worth choosing now?

What Proposition 40 does and does not establish

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office says affected billionaires may respond to the proposed wealth tax in ways that reduce income-tax payments, including leaving California. Its fiscal analysis estimates a possible ongoing revenue decrease of less than $1 billion per year, alongside temporary wealth-tax revenue of tens of billions over several years.

That is an official acknowledgement that behavior may change. It is not proof of a general company exodus.

The Yes on 40 campaign argues that the measure could raise approximately $100 billion for healthcare and that the January 1, 2026 residency date limits later relocation as a way to avoid the tax. Those are campaign claims, not neutral fiscal findings.

KPBS reported on campaign spending, competing migration claims and Sergey Brin’s reported move to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe. One reported move does not prove a trend. But the public threat of movement has become part of how leaders evaluate risk.

Sometimes the strategic pressure is not only what has happened. It is what credible people believe might happen next.

A tech hub is more than startups and venture capital

My 2015 article relied on the familiar scorecard: founders, capital, engineers, accelerators and digital infrastructure.

Those variables still matter. They are no longer enough.

A serious 2026 location decision should evaluate:

• early, growth and specialized capital;
• depth in AI, deep tech, health technology, cybersecurity and product leadership;
• research commercialization through universities, hospitals and corporate labs;
• cost, housing, transportation and quality of life;
• worker mobility, healthcare and basic security during career transitions;
• institutional trust and regulatory predictability;
• the ability to retain founders and employees after the first exciting year.

The old question was where the next startup hub would emerge.

The better question is where ambitious work can remain sustainable enough to keep its people.

Five European hubs, five different strategic bets

The European Commission’s Regional Innovation Scoreboard offers one authoritative framework for comparing innovation performance across regions. It is not a relocation ranking, and Europe should not be treated as one market or one regulatory personality.

The shortlist below is therefore not a declaration of a single winner. It is a map of distinct strategic advantages, informed by the Commission framework and current ecosystem reporting.

London: capital and global access

London remains the most obvious European choice when access to growth capital, global finance, international talent and English-language market entry matter most. Its breadth is the advantage: fintech, AI, life sciences, media and professional services can draw from overlapping networks.

The tradeoff is familiar. Cost and competition can shorten runway and reproduce some of the quality-of-life pressures that make California’s bargain feel less secure.

Paris: enterprise AI and state-backed scale

Paris is increasingly difficult to dismiss as a secondary European technology market. Its research institutions, engineering talent, public investment and enterprise-AI momentum create a credible base for companies building infrastructure rather than another lightweight consumer app.

For founders and companies that need technical legitimacy, large institutional partners and a path to later-stage capital, Paris offers a different proposition from London’s finance-led density.

Berlin: founder energy and international talent

Berlin’s appeal remains cultural as well as financial. It has a strong startup identity, international workforce and lower operating costs than London or Paris, even as housing pressure and bureaucracy complicate the old “cheap Berlin” story.

Its strategic advantage is experimentation: a company can recruit people who came to build a life in the city, not only to pass through a corporate headquarters.

Stockholm: specialization, public trust and sustainable ambition

Stockholm is especially interesting for health technology, fintech, climate and technically ambitious companies that do not need the largest possible city. Its record of globally visible technology companies gives it credibility beyond its size.

It also sharpens the quality-of-life argument. Scott Galloway has described trust, worker mobility, R&D and capital participation as part of Europe’s competitive infrastructure. That is his interpretation, not settled fact, but it points to something location models often underprice: public systems can reduce the personal risk of taking professional risks.

Zurich: research commercialization and deep-tech concentration

Zurich is the specialized bet. ETH Zurich, corporate R&D and the surrounding Swiss research ecosystem make it compelling for AI, robotics, climate technology and life sciences where technical depth matters more than startup volume.

It is not a low-cost alternative. It is a high-capability environment where a smaller ecosystem may offer unusually dense access to research and patient technical talent.

The younger-worker question is not a stereotype

Location strategy also has to account for a changing definition of a good career.

Suzy Welch and Becoming You Labs reported that Gen Z respondents in their Values Bridge research prioritized self-care, authentic self-expression and helping people. Welch reported only 2 percent overlap between the surveyed Gen Z value combination and the values surveyed hiring managers prioritized. The NYU Stern summary and primary white paper provide the methodology and limits.

This does not mean an entire generation is lazy, fragile or unwilling to achieve. It suggests a values mismatch between some younger workers and institutional expectations built around workcentrism.

The next generation of technical talent may still want ambitious work. They may be less willing to accept that ambition requires self-erasure.

A city competing for that talent cannot rely only on salary, nightlife and a famous company logo. Housing, healthcare, transportation, community, mobility and institutional competence become part of the employer value proposition whether the employer controls them or not.

Location is now a trust signal

Where a company chooses to build says something about what it values. The decision signals how leadership thinks about workers, customers, governance, cost and long-term credibility.

For California, the answer is not panic. The location bargain has to be continually re-earned.

For Europe, the opportunity is not to market itself as a cheaper or calmer imitation of Silicon Valley. It is to prove that technical ambition can coexist with quality of life, research depth and institutions people trust enough to build around.

I am not rooting against California. I am watching the bargain change.

The winning technology hub will not merely attract smart people. It will give them enough confidence in the future to stay.

---

Sources

• California Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 40 analysis.
• California Secretary of State, qualified ballot measures.
• Yes on 40 campaign.
• KPBS, reporting on Proposition 40 and migration claims.
• European Commission, Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2025.
• EU Tech Future, 2026 city comparison, used as a secondary ecosystem source rather than an authoritative ranking.
• Scott Galloway, Europe IRL.
• Becoming You Labs, Hiring Managers vs. Gen Z Priorities.

An earlier version was published November 9, 2015.

If your organization is making a location, talent or market-positioning decision, explore Strategic Advisory.

Related: Generationisms | The Influence Project | About Jennifer Neeley