Hiring for tech jobs has increased more than 100% in these Midwestern cities(purpose.jobs)
purpose.jobs
Hiring for tech jobs has increased more than 100% in these Midwestern cities
https://www.purpose.jobs/blog/hiring-tech-jobs-has-increased-in-midwestern-cities
301 comments
"What you will find is that people are friendly, as long as you look like them (white)."
I grew up in snow-white South Dakota. In my hometown of 15,000 I knew of only one African-American family. The father was the town mayor.
I guess we had different experiences.
I grew up in snow-white South Dakota. In my hometown of 15,000 I knew of only one African-American family. The father was the town mayor.
I guess we had different experiences.
This is a good summary
What are the big schools? I always thought that what was holding the Midwest up, not enough high quality schools.
Most midwestern states have a world-class research university. Northwestern, U of Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Purdue...
Minnesota, Iowa State, and the University of Ohio State are very good schools too for tech prospects.
The "Big Ten Academic Alliance" does more funded research than the Ivy League and the UC system combined [1].
[1] https://www.btaa.org/docs/default-source/reports/btaa-annual...
[1] https://www.btaa.org/docs/default-source/reports/btaa-annual...
There are plenty FAANG engineers minted from the top Midwestern schools - think CMU and other state schools - even if they rank behind the top schools on the coasts.
Top paying tech jobs tend to be found on the coasts though as well.
Top paying tech jobs tend to be found on the coasts though as well.
> There are plenty FAANG engineers minted from the top Midwestern schools - think CMU and other state schools - even if they rank behind the top schools on the coasts.
CMU is a private school, ranked number 1 in CS, and is not in a Midwestern state! That said, there are lots of top CS programs in the Midwest.
CMU is a private school, ranked number 1 in CS, and is not in a Midwestern state! That said, there are lots of top CS programs in the Midwest.
CMU is on the wrong side of the Appalachian mountains to best East Coast. Pittsburg has much more in common with neighboring Ohio than it does with Philadelphia. Its regularly included in the Rust Belt which is a subset of the Midwest.
It’s certainly not East Coast, but it’s very North East - the rust belt spans well beyond the Midwest. Even culturally Pittsburgh feels like it has more in common with, say, Buffalo or other North Eastern rust belt cities than Wisconsin or Minnesota.
Exactly. I think Pittsburgh has more in common with non-NYC New York than with Ohio. It feels much more like a non-Boston/NYC Northeastern city than like e.g. Columbus or Indianapolis.
I'm from Pittsburgh, my partner is from New Jersey. We argue about this (in a playful way) all the time; Pittsburgh is east coast, to me. Ohio is midwest. She counters with "a seven hour drive to the water is not on the coast."
I used to follow your Rust work and had no idea you are yinzer! Mineo’s or Aiello’s? :)
Fun fact: Carol, my co-author on the Rust book, is too, and still lives there!
I worked for Pizza Outlet/Vocelli's for seven years, so, I have some bias, haha! One of the locations I was at competed with Mineo's, so... not saying that Vocelli's is the best, but it has a special place in my heart anyway.
I worked for Pizza Outlet/Vocelli's for seven years, so, I have some bias, haha! One of the locations I was at competed with Mineo's, so... not saying that Vocelli's is the best, but it has a special place in my heart anyway.
It's Pittsburgh, not Pittsburg.
The "is Pittsburgh midwestern?" debate is irrelevant since the article does not mention Pennsylvania. Also, increasing tech hiring by 100% in Pennsylvania would be really hard since the state also has Philadelphia and because Pittsburgh's tech scene has been strong for years.
The "is Pittsburgh midwestern?" debate is irrelevant since the article does not mention Pennsylvania. Also, increasing tech hiring by 100% in Pennsylvania would be really hard since the state also has Philadelphia and because Pittsburgh's tech scene has been strong for years.
Granting that there is a lot of fuzziness in all of these definitions, Buffalo and even Rochester can be included in "Rust Belt" but are not Midwestern.
Yeah, I meant to say CMU is a private school unlike the other leading Midwestern schools which are generally public. Pittsburgh is pretty far from the east coast, so it being in Pennsylvania doesn't really make it a 'coastal school' in my eyes, so I'll continue to lump it in with its geographic neighbors, though perhaps 'Rust belt' region is more accurate than Midwest for what I'm trying to b describe.
What ranking puts CMU at 1 in CS? Just curious because I usually see it behind a couple coastal schools.
What ranking puts CMU at 1 in CS? Just curious because I usually see it behind a couple coastal schools.
It’s currently tied for 1 with their other usual suspects in US News [1]. Of course these rankings are all a bit arbitrary, game-able, and should be taken skeptically :)
[1] https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-sch...
[1] https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-sch...
Thank you for the link! Ah yes graduate education makes a lot of sense, CMU's computational linguistics department publishes incredible stuff and of course their ML stuff is the cutting edge, too.
It's in Pittsburg which is a Midwestern city. Even if the state has some coast.
University of Illinois Urbana Champagne, University of Michigan, university of Wisconsin Madison, and Purdue are all top 20 in CS.
[deleted]
Most of the Big Ten Schools are decent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Conference They aren't Ivy League, but they do compete internationally. My alma mater, Purdue, boasts the most amount of astronaut alumni of any nonmilitary school.
In my view, what holds the Midwest up, is that not everybody gets to live in the high-wage cities, yet we don't just give up on inventing and making things. Wherever smart, creative people live, there will be stuff happening, albeit perhaps at its own pace.
I tend to look at the high-wage regions like silicon valley, like they are a different country. Some folks will emigrate to that country, and I'm happy for them. Those of us who are left behind, for whatever reason, get on with our lives and find what there is to enjoy in our humble surroundings.
I tend to look at the high-wage regions like silicon valley, like they are a different country. Some folks will emigrate to that country, and I'm happy for them. Those of us who are left behind, for whatever reason, get on with our lives and find what there is to enjoy in our humble surroundings.
Washington University in St. Louis?
I have a friend who graduated from WUSTL’s CS program, who suspected the lack of accreditation stopped him from numerous job prospects. While WUSTL was a cornerstone of the early internet, it’s never been known since (IMHO) for particularly strong CS.
The midwest has the following top 20 CS schools: Illinois (tied for #1), Michigan, Wisconsin, Purdue, maybe Carnegie Mellon (also tied for #1).
In addition, the midwest also has the following universities which are top institutions in some fields: Northwestern, University of Chicago, Washington University in St. Louis, Ohio State, Minnesota. I'm probably leaving out at least one Chicagoland school. Indiana is also quite good for CS, but is just not big enough to show up at the top of the rankings.
The problem is not a lack of top-tier universities. The problem, especially in Computer Science, is that everyone leaves after university. E.g., here's a map from CMU (page 4): https://www.cmu.edu/career/documents/2017_one_pagers/scs/BS_...
From CMU, only 2% go to the midwest while 67% go to the west coast and 17% go to the northeast. Similarly, from UW-Madison, only about half stay in the midwest: https://dataviz.wisc.edu/views/FirstDestinationSurvey_0/Empl...
-------
US News 20 CS schools by state/region (note that UIUC is now in the tie for top):
1. Carnegie Mellon (Pittsburgh, regionally ambiguous)
1. MIT (New England/Northeast)
1. Stanford (California/West Coast)
1. Berkeley (California/West Coast)
1. UIUC (Great Plains or maybe Upper Midwest/Midwest)
5. Cornell (New England/Northeast)
6. UW (PNW/West Coast)
6. Georgia Institute of Technology (South)
8. Princeton (New England/Northeast)
8. UT-Austin (Texas/South)
10. California Institute of Technology (California/West Cost)
11. University of Michigan--Ann Arbor (Upper Midwest/Midwest)
13. UCLA (California/West Coast)
13. Wisconsin (Upper Midwest/Midwest)
13. Harvard (Northeast)
16. UCSD (California/West Coast)
16. University of Maryland--College Park (Mid-Atlantic/Northeast)
16. University of Pennsylvania (Mid-Atlantic/Northeast)
19. Purdue (Midwest)
20. Rice University (Texas/South)
20. USC (California/West)
20. Yale (New England/Northeast)
20. Amherst (New England/Northeast)
In addition, the midwest also has the following universities which are top institutions in some fields: Northwestern, University of Chicago, Washington University in St. Louis, Ohio State, Minnesota. I'm probably leaving out at least one Chicagoland school. Indiana is also quite good for CS, but is just not big enough to show up at the top of the rankings.
The problem is not a lack of top-tier universities. The problem, especially in Computer Science, is that everyone leaves after university. E.g., here's a map from CMU (page 4): https://www.cmu.edu/career/documents/2017_one_pagers/scs/BS_...
From CMU, only 2% go to the midwest while 67% go to the west coast and 17% go to the northeast. Similarly, from UW-Madison, only about half stay in the midwest: https://dataviz.wisc.edu/views/FirstDestinationSurvey_0/Empl...
-------
US News 20 CS schools by state/region (note that UIUC is now in the tie for top):
1. Carnegie Mellon (Pittsburgh, regionally ambiguous)
1. MIT (New England/Northeast)
1. Stanford (California/West Coast)
1. Berkeley (California/West Coast)
1. UIUC (Great Plains or maybe Upper Midwest/Midwest)
5. Cornell (New England/Northeast)
6. UW (PNW/West Coast)
6. Georgia Institute of Technology (South)
8. Princeton (New England/Northeast)
8. UT-Austin (Texas/South)
10. California Institute of Technology (California/West Cost)
11. University of Michigan--Ann Arbor (Upper Midwest/Midwest)
13. UCLA (California/West Coast)
13. Wisconsin (Upper Midwest/Midwest)
13. Harvard (Northeast)
16. UCSD (California/West Coast)
16. University of Maryland--College Park (Mid-Atlantic/Northeast)
16. University of Pennsylvania (Mid-Atlantic/Northeast)
19. Purdue (Midwest)
20. Rice University (Texas/South)
20. USC (California/West)
20. Yale (New England/Northeast)
20. Amherst (New England/Northeast)
I think you will find the engineering brain drain from any US region that doesn't (currently) have high paying tech jobs. I went to Georgia Tech and a significant number of CS grads from there moved to NYC, Bay Area, Seattle, or Austin.
When factoring in the cost of living, there isn't much of a pay difference. This is especially true once you have a family and have to care about living in a good school district.
There's a huge pay difference for the top x%, including cost of living. And y% of people like to believe they are or will be part of the top x%, where y >>>> x.
Your second sentence may be true, but your first sentence is most definitely not. The biggest thing that accounts for the cost of living difference is housing. If you can live relatively cheaply, which most people in their 20s can, you will always come out ahead (and usually WAY ahead) if you take a high paying job in an expensive area vs taking a lower paying job in a cheap area.
I can rent a $4,500 apartment and still save, post-tax, at least $100,000 more than I could save post-tax anywhere in the midwest except maybe Chicago. Even including the value of paying off a mortgage vs. rent.
Tech jobs that pay more than $300,000 -- maybe $350,000 -- simply don't exist in large quantities outside major job markets. And the ones that do aren't the "trusted senior individual contributor with plenty of freedom to choose your projects" roles that exist in spades on the coasts.
Last time I job marketed in the midwest I couldn't even break $250 all-in, the vesting schedule was pure bullshit, and that role would have included a lot of political BS. Basically moving from blissful respected individual contributor to stressed out disrespected middle management, and all for a massive cut in post-tax savings.
I get why jobs are exploding in those areas, but they aren't the sorts of jobs I want.
Tech jobs that pay more than $300,000 -- maybe $350,000 -- simply don't exist in large quantities outside major job markets. And the ones that do aren't the "trusted senior individual contributor with plenty of freedom to choose your projects" roles that exist in spades on the coasts.
Last time I job marketed in the midwest I couldn't even break $250 all-in, the vesting schedule was pure bullshit, and that role would have included a lot of political BS. Basically moving from blissful respected individual contributor to stressed out disrespected middle management, and all for a massive cut in post-tax savings.
I get why jobs are exploding in those areas, but they aren't the sorts of jobs I want.
" simply don't exist in large quantities outside major job markets."
Job's that pay that much don't exist in large quantities period. If you think otherwise, you live in a walled garden.
Job's that pay that much don't exist in large quantities period. If you think otherwise, you live in a walled garden.
That may be true but they still appear an order of magnitude less in the Midwest than coastal hubs so the point is the same.
So your chances of getting such a job go from 0.001% to 0.01%? I'll take my chances in the Midwest.
Given a candidate is already in the software industry, the odds of getting a high paying job in the Bay Area are much higher than 0.01%. Top paying companies have the same interview standards everywhere but the number of positions are significantly higher in tech hubs. Not sure why you think your chances are better in the Midwest. Self-defeatist attitude will pull those chances down to zero everywhere though.
I think their point was that there are very few jobs even in the bay area paying $300k or more.
There are more jobs paying $300K+ than there are qualified candidates for them otherwise there wouldn't be thousands of job openings for them at any given time.
Where are these thousands of listings advertising $300k/year salary jobs?
I rarely see listing that advertise $300k salaries. Where are these thousands of listings? Additionally, many companies leave up listings permanently so they can build up databases of resumes in case they might need you later.
> Tech jobs that pay more than $300,000 -- maybe $350,000 -- simply don't exist in large quantities outside major job markets
They don't exist in major quantities in major job markets either.
They don't exist in major quantities in major job markets either.
I strongly disagree with the first point. The high salaries in the Bay Area and NYC filter out jobs where the marginal value of the labor is low. This also filters out low margin, low productivity businesses. This in aggregate also filters for higher skill employees on average. As a result, the chances of you working at a highly profitable (or fast growing) company is higher. The chances of you working with (and being mentored by) high skill colleagues is higher. Working at a growth potential or high margin company where you are a profit center, working with/collaborating with/being mentored by other (on average) high skill workers means you have a much higher earnings cap, even factoring for COL.
I completely agree. I made the mistake of taking a lower paying job in a lower cost area at the start of my career. When I did move to a higher paid area, I found that new grads were almost being paid my rate.
Same. The comment was a reflection of my observation from Plano -> SF -> NYC. I started my career in Plano. I personally was able to grow a lot more in my career after moving to SF (and later NYC).
Engineering managers at large companies in the Bay Area can make $600k. (And I don't mean directors or VPs, which are over $1 million.) Engineering managers in the Midwest are generally lucky to reach $200k. That's a basic new grad offer in the Bay Area.
Obviously not everyone is going to CA and getting a $600k income, but the compensation cap there is dramatically higher for top talent.
Obviously not everyone is going to CA and getting a $600k income, but the compensation cap there is dramatically higher for top talent.
Saving 30% of a 200k salary is a lot better than saving 30% of a 90k salary.
Fwiw I did the math on that for goals of saving ~$300k for a mortgage and similar stuff.
It usually pays to sit in the big city for a few years with that salary, and then decamp to the smaller tech orbits, if your goal is to end up in one of the smaller cities.
It usually pays to sit in the big city for a few years with that salary, and then decamp to the smaller tech orbits, if your goal is to end up in one of the smaller cities.
Atlanta has a lot of high paying tech jobs, they just aren't as fashionable as Google or Facebook.
Just curious, are these high paying tech jobs as high paying as G or FB? I know, for example, MailChimp and Microsoft have offices out there but last I saw they were paying significantly less than either of the aforementioned companies - levels.fyi can validate this further, too.
When you say "high paying" do you mean Silly Valley 10x Coder positions that are as likely as landing a job as frontman for Aerosmith? Or are you talking about $125-200k code monkey positions?
Atlanta has plenty of the later.
Atlanta has plenty of the later.
I do mean those higher paying ones than I see at levels.fyi than the Atlanta companies I listed, but I can guarantee that it's far easier to get into G, FB, Snap, Stripe, Netflix, etc than to be a frontman at Aerosmith if that's what you're considering the former - they are literally some of the biggest employers of software engineers after all.
Additionally, they hire in many more places than Silicon Valley - there are a lot living on those high salaries in the Midwest and South, for example.
Additionally, they hire in many more places than Silicon Valley - there are a lot living on those high salaries in the Midwest and South, for example.
"What you will find is that people are friendly, as long as you look like them (white)."
Be aware that when people say things like this they often do so to feel virtuous themselves like only they are so enlightened that only they even consider being friendly to non white people.
The idea that people in the Midwest (which has a population of over 65 million people similar to France and the UK) are only friendly to white people is pretty crazy.
Be aware that when people say things like this they often do so to feel virtuous themselves like only they are so enlightened that only they even consider being friendly to non white people.
The idea that people in the Midwest (which has a population of over 65 million people similar to France and the UK) are only friendly to white people is pretty crazy.
Yes, people who have seen trends of racism in the Midwest against minorities firsthand should be disregarded. They are the real racists.
/s
Have you considered that their experiences may actually be true?
/s
Have you considered that their experiences may actually be true?
Have you considered that their experiences may be true AND people are friendly to non-whites.
Racism isn’t some binary flag where an entire region is or isn’t racist. People can have racist experiences without meaning everyone is shitty or even that someone is likely to have a bad time.
Note this doesn’t mean people who are the subject of racism are racists. I read GP’s comment as meaning that making an overly broad statement that people in the Midwest are friendly to only whites is not accurate or useful.
Racism isn’t some binary flag where an entire region is or isn’t racist. People can have racist experiences without meaning everyone is shitty or even that someone is likely to have a bad time.
Note this doesn’t mean people who are the subject of racism are racists. I read GP’s comment as meaning that making an overly broad statement that people in the Midwest are friendly to only whites is not accurate or useful.
It is possible for someone to experience racism but apply a similarly out of touch generalization. I've experienced racism in Midwestern cities, but relative to other cities I've lived in the US? Talking in relative terms let's your anecdotes become broadly meaningful.
sarcastic hyperbole is unhelpful at the best of times, but in this case it isn't really established to what extent "trends of racism in the Midwest against minorities firsthand" has been seen. The sole reason we might assume is that dexwiz mentions that they "Moved from the Midwest to the Bay Area" with no more detail than that.
How much of the midwest, where, for how long; what did they witness firsthand? what did they hear?
It's a stretch to assume so much without projecting your own assumptions about the midwest.
> Have you considered that their experiences may actually be true?
We don't have experiences, we have conclusions. and without knowledge of the experiences that inform them, it's hard to judge their truth. There's also the issue of what "the midwest is unfriendly to non-white people" means; taken to either absolute is crazy: "any racism in the midwest means the midwest is racist", "any tolerance in the midwest means the midwest isn't racist". Clearly, the statement needs qualification to be useful, it's not a matter of "true or false" without clear thresholds.
How much of the midwest, where, for how long; what did they witness firsthand? what did they hear?
It's a stretch to assume so much without projecting your own assumptions about the midwest.
> Have you considered that their experiences may actually be true?
We don't have experiences, we have conclusions. and without knowledge of the experiences that inform them, it's hard to judge their truth. There's also the issue of what "the midwest is unfriendly to non-white people" means; taken to either absolute is crazy: "any racism in the midwest means the midwest is racist", "any tolerance in the midwest means the midwest isn't racist". Clearly, the statement needs qualification to be useful, it's not a matter of "true or false" without clear thresholds.
Or maybe they themselves have experienced discriminatory behavior in the Midwest?
As an LGBT guy, I'm always direct when pointing out that I left the South partially because of discrimination, and someone is always happy to butt in to say I'm making it all up and the South is perfectly open and tolerant. It gets tiring.
As an LGBT guy, I'm always direct when pointing out that I left the South partially because of discrimination, and someone is always happy to butt in to say I'm making it all up and the South is perfectly open and tolerant. It gets tiring.
“The south” is a really big region so maybe someone pops up because you’re tarring an entire region based on your individual experience. As an LGBT person, I grew up with people telling urban legends about gerbils and whatnot. Perhaps they witnessed a single person doing this, but attributing it to a large group is not very accurate.
I grew up in the south in a super backwards small town and now live in a really forward town in the south. It’s a big place and there’s a lot of great places.
Stereotypes are based on common behavior but don’t apply to everyone here or every part of the south.
I grew up in the south in a super backwards small town and now live in a really forward town in the south. It’s a big place and there’s a lot of great places.
Stereotypes are based on common behavior but don’t apply to everyone here or every part of the south.
I'm tarring an entire region because I say, truthfully, that I left it because I experienced discrimination there? Can you elaborate the ways I'm obligated to caveat and contextualize my experience so I don't hurt other people's feelings by honestly relaying it?
You’re not obligated to do anything, especially not to help me and others better understand you or make your comments useful.
“The south” ranges from Virginia to Texas. Maybe you lived everywhere and experienced discrimination everywhere.
For me, I grew up in a down of a 1000 people and live just a few hours away in a town with maybe one of the most diverse cultures (including LGBT) in the country.
If I said that because I experienced discrimination in my shitkicker little town that the entire south was similar, that would be wrong, and not very helpful to anyone trying to understand the south.
I suppose you can avoid absolutes and generalizations if you want to help others. But you definitely aren’t obligated to help anyone.
But generalizations jump out at me and annoy me because I’ve frequently encountered jerks saying something about perverts or crime stats and then just fall back on that they were just honestly relating their experience. But there is a difference between my experience and me saying that my experience applies to others. Especially if not backed by data and a suitable generalization.
“The south” ranges from Virginia to Texas. Maybe you lived everywhere and experienced discrimination everywhere.
For me, I grew up in a down of a 1000 people and live just a few hours away in a town with maybe one of the most diverse cultures (including LGBT) in the country.
If I said that because I experienced discrimination in my shitkicker little town that the entire south was similar, that would be wrong, and not very helpful to anyone trying to understand the south.
I suppose you can avoid absolutes and generalizations if you want to help others. But you definitely aren’t obligated to help anyone.
But generalizations jump out at me and annoy me because I’ve frequently encountered jerks saying something about perverts or crime stats and then just fall back on that they were just honestly relating their experience. But there is a difference between my experience and me saying that my experience applies to others. Especially if not backed by data and a suitable generalization.
To be clear, you're accusing me of tarring an entire region for relaying an experience I had in it. I didn't even make any claim that the South is more discriminatory against LGBT people than elsewhere, though if you're going to project that onto me anyway...
I guarantee you apply this kind of radical stance against all generalization in a very selective way. Do you get upset if someone says that Russia is a repressive country? Or that California is expensive?
Even if I were to give my entire life story, you can always feign offense, claiming "city A 20 miles away from city B is totally different, you can't generalize an entire county!" At some point I'd have to be listing all the individuals I had negative experiences with, and even then, isn't it unfair for me to represent the entirety of their person with a single selective moment of their life?
I guarantee you apply this kind of radical stance against all generalization in a very selective way. Do you get upset if someone says that Russia is a repressive country? Or that California is expensive?
Even if I were to give my entire life story, you can always feign offense, claiming "city A 20 miles away from city B is totally different, you can't generalize an entire county!" At some point I'd have to be listing all the individuals I had negative experiences with, and even then, isn't it unfair for me to represent the entirety of their person with a single selective moment of their life?
It's like when people hear a statement like you've made they recoil and assume that 100% of your interactions in a region involve discrimination. What they fail to understand is that the rate you experienced discrimination is higher in these areas than in others. It's a probability, it's clear to me from the context that surely not every interaction of yours in the south is bad, but given drawing a random interaction out of a hat, you are more likely to have a bad one living in Virginia than in New York. Given this reality, I wouldn't want to live in the American South either.
There must be some sort of logical block that prevents people from understanding the nuance in these comments, and rushing to defend against absolutes that no one implied existed. I blame a lack of understanding of statistics and probability.
There must be some sort of logical block that prevents people from understanding the nuance in these comments, and rushing to defend against absolutes that no one implied existed. I blame a lack of understanding of statistics and probability.
Exactly. I've also experienced discrimination in San Francisco, for what it's worth! But as soon as you make any statement that it tends to be more common in the South (or even if it's merely implied), people end up triggered and rise up in defense of it.
I’m not defending the south, per se, I’m defending statements like “it tends to be more common in the South.”
The experience you described doesn’t seem to me that it justifies saying the south is worse or better than other regions.
The reason why you see people jump in the defend the south is that you are making a general statement about an entire region.
Here’s what I mean. Someone said that midwesterners are nice to people if they are white. Downthread you share that part of the reason you left the south is because of discrimination you experienced and I think you were pointing out that it was odd that people jumped in to defend the south.
It seems reasonable that people would try to more accurately describe the south and share their experiences as well.
Saying people are triggered seems to belittle their input. If I want more input I don’t call you triggered for feeling compelled to share info.
This is totally different if you think that there actually is some higher level of discrimination in the south or midwest or wherever. But I don’t think your anecdote isn’t really that helpful for tarring or exonerating a region. Despite how true or honest it may be.
The experience you described doesn’t seem to me that it justifies saying the south is worse or better than other regions.
The reason why you see people jump in the defend the south is that you are making a general statement about an entire region.
Here’s what I mean. Someone said that midwesterners are nice to people if they are white. Downthread you share that part of the reason you left the south is because of discrimination you experienced and I think you were pointing out that it was odd that people jumped in to defend the south.
It seems reasonable that people would try to more accurately describe the south and share their experiences as well.
Saying people are triggered seems to belittle their input. If I want more input I don’t call you triggered for feeling compelled to share info.
This is totally different if you think that there actually is some higher level of discrimination in the south or midwest or wherever. But I don’t think your anecdote isn’t really that helpful for tarring or exonerating a region. Despite how true or honest it may be.
So, first point: I reject the idea that in my first comment I made any general statements about the South. I recounted a particular experience I had, and some people extrapolated that into a claim that all of the South is uniformly homophobic or some other statement I'm being held to which I didn't make.
If I'm actually making general statements, I would say that big cities in the South are more gay friendly, though they're still impacted by state politics and as you enter the suburbs and especially rural areas you encounter much more bias. Two hours north of Atlanta is much worse than two hours north of San Francisco. If push came to shove, I'd feel more welcomed in Atlanta ITP than in many parts of the Central Valley; but I'm also not particularly interested in grading on a curve. But everyone's mileage will vary, and all the tradeoffs involved are complicated and will differ between different people and even in the same person at different times in their life.
These subtleties are lost, though, because my comment wasn't intended to provide a comprehensive overview of life as an LGBT person in the South, but to counter someone who was writing off someone else's experience as merely a way to feel virtuous about their self instead of anything real. It's a common response to many negative experiences from marginalized groups, so I see it as perfectly natural that I drew on my own experiences to call it out.
If I'm actually making general statements, I would say that big cities in the South are more gay friendly, though they're still impacted by state politics and as you enter the suburbs and especially rural areas you encounter much more bias. Two hours north of Atlanta is much worse than two hours north of San Francisco. If push came to shove, I'd feel more welcomed in Atlanta ITP than in many parts of the Central Valley; but I'm also not particularly interested in grading on a curve. But everyone's mileage will vary, and all the tradeoffs involved are complicated and will differ between different people and even in the same person at different times in their life.
These subtleties are lost, though, because my comment wasn't intended to provide a comprehensive overview of life as an LGBT person in the South, but to counter someone who was writing off someone else's experience as merely a way to feel virtuous about their self instead of anything real. It's a common response to many negative experiences from marginalized groups, so I see it as perfectly natural that I drew on my own experiences to call it out.
> Russia is a repressive country?
This is usually interpreted as a statement about the russian government, which is an abstract entity, unlike "the midwest" which is interpreted as referring to the people living there which is not.
> At some point I'd have to be listing all the individuals I had negative experiences with
This paradox is the subject of "statistics" which resolves this problem with ideas of "representative" samples. I think the issue here is that most people would consider a sample size big enough to represent an area as big as the midwest would exceed the lifetime of any individual, such that no one could prove anything from their own experiences alone.
This is usually interpreted as a statement about the russian government, which is an abstract entity, unlike "the midwest" which is interpreted as referring to the people living there which is not.
> At some point I'd have to be listing all the individuals I had negative experiences with
This paradox is the subject of "statistics" which resolves this problem with ideas of "representative" samples. I think the issue here is that most people would consider a sample size big enough to represent an area as big as the midwest would exceed the lifetime of any individual, such that no one could prove anything from their own experiences alone.
Being more specific about the locale would help. Nashville is not Atlanta, NOLA is not Tampa when it comes to flavors of discriminatory attitudes - and rural or suburban attitudes are different as well. Describing where you went to for relief also adds even more context.
Not to mention Houston, for instance, is one of the most diverse cities in the entire country -- more diverse than much of CA. It's also one of the largest and most iconic cities of the South.
Houston remains one of the most segregated cities in the entire country.
This page ranks it 18th in that regard: https://cityobservatory.org/most_segregated/
Of note, LA is measured as being more segregated than Houston.
Of note, LA is measured as being more segregated than Houston.
Memo: There's a gradient from liberal urban islands to the surrounding regressive rural areas. With some exceptions.
Surprised?
Surprised?
Not tarring, maybe he was just pointing out the unconscious bias of the statement not being more elusive.
someone is always happy to butt in to say ... the South is perfectly open and tolerant
No, jacobriis is not doing that. He's stating
> when people say things like this they often do so to feel virtuous themselves
You're laundering his comment into some abstract statement about how you can't make generalizations about anyone, when he was the one making a generalization that people who say that they experienced X are making things up.
> when people say things like this they often do so to feel virtuous themselves
You're laundering his comment into some abstract statement about how you can't make generalizations about anyone, when he was the one making a generalization that people who say that they experienced X are making things up.
Yes he is, here is the relevant quote:
> how you can't make generalizations about anyone, when he was the one making a generalization
generalisation in original post:
But it's not just that - "generalisation", or specifically "bad" generalisation takes a particular form, otherwise how do you distinguish it from a metaphor? The way the first characterises a specific area based on personal experience, versus the second which talks of "people" in general based on some personal judgment makes them different kinds of statement: the first as an objective account, the second an explicitly subjective opinion.
> that people who say that they experienced X are making things up
No, he said they "do so to feel virtuous themselves" i.e. their motivation, they didn't say anything about the actual truth of the statement. They did not say anything to suggest that they are "making things up".
Given you just accused jacobriis of saying this, I now have to wonder about your original statement: "someone is always happy to butt in to say I'm making it all up" - did they specifically say that, or was that your interpretation?
The idea that people in the Midwest (which has a population of over 65 million people similar to France and the UK) are only friendly to white people is pretty crazy.
> how you can't make generalizations about anyone, when he was the one making a generalization
generalisation in original post:
people are friendly, as long as you look like them
when people say things like this they *often* do so to feel virtuous
But it's not just that - "generalisation", or specifically "bad" generalisation takes a particular form, otherwise how do you distinguish it from a metaphor? The way the first characterises a specific area based on personal experience, versus the second which talks of "people" in general based on some personal judgment makes them different kinds of statement: the first as an objective account, the second an explicitly subjective opinion.
> that people who say that they experienced X are making things up
No, he said they "do so to feel virtuous themselves" i.e. their motivation, they didn't say anything about the actual truth of the statement. They did not say anything to suggest that they are "making things up".
Given you just accused jacobriis of saying this, I now have to wonder about your original statement: "someone is always happy to butt in to say I'm making it all up" - did they specifically say that, or was that your interpretation?
>I'm making it all up and the South is perfectly open and tolerant.
I'm sure you're not. But "the South" is diverse. Atlanta has a very large LGBT community (both in absolute terms and as a percentage) and culture that is completely different from areas just an hour away. It's very possible that you and the people you are talking to had completely different experiences.
Both of you are almost certainly overgeneralizing your experiences when you say "the South".
People who live in the South get upset that the country likes to pretend that the rest of the country outside a few urban centers is any different. That is, if you had left the South for the rural or suburban Midwest or most of Pennsylvania, you'd likely have had a similar experience.
I'm sure you're not. But "the South" is diverse. Atlanta has a very large LGBT community (both in absolute terms and as a percentage) and culture that is completely different from areas just an hour away. It's very possible that you and the people you are talking to had completely different experiences.
Both of you are almost certainly overgeneralizing your experiences when you say "the South".
People who live in the South get upset that the country likes to pretend that the rest of the country outside a few urban centers is any different. That is, if you had left the South for the rural or suburban Midwest or most of Pennsylvania, you'd likely have had a similar experience.
Thanks for explaining my experiences to me, as someone who spent twenty years living in exurban Atlanta.
Your comments indicated that such an explanation was necessary to improve your understanding.
It’s amazing how many people are going out of their way to prove your point.
What point? That living in one small exurb in the South gives them enough experience to generalize a region of 125 million people?
I'm not explaining your experience to you. I'm telling you that your experience growing up in 1 place doesn't give you the ability to generalize a entire region.
>exurban Atlanta
Exurban Atlanta is not Atlanta. That's like saying the Jersey Shore is Manhattan.
>exurban Atlanta
Exurban Atlanta is not Atlanta. That's like saying the Jersey Shore is Manhattan.
> I'm telling you that your experience growing up in 1 place doesn't give you the ability to generalize a entire region.
And where did I do that? I am actually quite happy to generalize, but the only thing I've said in the comment you were replying to is that I experienced discrimination in the South. A simple factual statement that says nothing in general about the South, aside from the fact that at least one person experienced discrimination there. You're inventing statements in your head ("he's saying every last person in the South is homophobic!") and attributing them to me, based off of... nothing.
All that said, I do think there are accurate generalizations you can make about the South, or any large region. To take an extreme example, if someone said they had left the Middle East because the people around them were homophobic, you wouldn't be jumping in to defend the region because Beirut has a comparatively bustling gay scene right now.
ETA: And, on further thought, if we're going to be stridently anti-generalization, you're generalizing about Atlanta. Forsyth County, for instance, is definitely exurban and just as definitely part of the Atlanta metropolitan area. Just because you want to present a rosy picture doesn't mean you can generalize and say that every place in Atlanta is a beautiful utopia for LGBT residents.
And where did I do that? I am actually quite happy to generalize, but the only thing I've said in the comment you were replying to is that I experienced discrimination in the South. A simple factual statement that says nothing in general about the South, aside from the fact that at least one person experienced discrimination there. You're inventing statements in your head ("he's saying every last person in the South is homophobic!") and attributing them to me, based off of... nothing.
All that said, I do think there are accurate generalizations you can make about the South, or any large region. To take an extreme example, if someone said they had left the Middle East because the people around them were homophobic, you wouldn't be jumping in to defend the region because Beirut has a comparatively bustling gay scene right now.
ETA: And, on further thought, if we're going to be stridently anti-generalization, you're generalizing about Atlanta. Forsyth County, for instance, is definitely exurban and just as definitely part of the Atlanta metropolitan area. Just because you want to present a rosy picture doesn't mean you can generalize and say that every place in Atlanta is a beautiful utopia for LGBT residents.
> I'm always direct when pointing out that I left the South partially because of discrimination
Any reasonable person who reads will infer that "the South" is that thing that is discriminatory in general. If you instead meant something else you worded it very poorly.
I honestly have a hard time believing that you don't understand how the sentence "I left X because of Y." implies that X is Y.
"I left my marriage because of domestic violence." It's entirely possible to construct a meaning where your spouse wasn't the one beating you, but that's the logical inference.
If you didn't intend to generalize that the South is discriminatory overall then why didn't you just say: I left my hometown because of discrimination? What additional meaning does "the South" add to that if you really just mean:
"I left my home town because of discrimination. My hometown happens to be in the South, but I don't think the South at large is any more or less discriminatory than any other region."
>All that said, I do think there are accurate generalizations you can make about the South, or any large region.
Sure. I don't think you can based on the experience of having lived in one tiny area of that region.
>Forsyth County, for instance, is definitely exurban and just as definitely part of the Atlanta metropolitan area.
Exurban is one step away from farmland. The differences between Cumming and say the area around Little Five Points is much greater than the difference between that same area of Atlanta and San Francisco.
Any reasonable person who reads will infer that "the South" is that thing that is discriminatory in general. If you instead meant something else you worded it very poorly.
I honestly have a hard time believing that you don't understand how the sentence "I left X because of Y." implies that X is Y.
"I left my marriage because of domestic violence." It's entirely possible to construct a meaning where your spouse wasn't the one beating you, but that's the logical inference.
If you didn't intend to generalize that the South is discriminatory overall then why didn't you just say: I left my hometown because of discrimination? What additional meaning does "the South" add to that if you really just mean:
"I left my home town because of discrimination. My hometown happens to be in the South, but I don't think the South at large is any more or less discriminatory than any other region."
>All that said, I do think there are accurate generalizations you can make about the South, or any large region.
Sure. I don't think you can based on the experience of having lived in one tiny area of that region.
>Forsyth County, for instance, is definitely exurban and just as definitely part of the Atlanta metropolitan area.
Exurban is one step away from farmland. The differences between Cumming and say the area around Little Five Points is much greater than the difference between that same area of Atlanta and San Francisco.
It's important to clarify that you are mixing up two geographic regions here. You seem to mostly be referring to the deep south (especially since you refer to Atlanta in a later comment), which according to generally popular definitions is physically distinct from the midwest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States
What's more reasonable:
1) That I'm confusing the Deep South and the Midwest
or
2) That I'm commenting on a tendency of people to discount people's individual experiences because they don't like the idea that a particular region treats different people worse than other regions
1) That I'm confusing the Deep South and the Midwest
or
2) That I'm commenting on a tendency of people to discount people's individual experiences because they don't like the idea that a particular region treats different people worse than other regions
What's reasonable is that you're doing both things simultaneously and probably in the process getting a lot of complicated reactions because of imprecise use of terminology.
Not a single person here was confused between the Midwest and the South, and you're obfuscating to generate noise.
There's at least one person who shifted the discussion from the former to the latter (you). If you did so intentionally, knowing fully well the regions are completely distinct, perhaps you should consider your own role in generating noise before you accuse others of that. I do not believe it was unreasonable or obfuscating or noisy for me to point out that the discussion abruptly shifted to a totally different area of the country and that it was unclear whether this shift was intentional or an innocent mistake.
I’m not LGBT (but I’m an ethnic minority who grew up in suburban Atlanta). I wanted to add that personally it’s not enough to just be ‘tolerated’. I’d rather be in a place where I’m “mainstream” or at least normalized. In that sense (for me as a South Asian) the Bay Area and NYC are no comparison so the South or the Midwest. I feel like I’m an active member of mainstream society there, not someone in the sides.
That is very cultural as well. I'm of Eastern European origin (white) and feel quite at home in large cities with varied population and racial variety and would feel quite uncomfortable to live permanently in the rural south just because of cultural differences.
How do I know that they aren't giving me misinformation about everything else? Being non-white feels like I have to constantly avoid getting gaslighted in the US about my "race".
I think I would be generally suspicious of people who are soliciting your support or affection by telling you most people are out to get you. (You're right that happens a lot here these days.)
I would be generally suspicious of people who are telling you that no one is out to get you and that your own observations are wrong.
How is stating your observations, as the OP did, "virtue signaling"? The act of denying that racism exists is a popular tactic of white supremacists.
I keep hearing that the Midwest has a racism from kids who have lived in two cities their entire lives... It's very quotable, but when then you realize that black people are very underrepresented in west coast cities and people treat you accordingly there. And don't get me started about the claims of how color blind people have gone in southern cities like Nashville...
OP should have said
"What you will find is that SOMETIMES people are friendly, as long as you look like them (white), WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS IN BIG CITIES."
I can't believe the backlash here - surely generalizing ALL OF MIDWEST to be racist is the wrong thing to do?
I can't believe the backlash here - surely generalizing ALL OF MIDWEST to be racist is the wrong thing to do?
There is a distinct lived difference that is based on, you guessed it! generalities. Instead of nitpicking OP, its worth the attempt of empathy.
The small towns of PA (hey! loved that someone put this here) can be just as racist as the small towns of Colorado but somehow this doesn't extend to the small towns of California.
I say this as someone who has not lived everywhere but has lived in places where the common question (and yes, each town/city I lived in had a common question/conversation about my race)ranges from:
Are you black?
Are you jewish?
Are you honduran?
Are you armenian?
Are you [some subgroup of..] indian
Only in Japan, so far, am I - told - that I am American. Its amazing.
Exposure matters. Certainly there are a smattering of places in the midwest where things are progressive. That being said, they are not as well known and compared to my life in SF/LA/DC (still kinda conservative)/NY, the amount you're allowed to live and let live varies.
I'm more likely to hear some random comment about where I do or do not belong or some idiotic belief I have to disabuse about who I am in the Midwest and South.
The small towns of PA (hey! loved that someone put this here) can be just as racist as the small towns of Colorado but somehow this doesn't extend to the small towns of California.
I say this as someone who has not lived everywhere but has lived in places where the common question (and yes, each town/city I lived in had a common question/conversation about my race)ranges from:
Are you black?
Are you jewish?
Are you honduran?
Are you armenian?
Are you [some subgroup of..] indian
Only in Japan, so far, am I - told - that I am American. Its amazing.
Exposure matters. Certainly there are a smattering of places in the midwest where things are progressive. That being said, they are not as well known and compared to my life in SF/LA/DC (still kinda conservative)/NY, the amount you're allowed to live and let live varies.
I'm more likely to hear some random comment about where I do or do not belong or some idiotic belief I have to disabuse about who I am in the Midwest and South.
Or, you know, it could be based on personal experience with the many racists that dwell in the Midwest.
Years ago I moved back to CA from the Midwest, leaving a very-well paid job to be unemployed, because of it.
Years ago I moved back to CA from the Midwest, leaving a very-well paid job to be unemployed, because of it.
Nobody is saying every single person in the midwest is only friendly to white people. This is so obstinate it doesn't even seem genuine to me.
At the risk of feeding the trolls -- I grew up in the midwest. I can tell you that I both experienced racism myself and saw a lot of it in my high school both in students and from my classmate's parents. Of course everyone isn't racist, and most folks are friendly and accepting. But comments like this downplay the experience that many people in these places do have. In my experience, it takes a relatively small number of racist people and a whole bunch of folks who don't call that shit out to make it less comfortable for someone who isn't white in their day to day lives.
At the risk of feeding the trolls -- I grew up in the midwest. I can tell you that I both experienced racism myself and saw a lot of it in my high school both in students and from my classmate's parents. Of course everyone isn't racist, and most folks are friendly and accepting. But comments like this downplay the experience that many people in these places do have. In my experience, it takes a relatively small number of racist people and a whole bunch of folks who don't call that shit out to make it less comfortable for someone who isn't white in their day to day lives.
OP: "What you will find is that people are friendly, as long as you look like them (white)."
P: "Of course everyone isn't racist, and most folks are friendly and accepting."
If these statements are equivalent, you have my apologies. English is not my native language. I think I will have to study for 10 lifetimes to understand.
"Some people are friendly only if you look like them" would be a more defensible claim. Probably that is true everywhere on earth.
But, the text of the original statement is about the behavior of Midwestern people [1] generally towards non white people generally.
[1] Not all Midwestern people are white in any case. Nebraska: 86%, Ohio: 82%, Illinois: 71.5%
P: "Of course everyone isn't racist, and most folks are friendly and accepting."
If these statements are equivalent, you have my apologies. English is not my native language. I think I will have to study for 10 lifetimes to understand.
"Some people are friendly only if you look like them" would be a more defensible claim. Probably that is true everywhere on earth.
But, the text of the original statement is about the behavior of Midwestern people [1] generally towards non white people generally.
[1] Not all Midwestern people are white in any case. Nebraska: 86%, Ohio: 82%, Illinois: 71.5%
They sorta are, if you actually read the context of each.
They're generalizing from different ends: one is saying that there are _some_ people who are not friendly if you're not white; the other is saying that _most_ people are friendly. The implication is that there is a subset of the populace that is unfriendly, and a subset that is friendly. Both comments say basically the same thing.
They're generalizing from different ends: one is saying that there are _some_ people who are not friendly if you're not white; the other is saying that _most_ people are friendly. The implication is that there is a subset of the populace that is unfriendly, and a subset that is friendly. Both comments say basically the same thing.
"What you will find is that people are friendly, as long as you look like them (white)."
should be
"What you will find is that most people are friendly, as long as you look like them (white)."
So you are correct in noting the statements are not equivalent.
By leaving out the word ‘most’ for whatever reason (typo, bias, etc.), the communication efficiency of the comment was reduced. Good catch.
should be
"What you will find is that most people are friendly, as long as you look like them (white)."
So you are correct in noting the statements are not equivalent.
By leaving out the word ‘most’ for whatever reason (typo, bias, etc.), the communication efficiency of the comment was reduced. Good catch.
You're right, the above declaration should probably be refined a bit. You should be both white and straight.
I would say it's hard to take what you've said seriously having personally known people who have left the midwest specifically due to the discrimination they faced.
Except I do have to have to take it seriously because it's a toxic attitude that belittles the struggles that people face due to discrimination by attempting to minimize their experiences.
I would say it's hard to take what you've said seriously having personally known people who have left the midwest specifically due to the discrimination they faced.
Except I do have to have to take it seriously because it's a toxic attitude that belittles the struggles that people face due to discrimination by attempting to minimize their experiences.
I lived in the midwest for over a decade and am married to a midwesterner. I'm also ethnically one of the 'model minorities' so to some people I'm white, while to white supremacists I'm assuredly not.
Most people in most places are basically friendly. However. Even just being recognize you as 'other' can get old, like being asked "where are you from" or riding the bus in Chicago and having to answer questions about my ethnicity from whoever was feeling tipsy enough to ask them.
Here's one story of folks being un-friendly: I was at a public event, basically a version of a county fair with my wife's family somewhere in the rural midwest. There's a stage with small-name bands performing, food vendors, and a small carnival-ride section. As the sun sets we lose track of her parents, and as we're looking for them I also got separated from my wife. I felt like the crowd was also slowly changing and like I was starting to attract attention in the form of unfriendly looks. I find my wife and try to express this, but her face clearly says it's all in my head and why am I talking about anything other than how we can find her parents. Just then a physically imposed man walks up, plants himself firmly in front of me, and asks in the least friendly way possible, "how's it going brother?" I answer him in unaccented neutral native-born american english (don't remember what i said, but likely something like "good how you doin"), and my wife is like, "ok you're right, we have to find my parents and leave."
So just to be clear - I can't know what might have been, but I strongly suspect that having grown up here and being a native speaker made that evening simpler. And again, I'm someone who many people look at and just process as "white" so I can easily take my experiences as a shallow sample from the tip of the iceberg.
And that kind of "unfriendly" experience is something that happens more often if i leave coastal metropolitan areas.
Most people in most places are basically friendly. However. Even just being recognize you as 'other' can get old, like being asked "where are you from" or riding the bus in Chicago and having to answer questions about my ethnicity from whoever was feeling tipsy enough to ask them.
Here's one story of folks being un-friendly: I was at a public event, basically a version of a county fair with my wife's family somewhere in the rural midwest. There's a stage with small-name bands performing, food vendors, and a small carnival-ride section. As the sun sets we lose track of her parents, and as we're looking for them I also got separated from my wife. I felt like the crowd was also slowly changing and like I was starting to attract attention in the form of unfriendly looks. I find my wife and try to express this, but her face clearly says it's all in my head and why am I talking about anything other than how we can find her parents. Just then a physically imposed man walks up, plants himself firmly in front of me, and asks in the least friendly way possible, "how's it going brother?" I answer him in unaccented neutral native-born american english (don't remember what i said, but likely something like "good how you doin"), and my wife is like, "ok you're right, we have to find my parents and leave."
So just to be clear - I can't know what might have been, but I strongly suspect that having grown up here and being a native speaker made that evening simpler. And again, I'm someone who many people look at and just process as "white" so I can easily take my experiences as a shallow sample from the tip of the iceberg.
And that kind of "unfriendly" experience is something that happens more often if i leave coastal metropolitan areas.
Just curious... What ethnicity are you? On the west coast, outside of a couple cities, my experience has been the opposite - though I'm of a darker complexion.
And I'm not too fond of rural attitudes on race anywhere - if the rural west coast is somehow different, I'd love to hear your contrasting anecdotes. I know on the east coast it's certainly not the case.
And I'm not too fond of rural attitudes on race anywhere - if the rural west coast is somehow different, I'd love to hear your contrasting anecdotes. I know on the east coast it's certainly not the case.
"Even just being recognize you as 'other' can get old, like being asked "where are you from" or riding the bus in Chicago and having to answer questions about my ethnicity from whoever was feeling tipsy enough to ask them."
Chicago, infamous MAGA country.
Where the city buses are ruled by white supremacists harassing all innocent people who look different from them!
In a city that is only 31.7% non-Hispanic white, they have a lot of work to do!
Chicago, infamous MAGA country.
Where the city buses are ruled by white supremacists harassing all innocent people who look different from them!
In a city that is only 31.7% non-Hispanic white, they have a lot of work to do!
I'm white, live in the midwest, and get asked all the time where I'm from. It's a form of small talk around here, where everyone knows everyone, or you might have grown up near someone they knew. Not too different from talking about the weather (though we do that more often, as well).
This has been exactly my experience. 'Where are you from, where were you raised?' are the first questions after 'where do you work, what do you do for a living?'
As you well know, it's more the how than the what.
There's the small talk version of that, but then there's the following question of "where are you really from?" if you give them a less exotic answer than they were expecting.
Edit: wording
Edit: wording
Surely you've experienced personally or seen firsthand the following microagression on a regular basis living in the midwest as I have, in a city that reliably votes 85% democrat no less:
"Where are you from?"
"Cleveland Heights."
"No, but like, where are you from?"
implying that this brown individual must surely have wound up from some far flung corner of the world, and that they couldn't have possibly been a native born person.
"Where are you from?"
"Cleveland Heights."
"No, but like, where are you from?"
implying that this brown individual must surely have wound up from some far flung corner of the world, and that they couldn't have possibly been a native born person.
I actually have been asked what country I am from. I don't have a heavy accent (there are far heavier than mine further out in the boonies) but apparently enough of one.
What of it? If you have some characteristic that is unusual (within a group such as local community) people will notice and be curious.
That is basic human nature, not lack of friendliness or malice.
What of it? If you have some characteristic that is unusual (within a group such as local community) people will notice and be curious.
That is basic human nature, not lack of friendliness or malice.
It's prodding into personal details that many draw the line with. You might not have a problem with it, but I've personally heard from a few different people how they get annoyed with those sorts of questions being leveled at them all the time, simply because they didn't look white. Aziz Ansari even joked about this a few times during Parks and Recreation, it's such a common phenomenon. Imagine seeing someone who might have some sort of disability then asking them if they were insert disability you are unqualified to diagnose but assume they have. That would be considered pretty rude.
This might just be an issue of regional vocabulary though I'm sure it's used in the presumptuous way you describe as well, the underlying question isn't necessarily unfriendly or borne of a discriminatory attitude - in a Midwestern town right now, but I can recall a few weeks ago actually this exact conversation between my American friend who's from a Pakistani background and a female census taker who was from South Asia.
In her case, she used the exact same vocabulary but it was much more obvious she didn't mean to imply that they weren't native born because she herself was not native. Context is important in conversation, but there is such a thing as regional mannerisms. On the west coast my vocabulary was certainly brought up for being just a tinge different.
In her case, she used the exact same vocabulary but it was much more obvious she didn't mean to imply that they weren't native born because she herself was not native. Context is important in conversation, but there is such a thing as regional mannerisms. On the west coast my vocabulary was certainly brought up for being just a tinge different.
If you are white, then take how many times you get asked "where are you from" and multiply it by 10. Then decide if you don't think it would get annoying.
It's rarely out of malice. But that doesn't really matter. If you get asked it enough, you will start to feel like you don't belong.
It's rarely out of malice. But that doesn't really matter. If you get asked it enough, you will start to feel like you don't belong.
There aren't enough people here to do that (that I actually speak to at least).
As an aside, I have a last name with an unusual spelling. Literally everyone who sees it asks how it is pronounced, followed by where it is from. It is just a fact of life.
By asking the question, people clearly want to know more. Sure, they might be asking the wrong question, but the reality is, they are trying to include you.
If people didn't want you to belong, they would just make the assumption on their own and not ask (and probably avoid talking to you altogether).
As an aside, I have a last name with an unusual spelling. Literally everyone who sees it asks how it is pronounced, followed by where it is from. It is just a fact of life.
By asking the question, people clearly want to know more. Sure, they might be asking the wrong question, but the reality is, they are trying to include you.
If people didn't want you to belong, they would just make the assumption on their own and not ask (and probably avoid talking to you altogether).
If you're native american in the midwest, you will experience discrimination and your life will be harder than it needs to be. Similar to the difficulties that other POC experience. It's just the way it is, better than it used to be but it's still there and it's naive to think this is a problem that has gone away.
Source: my family.
Source: my family.
People might not be objectively racist, but if you grew up in a school district where the high school of 14,000 kids only had 10 black people attending, you will hear some disgusting stereotypical comments and some very off color jokes eventually whether you are a minority or not. People uttering these things might not even see how damaging these comments are to the groups they target, because they've never met very many of these groups or ever been around someone who would check their behavior. It's just a fact of life when you grow up lacking any perspective of another culture, and the national culture encourages you to adopt biases that aren't rooted in reality, and you have no personal experiences to disagree with them.
People also so kindly forget that the midwest experienced white flight like nowhere else. That sentiment is still in living memory among the older generation.
People also so kindly forget that the midwest experienced white flight like nowhere else. That sentiment is still in living memory among the older generation.
This is spot on.
Yes, white flight was real. One kid I went to school with moved immediately after he had a knife pulled on him, but I don't know any of the details so can't say if it was race related. Our own family moved about a year later. If I had stayed in that house I probably would have went to high school with Prince, but if I checked the yearbook of the suburban school I graduated from I doubt I could find a single black face. I never heard those stereotypical comments you speak of because there was nobody to speak them about.
"White guys have names like Lenny, whereas black guys have names like Carl."
It's true, you just have to go thirty minutes outside the city.
The "Midwest" is approximately 20% of the US population.
Therefore, all generalizations about the Midwest are false stereotypes. The Midwest is large and varied.
Therefore, all generalizations about the Midwest are false stereotypes. The Midwest is large and varied.
> What you will find is that people are friendly, as long as you look like them (white).
Grew up (Indian-American) in the midwest and can confirm this is true with a large majority of people there.
If you don't look like them, they will be cordial to your face but then subtly make it very clear how they actually think about you.
Grew up (Indian-American) in the midwest and can confirm this is true with a large majority of people there.
If you don't look like them, they will be cordial to your face but then subtly make it very clear how they actually think about you.
Even between Austin and NYC I've noticed these differences. I'd still take the latent bible thumping in Austin over the insane political cliques of NYC though.
I'm not quite sure on the reliability of this site, but assuming it's reliable...
"And, as icing on the cake, seven of the top 10 most affordable states in the nation are in the Midwest."
Name any big city you've heard of in the Midwest, and it's on the list. Chicago, Detroit, and so on. The list is, for the most part, "rust belt" cities that are all doing pretty well these days.
I'd say the one thing they all have working against them is weather. I'm in Buffalo, and I can see why folks flock to SoCal and places with better weather. Winter can be a real drag sometimes. Working from home makes it much more bearable, commuting in a snow storm can be really rough, dangerous and even deadly.
"And, as icing on the cake, seven of the top 10 most affordable states in the nation are in the Midwest."
Name any big city you've heard of in the Midwest, and it's on the list. Chicago, Detroit, and so on. The list is, for the most part, "rust belt" cities that are all doing pretty well these days.
I'd say the one thing they all have working against them is weather. I'm in Buffalo, and I can see why folks flock to SoCal and places with better weather. Winter can be a real drag sometimes. Working from home makes it much more bearable, commuting in a snow storm can be really rough, dangerous and even deadly.
That's not wrong, but as a Midwesterner, I think you also have people have legitimately enjoy experiencing all four seasons. And in cities with good public transit systems (like Chicago and Minneapolis) the damper of driving in crappy weather isn't as present.
As a new englander, I can confirm that it's really nice to have weather and seasons. It would be boring if every day all year was the same.
Agreed, winter has its hardships but having lived in the south I'd never give up winter, fall, and spring ever again. Winter is my second favorite season after fall.
When I moved from the midwest to southern california, everyone told me I would get bored of the lack of seasons. What a load of crock. There are seasons here and they are quite distinct.
The summer is dry and hot, but it's much more pleasant being out and about in 95* weather with no humidity than 85* after a july thunderstorm in the midwest with humidity you can cut with a knife. I only sweat when I do cardio, whereas in the midwest you could be drenched in sweat sitting in the shade in that humidity.
The fall still happens, you can still drive 45 minutes to an apple orchard and see beautiful fall scenery and get your pumpkins and pick your apples, because there are massive mountain ranges nearby. Winter weather here is perfect fall weather everywhere else. 60-70 degrees by day and light jacket and jeans weather by night.
Winter is also the rainy season, so you will see some dramatic storms and very interesting fog and mist, and the hills will turn to emerald green while the midwest enters its 6 months of brown mud, salt, and dirty snow phase.
Things are in bloom all year at different times, but the spring brings on the jacaranda season, and the region erupts into purple. I've never seen a more glorious spring.
As a former midwestern transit user, crappy weather doesn't go away once you are on transit. You still have to hoof it through the snow to and from your stop and wait for the vehicle which is far worse than driving door to door and spending maybe 30 seconds on each end outside. The vehicles aren't adequately heated. Plus no one ever plowed the sidewalks in the morning, so you are blazing your own trail through the slush, getting your feet wet if you weren't prepared with Sorels.
The summer is dry and hot, but it's much more pleasant being out and about in 95* weather with no humidity than 85* after a july thunderstorm in the midwest with humidity you can cut with a knife. I only sweat when I do cardio, whereas in the midwest you could be drenched in sweat sitting in the shade in that humidity.
The fall still happens, you can still drive 45 minutes to an apple orchard and see beautiful fall scenery and get your pumpkins and pick your apples, because there are massive mountain ranges nearby. Winter weather here is perfect fall weather everywhere else. 60-70 degrees by day and light jacket and jeans weather by night.
Winter is also the rainy season, so you will see some dramatic storms and very interesting fog and mist, and the hills will turn to emerald green while the midwest enters its 6 months of brown mud, salt, and dirty snow phase.
Things are in bloom all year at different times, but the spring brings on the jacaranda season, and the region erupts into purple. I've never seen a more glorious spring.
As a former midwestern transit user, crappy weather doesn't go away once you are on transit. You still have to hoof it through the snow to and from your stop and wait for the vehicle which is far worse than driving door to door and spending maybe 30 seconds on each end outside. The vehicles aren't adequately heated. Plus no one ever plowed the sidewalks in the morning, so you are blazing your own trail through the slush, getting your feet wet if you weren't prepared with Sorels.
You gotta get away from that lake-effect snow. Detroit area winters dont get that, but the western half of the state does. Chicago and Wisconsin are colder but offer clearer skies in the winter, as moisture and heat are picked up from the water as the weather moves west to east.
Former Buffalo resident in Colorado right now - I've been attracted back to the area due to climate change for the most part. The Great Lakes are the one part of the country that will get (relatively) more habitable in the next ~100 years [0]. Even today, I'd happily trade 6 months of snow and clouds for breathable air year-round.
[0] https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
[0] https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
I'm surprised not to see Madison, WI on this list. Our tech sector has been strong and growing for several decades - locally we have Epic Systems, Exact Sciences, Promega Corporation, Thermo Fisher Scientific, several large insurance companies like American Family Insurance, Sentry Insurance. It might be easy to miss the agglomeration of these companies in one area because some of them are technically in different municipalities than the City of Madison. But it's a great area, and most of the big players here have been spared or even strengthened by the unique circumstances of the pandemic.
Probably because it's measuring the last 3 years and Madison already had a sizable tech workforce for many years now.
Good area. Wish more people wore masks though.
Good area. Wish more people wore masks though.
> Good area. Wish more people wore masks though.
Huh? We have a mask mandate in Dane County. Everyone wears them, by law.
Huh? We have a mask mandate in Dane County. Everyone wears them, by law.
Rules can and are broken sometimes. There are noticeable differences in proportion of people wearing masks in different areas.
This was a specific comment about the Madison, Wisconsin area. Do you have specific data about mask wearing in Madison?
My bad, I thought it was for any location with laws about face masks.
Yup, just did this. Got an extra master suite, and 1.75 more bathrooms with much bigger yard and garage for $1100 less. And neighbors that actually talk to you. Not to mention half the price for gas and food. Oh, and the swings aren't chained up. Good-bye LA, I will not miss you one bit.
I did the same thing, I traded a third of an acre in Los Angeles for over a hundred acres in Washington State.
Me too; two weeks ago I traded a small house in Cap Hill, Seattle for a lot more space and friendly neighbors in more rural Washington about 20 minutes from the city. Loving it!
I work for a sizable consulting firm with multiple offices including one in Chicago. We saw a lull during the early months (april-june) of Covid/quarantine, we froze hiring, and a few projects were cancelled (one was a major airline). We had a heavier bench for a short time, and utilization fell 10-20%.
That lull is over, at least in Chicago, and not just our office. We have almost no bench, utilization is reaching 100% for at least tech centric practices, and we're hiring again. Front end, back end, devops, salesforce implementation and integration, you name it, demand is exceeding supply for resources available.
On one hand it's comforting to have job security. But it's also surreal to hear reports about 13% unemployment. These are strange times. It does feel like anyone in the tech profession that we are insulated from the worst effects of this catastrophe. Most of us can easily do our jobs remotely. My brother and his girlfriend are both chefs living together in Chicago. Enhanced unemployment benefits expired in July and their lease ended in August so they both moved back in with their parents. I know what is happening out there but at times I feel like we live in a bubble.
That lull is over, at least in Chicago, and not just our office. We have almost no bench, utilization is reaching 100% for at least tech centric practices, and we're hiring again. Front end, back end, devops, salesforce implementation and integration, you name it, demand is exceeding supply for resources available.
On one hand it's comforting to have job security. But it's also surreal to hear reports about 13% unemployment. These are strange times. It does feel like anyone in the tech profession that we are insulated from the worst effects of this catastrophe. Most of us can easily do our jobs remotely. My brother and his girlfriend are both chefs living together in Chicago. Enhanced unemployment benefits expired in July and their lease ended in August so they both moved back in with their parents. I know what is happening out there but at times I feel like we live in a bubble.
It really makes you wonder how this will go down in the next 5 years. Rents are high in cities because of highly paid workers who are capable of paying those rents. Now the middle class is priced out because their wages have been stagnant despite highly paid workers reliably getting raises. Either wages for the middle class has to go up dramatically, or rents have to crash, and rents aren't going to crash if the whole reason why they went up is because demand from highly paid workers, who haven't gone away. Something will have to give, people can't live in their parents house or commute 3 hours one way forever.
Edit: The below applies to people who don't want kids. I get why you wouldn't want to raise kids in somewhere like NYC (though I can also see the inverse).
I don't comment often on HN but I feel like I had to chime in here with a bunch of questions. These may sound inflammatory but I mean them sincerely, I just don't see where people are coming from. I understand that a lot of the things I'm listing are negatives for some people, I'm just shocked that it seems like they're negatives for 99.99% of people. Like, I'd expect at least a little more of a balance
I don't understand all of the hate for big cities recently. I mean do THAT many people truly hate living in a big vibrant city? Do that many people really want to have to get into their car and drive 25 minutes to the only (probably subpar) ramen shop in town. Does everyone just want a big 6 bedroom house that they can sit in and read/watch TV all day? Are you gonna go out on all that land more often then you would go out to eat world class, multicultural food? No one likes/wants public transit anymore? Having tons of theaters, shops, bars, etc around? You don't want access to the [some of the] most interesting jobs in the world? Surrounded by people who are world class at what they do? Being able to go to a bar and find someone who's a musician, someone who's an actor, someone from wall street, someone who sells hotdogs, etc all in the same place? How could you go from NYC to Madison, WI and not be so bored that you want to blow your brains out? It's a completely different world.
Maybe it's just the midwestern cities that I've been in, but they're all so dead. Everyone just seems to be ok with the status quo. Everyone just goes home and watches TV until work the next day. Maybe once a year they take a beach vacation, and then the other week they have off they see family for the holidays.
I mean yes, I get that it's expensive. I'm just surprised that SO may people have been seemingly staying in this place that they hate, driving up rent prices for everyone who wants to be in the city, just so they could keep whatever job they have. I mean if you really hated the city wouldn't you have looked elsewhere by now? It's not like it's competitive to get a job in one of these midwestern cities, so surely that great job you had in NYC that tied you there would guarantee you a way out of the city.
I don't comment often on HN but I feel like I had to chime in here with a bunch of questions. These may sound inflammatory but I mean them sincerely, I just don't see where people are coming from. I understand that a lot of the things I'm listing are negatives for some people, I'm just shocked that it seems like they're negatives for 99.99% of people. Like, I'd expect at least a little more of a balance
I don't understand all of the hate for big cities recently. I mean do THAT many people truly hate living in a big vibrant city? Do that many people really want to have to get into their car and drive 25 minutes to the only (probably subpar) ramen shop in town. Does everyone just want a big 6 bedroom house that they can sit in and read/watch TV all day? Are you gonna go out on all that land more often then you would go out to eat world class, multicultural food? No one likes/wants public transit anymore? Having tons of theaters, shops, bars, etc around? You don't want access to the [some of the] most interesting jobs in the world? Surrounded by people who are world class at what they do? Being able to go to a bar and find someone who's a musician, someone who's an actor, someone from wall street, someone who sells hotdogs, etc all in the same place? How could you go from NYC to Madison, WI and not be so bored that you want to blow your brains out? It's a completely different world.
Maybe it's just the midwestern cities that I've been in, but they're all so dead. Everyone just seems to be ok with the status quo. Everyone just goes home and watches TV until work the next day. Maybe once a year they take a beach vacation, and then the other week they have off they see family for the holidays.
I mean yes, I get that it's expensive. I'm just surprised that SO may people have been seemingly staying in this place that they hate, driving up rent prices for everyone who wants to be in the city, just so they could keep whatever job they have. I mean if you really hated the city wouldn't you have looked elsewhere by now? It's not like it's competitive to get a job in one of these midwestern cities, so surely that great job you had in NYC that tied you there would guarantee you a way out of the city.
NYC is a wonderful place, I spent my 20s trying to find ways to afford living there but never could (so I lived across the river in NJ and spent all my time in Manhattan).
The compromises to live there full time are brutal though. You need to be content to live in what amounts to a closet anywhere else. No space for anything and you better have zero hobbies or interests that take more space than a laptop.
> Do that many people really want to have to get into their car and drive 25 minutes to the only (probably subpar) ramen shop in town.
This is a common misconception by big city dwellers, but stuff does exist outside as well!
I live in the outskirts of Silicon Valley in a town/village, of ~10K people surrounded by forest. And no I don't have to drive 25 minutes to get to a restaurant. I can walk to great sushi, thai, mexican, etc. I can walk to multiple supermarkets, pharmacies, everything pretty much. In fact other than for a few lumber yard runs I haven't really driven anywhere since March. Everything is walking distance. But at the same time I can have a yard, garages, space for woodworking and planting trees, ride a bike on quiet streets and forest trails and all that. And while silicon valley area is expensive, all this is still probably cheaper than a studio in NYC.
In a fantasy world where I'm ultra-rich, I would also have a NYC apartment to visit every now and then. It is a fun place.
The compromises to live there full time are brutal though. You need to be content to live in what amounts to a closet anywhere else. No space for anything and you better have zero hobbies or interests that take more space than a laptop.
> Do that many people really want to have to get into their car and drive 25 minutes to the only (probably subpar) ramen shop in town.
This is a common misconception by big city dwellers, but stuff does exist outside as well!
I live in the outskirts of Silicon Valley in a town/village, of ~10K people surrounded by forest. And no I don't have to drive 25 minutes to get to a restaurant. I can walk to great sushi, thai, mexican, etc. I can walk to multiple supermarkets, pharmacies, everything pretty much. In fact other than for a few lumber yard runs I haven't really driven anywhere since March. Everything is walking distance. But at the same time I can have a yard, garages, space for woodworking and planting trees, ride a bike on quiet streets and forest trails and all that. And while silicon valley area is expensive, all this is still probably cheaper than a studio in NYC.
In a fantasy world where I'm ultra-rich, I would also have a NYC apartment to visit every now and then. It is a fun place.
> I can walk to multiple supermarkets, pharmacies, everything pretty much.
This is an essentially nonexistent characteristic of the kinds of places people are moving in the Midwest. The walkability of most of suburban America is ~0.
This is an essentially nonexistent characteristic of the kinds of places people are moving in the Midwest. The walkability of most of suburban America is ~0.
At a certain age a backyard for your kids to play in matters way more than being close to authentic ramen.
Yeah definitely a valid point. I understand (more or less) for people who want kids, I need to add that to my comment. Of course I can still see some benefit to raising kids in a place like NYC, but that's much more nuanced
You adapt to where you live.
The fun things you do in the city are different from the fun things you do not in the city or in a different city.
You need to live somewhere for longer than a weekend to settle in and figure out what is noteworthy about an area.
The fun things you do in the city are different from the fun things you do not in the city or in a different city.
You need to live somewhere for longer than a weekend to settle in and figure out what is noteworthy about an area.
Yeah, I mean it's fair that I haven't lived in every midwest city in America. But I've lived in 3 for multiple years each and I disliked them all for more or less the same reasons. Obviously it all just boils down to what you want out of life, so at a certain point it just becomes "agree to disagree"
People like different things is about what it boils down to.
I could give a care less about an authentic ramen shop, or really restaurants in general. Pre-pandemic, I ate out maybe once a month.
Coffee shops are another matter, but coffee is doing just fine around here.
I could give a care less about an authentic ramen shop, or really restaurants in general. Pre-pandemic, I ate out maybe once a month.
Coffee shops are another matter, but coffee is doing just fine around here.
I have a family(kid, partner, dogs) and just relocated from the Midwest back to Seattle.
I couldn't stand living in the Midwest and lasted just under a year. I grew up there, and have lived in a couple larger cities throughout the midwest. The weather is absolutely terrible and if I lost my remote tech job I'd be SOL until I could find another one. It is harder to find other parents/families/friends with things in common with, as well.
Another thing people don't talk about is the crime. Here in Seattle we have a lot of crime but not a lot of violence. In larger midwestern cities there are huge poor black neighborhoods, even entire parts of cities encompassing many neighborhoods, where the violence and suffering is incredible. Years ago, I used to live on Troost Ave in Kansas City, for example. Troost itself can be dangerous but is mostly fine- go a half a mile east and drive around and it is almost unrecognizable as America as someone who grew up white and did not have to see it. Bullets literally went through the window of the library my wife worked at.
I think either leaving or wanting to leave or big cities or job hubs/writing articles about leaving big cities or job hubs is something that is "in vogue" right now.
Probably a symptom of expensive housing and a pandemic that forced everyone to go remote. People, for some reason, love to dog on big cities/west coast but these coastal cities have undeniable positives to living in them; Weather, nature/mountains/ocean/public lands, interesting work, high pay, cultural stuff, etc- all things I want my child to grow up with even if it is expensive.
I couldn't stand living in the Midwest and lasted just under a year. I grew up there, and have lived in a couple larger cities throughout the midwest. The weather is absolutely terrible and if I lost my remote tech job I'd be SOL until I could find another one. It is harder to find other parents/families/friends with things in common with, as well.
Another thing people don't talk about is the crime. Here in Seattle we have a lot of crime but not a lot of violence. In larger midwestern cities there are huge poor black neighborhoods, even entire parts of cities encompassing many neighborhoods, where the violence and suffering is incredible. Years ago, I used to live on Troost Ave in Kansas City, for example. Troost itself can be dangerous but is mostly fine- go a half a mile east and drive around and it is almost unrecognizable as America as someone who grew up white and did not have to see it. Bullets literally went through the window of the library my wife worked at.
I think either leaving or wanting to leave or big cities or job hubs/writing articles about leaving big cities or job hubs is something that is "in vogue" right now.
Probably a symptom of expensive housing and a pandemic that forced everyone to go remote. People, for some reason, love to dog on big cities/west coast but these coastal cities have undeniable positives to living in them; Weather, nature/mountains/ocean/public lands, interesting work, high pay, cultural stuff, etc- all things I want my child to grow up with even if it is expensive.
> Here in Seattle we have a lot of crime but not a lot of violence. In larger midwestern cities there are huge poor black neighborhoods, even entire parts of cities encompassing many neighborhoods, where the violence and suffering is incredible.
I don't think those living and working in San Francisco are exactly strangers to human misery and poverty.
I don't think those living and working in San Francisco are exactly strangers to human misery and poverty.
Yeah parts of St. Louis past the bridge/river and going west were out of this world. Hard to believe it's the same country.
There are also lots of more rural areas within 45 minutes of Seattle, with even lower crime and more space.
They call it the Troost Line for a reason unfortunately.
It's a big country I guess, and I don't mean that to be sarcastic and snarky. That's usually the disconnect. There are places between the poles of NYC to Madison, WI, York, PA, and other suburban hell. And, they also aren't millennial ex-pat havens like Austin/Nashville, where the "culture" is a strip of craft breweries and expensive pizza places and basically Brooklyn 2.0. When you throw in cities with more access to the West's geography, you start to see why places like Denver and Bozeman got huge (and joined millennial ex-pat land).
So what do these in-between places offer, besides the cost of living? You tend to get off the beaten path nature where the cost of living in the city means you can actually afford a vacation home (Minneapolis and Chicago get the great lakes northern coast lines), funky college towns that grew some tech talent for various reasons and are college-y and by great natural areas (old Bozeman, old Austin, old Boulder, current Ft. Collins), and lastly I'd say genuine immigrant population and their subcultures, and food to match. There are legitimate Little Italys out there, but they just left NYC because it's too expensive (or also refugee resettlement plans). Minneapolis, Syracuse, parts of Tennessee, parts of TX that aren't Austin, etc.
You throw a tech salary into that mix, and it becomes really fascinating.
So what do these in-between places offer, besides the cost of living? You tend to get off the beaten path nature where the cost of living in the city means you can actually afford a vacation home (Minneapolis and Chicago get the great lakes northern coast lines), funky college towns that grew some tech talent for various reasons and are college-y and by great natural areas (old Bozeman, old Austin, old Boulder, current Ft. Collins), and lastly I'd say genuine immigrant population and their subcultures, and food to match. There are legitimate Little Italys out there, but they just left NYC because it's too expensive (or also refugee resettlement plans). Minneapolis, Syracuse, parts of Tennessee, parts of TX that aren't Austin, etc.
You throw a tech salary into that mix, and it becomes really fascinating.
Agreed about the trendy medium sized cities - people love them but they seem so bland to me for the same reason (great another craft burger place...).
You're right that there are probably more natural little Italy's out there, but no way you'll find an equally good Chinatown within a 2 hour drive of that little Italy. But, if you love Italian food and hate Chinese, then maybe that's a trade you're (not you specifically) willing to make.
I can see the access to nature as a reasonable trade off, if you're out hiking every weekend then maybe that could make the M-F in the smaller town more liveable
It definitely is an interesting situation
You're right that there are probably more natural little Italy's out there, but no way you'll find an equally good Chinatown within a 2 hour drive of that little Italy. But, if you love Italian food and hate Chinese, then maybe that's a trade you're (not you specifically) willing to make.
I can see the access to nature as a reasonable trade off, if you're out hiking every weekend then maybe that could make the M-F in the smaller town more liveable
It definitely is an interesting situation
So, I'd actually push back on that and say you will find cities with a variety of "new" immigrants and related community cultures stacked on top of the older immigrant communities that are still there (think your various Eastern Europeans). It makes for a unique mix.
There's a variety of reasons for this I could speculate on, and three of the firmer ones are refugee resettlement (Minneapolis and Somalis, pre-cool Cali and Hmong, Michigan and Syrian refugees), Central/South American immigration patterns beyond the border states, and military bases which tend to show up all over the midwest/west/southeast/southwest (Korean, Vietnamese, German and maybe smaller ones but those stand out).
These communities exist alongside the traditional cultural elements of the city and can often be blocks away. But, the areas tend to look a lot less like Chinatown and more like Flushing - maybe more insular, but still plenty authentic.
There's a variety of reasons for this I could speculate on, and three of the firmer ones are refugee resettlement (Minneapolis and Somalis, pre-cool Cali and Hmong, Michigan and Syrian refugees), Central/South American immigration patterns beyond the border states, and military bases which tend to show up all over the midwest/west/southeast/southwest (Korean, Vietnamese, German and maybe smaller ones but those stand out).
These communities exist alongside the traditional cultural elements of the city and can often be blocks away. But, the areas tend to look a lot less like Chinatown and more like Flushing - maybe more insular, but still plenty authentic.
Edit: The more I think about this the more I realize I'm probably unqualified to be having this discussion, since I really haven't lived in enough of these places to talk diversity of communities
Yeah I mean I agree with you in theory, but I just haven't seen that in practice. I'm not saying you're wrong - the most likely answer here is that I just haven't been to the places that you're talking about.
All of the midwestern cities that I've lived in have definitely lacked a lot of cultural diversity, even if you drive out to the outskirts of the city where the majority of minorities tend to live (again, in the cities I've been to).
Maybe because the majority of people in these cities aren't as interested in the diversity, so the diverse populations can't really start a business that succeeds since no one (outside of their tiny community) wants to go there?
Or, I'm just wrong and haven't been to the right places
Yeah I mean I agree with you in theory, but I just haven't seen that in practice. I'm not saying you're wrong - the most likely answer here is that I just haven't been to the places that you're talking about.
All of the midwestern cities that I've lived in have definitely lacked a lot of cultural diversity, even if you drive out to the outskirts of the city where the majority of minorities tend to live (again, in the cities I've been to).
Maybe because the majority of people in these cities aren't as interested in the diversity, so the diverse populations can't really start a business that succeeds since no one (outside of their tiny community) wants to go there?
Or, I'm just wrong and haven't been to the right places
Honestly we see the hate because any opinion to the contrary is punching down. Downvote me all you like, but if a New Yorker says "Milwaukee/St Louis/Cleveland is worse than New York for these reasons" they get seen as elitist, coastal snobs. If the reverse happens and someone says "New York sucks for these reasons", nobody blinks an eye. When really, both options have their pros and cons. I'm not going to claim New York is always better, but I don't think we should assume Cleveland is the best either.
Good point. I don't know that this explains everything, but it would be silly to think that this isn't at least part of it
>I mean yes, I get that it's expensive. I'm just surprised that SO may people have been seemingly staying in this place that they hate, driving up rent prices for everyone who wants to be in the city, just so they could keep whatever job they have. I mean if you really hated the city wouldn't you have looked elsewhere by now? It's not like it's competitive to get a job in one of these midwestern cities, so surely that great job you had in NYC that tied you there would guarantee you a way out of the city.
The level of divergence of economic growth opportunities between some economic regions over others can make it rational for people to stay in a place they hate. Even if you can get a job in any other city, maybe it might not last for the next 10 years. The real risks in your life start coming around age 50 when your health starts faltering, and your healthcare costs go up and at the same time your employability might go down.
Also, quality of life as you get older in VHCOL like SF and NYC is definitely not as nice if you're not very high income. You spend all your time commuting to work, and I found that people were basically unavailable Mon to Fri. Whatever life they had was all on weekends, and even then it's allocated scheduled events. Whereas in less competitive areas, you can go have dinner at a friend or family's house after work on a weekday, and you can go to the gym, and be there for your kids because you're not spending 90 min + on the subway or train or having to allocate extra time due to public transportation service outages.
The level of divergence of economic growth opportunities between some economic regions over others can make it rational for people to stay in a place they hate. Even if you can get a job in any other city, maybe it might not last for the next 10 years. The real risks in your life start coming around age 50 when your health starts faltering, and your healthcare costs go up and at the same time your employability might go down.
Also, quality of life as you get older in VHCOL like SF and NYC is definitely not as nice if you're not very high income. You spend all your time commuting to work, and I found that people were basically unavailable Mon to Fri. Whatever life they had was all on weekends, and even then it's allocated scheduled events. Whereas in less competitive areas, you can go have dinner at a friend or family's house after work on a weekday, and you can go to the gym, and be there for your kids because you're not spending 90 min + on the subway or train or having to allocate extra time due to public transportation service outages.
All good points, nothing to counter on my end lol
Don't forget Chicago is the 3rd largest city in the country. It's a wonderful foodie town, has great theaters, public transit, etc - everything I always hear is great about NYC. You're thinking Cleveland (yes - that's dead), not Chicago, Minneapolis, or Pittsburgh.
[deleted]
You're right, but I personally don't count Chicago. A distinction needs to be made between "big city" and "midwestern city" - they aren't mutually exclusive like some are alluding to (probably not on purpose). I think that it actually goes against the trend, since I'd consider it a "big city". It is interesting that so many people are moving there, considering the hot thing these days is moving away from big cities. Of course part of that is the fact that it has a good COL, and a lot of big city perks
Putting aside that Prince and the LGBT capital of the midwest make Minneapolis the coolest of cool, Chicago is the real dark horse in all of this.
The costs there, especially for apartments, and in really interesting areas(as in actually interesting to a NYC person), are honestly no slouch. Add in legit fintech jobs and salaries, it sounds like only the state politics and city challenges are keeping people away.
The costs there, especially for apartments, and in really interesting areas(as in actually interesting to a NYC person), are honestly no slouch. Add in legit fintech jobs and salaries, it sounds like only the state politics and city challenges are keeping people away.
I'd say Chicago is such a dark horse that it's unfair to include it in this article. Well not unfair exactly, but it doesn't fit in with the rest of the list given its size. The list is about midwestern cities, but we all know it's really talking about the migration of people from large to medium sized cities, of which Chicago is not one
Yeah not quite apples:apples. I'd move to CHI way quicker than I would Cleveland.
Maybe because not everyone is a brainwashed victim of jumped-up consumer society. Maybe you don't care about the new ramen place, and maybe you don't care about other people's ideas of "world class:". Maybe you'd rather spend time with your family.
If you go to Madison WI and want to "blow your brains out" maybe the problem is not Madison WI. Some of us do like the peace and quiet. Different strokes for different folks.
If you go to Madison WI and want to "blow your brains out" maybe the problem is not Madison WI. Some of us do like the peace and quiet. Different strokes for different folks.
Yeah I mean I was trying to convey that I understand why SOME people would like that, and maybe I failed at that. Though, to be fair, I don't think wanting to enjoy a good bowl of noodles as often as possible is as bad as a thing as you're making it out to be lol. I don't think there's anything objectively wrong with Madison. I'm just surprised that it seems like 99.999% of people would prefer that lifestyle to one in a bigger city. Family is something that throws a wrench into my whole comment lol, I understand I'm in the minority when it comes to that
I agree with you. Madison is a great college town, and it's a great place to raise kids, but the social life for non-college adults without kids is... not ideal.
I've been trying to get out of here and move to a bigger city, but the pandemic put those plans on hold. (Madison is a pretty good place to hunker down now, or was before they re-opened the University.)
I've been trying to get out of here and move to a bigger city, but the pandemic put those plans on hold. (Madison is a pretty good place to hunker down now, or was before they re-opened the University.)
That's fair. Sometimes I think having a family just flips a bit in our brains -- like that whole Larry Niven thing about the Pak Protectors lol. And you're right, I was being a bit unfair about the noodles ;)
For myself I've always been a person of quiet habits. I love visiting the big city and taking in the vibrancy and life (museums! concerts!), but, boy oh boy, the older I get, the more I like to come back to my small/medium-sized city. But there are people who literally live in the middle of nowhere and seem to be just fine. Who knows? The world is mysterious and complex.
Thanks for the reply.
For myself I've always been a person of quiet habits. I love visiting the big city and taking in the vibrancy and life (museums! concerts!), but, boy oh boy, the older I get, the more I like to come back to my small/medium-sized city. But there are people who literally live in the middle of nowhere and seem to be just fine. Who knows? The world is mysterious and complex.
Thanks for the reply.
Agreed, having a family I think changes just about everything for a lot (most?) of people. Eh I started it by being dramatic with the blowing brains out joke :)
I can see where you're coming from, and most of my friends are the same way. They would never want to live in a place like NYC, it's just too crazy and they want their space. Not that that's your exact reasoning, but I get it for some people
I can see where you're coming from, and most of my friends are the same way. They would never want to live in a place like NYC, it's just too crazy and they want their space. Not that that's your exact reasoning, but I get it for some people
If you want excitement, you can drive through parts of Chicago with bullet proof glass and experience a war zone.
ok granny ( just playin ;) )
My thought on this is that a lot of people were already anti-city for various reasons and the COVID shock has provided "proof" that their preference for non city living is best. A large amount of people seem to be unable to accept that others just prefer living in cities or the burbs or rural.
I guess it's part of our social hard-wiring. We can't just accept that we like this thing, we also need to believe that it's the best, and denigrate others who choose a different path.
I miss my public transit commute, my gym, my soccer club, and being able to go out with friends and just come across stuff happening. COVID has actually made it more clear to me that I'm a city person.
I miss my public transit commute, my gym, my soccer club, and being able to go out with friends and just come across stuff happening. COVID has actually made it more clear to me that I'm a city person.
True, I do think that's what's driving all of this negativity around cities. Maybe it's just a bunch of people who hated living in the city but were surrounded by people who liked it, but now they can finally come out with their true feelings. I'm in the same boat, COVID has cemented my feelings on the matter. I don't like that [some] people are celebrating the fall of big cities, because we already only have like 3 of them and some people actually like them
I worked with two developers in Boston who were DINK (Double Income No Kids) and they sold their Boston condo, moved to the Midwest (Minneapolis) and bought a six bedroom house on a lake and two jet-skis for the same price as their condo. Their cost of living went down tremendously. By their own standards they lost nothing compared to Boston (food/services/entertainment actually got better) except that they had to deal with people on the Coast saying how boring it must be - scratch that - they weren't listening because they were having to much fun on their jet-skis...
Not that winter in Boston is particularly pleasant, but I feel like the jetskis are going to be a lot less fun when it's -40 out.
Trade out jetskis for snowmobiles my friend
[deleted]
Jetskis in summer, snowmobiles in winter.
Bass boat in the summer, ice-fishing shanty in winter.
Hiking in summer, hiking wearing more layers in winter.
We do just fine. :)
Bass boat in the summer, ice-fishing shanty in winter.
Hiking in summer, hiking wearing more layers in winter.
We do just fine. :)
This is a very consumerist world view (get big house, get fun toys) that not everyone believes in. I choose to live in a more vibrant city where I essentially trade my money for opportunity, experiences, and community.
to each their own I suppose
Versus the highly spiritual experience of living in the pod, eating the bugs, paying the $4,500 every month to the landlord of the one bedroom, answering e-mails at 11:24 pm to be able to pay for it etc.
You oughta go to a better city.
Also, non-consumerist does not imply spiritual.
Also, non-consumerist does not imply spiritual.
Every growing city right now is going to be like that though. Block-after-block of Chipotle, Jamba Juice, and Whole Foods, 5 story apartment buildings with ground floor occupied only by the aforementioned.
A 6br lakefront house in Minneapolis is just as expensive as a nice condo in Boston (op literally notes they spent the same amount).
In Minneapolis or the close burbs or the fancy farther out burbs (Minnetonka, Wayzata) a 6 br lakefront house in not-great condition is over $1M. If it's a nice house, good shape, way over $1M. But you can go 30 minutes and change outside Minneapolis and get a nice 6 br lakefront for like $750k.
They could have also sunk all of the equity into index funds, and done the digital nomad thing [1], using investment income to boost quality of life.
I believe the point is, don't waste income on servicing housing debt unnecessarily (efficient use of capital). If jet skis and McMansions are your thing, cool. If you'd rather party it up in Medellín, Columbia while living off of dividends, also cool.
[1] https://nomadlist.com/cost-of-living/in/
I believe the point is, don't waste income on servicing housing debt unnecessarily (efficient use of capital). If jet skis and McMansions are your thing, cool. If you'd rather party it up in Medellín, Columbia while living off of dividends, also cool.
[1] https://nomadlist.com/cost-of-living/in/
And weather where you can enjoy the outdoors more than 3 months a year.
Minneapolis would have significantly different opportunities, experiences, and communities than Boston. I’m not sure I’d declare one over the other. In this example having the opportunity to spend a lot of time on or by the lake would be highly desirable, not directly consumerist, and more available in Minneapolis than Boston.
Just on the Boston note, the city wears itself out pretty quickly. COVID is actually showing this strongly. Freedom Trail and related powered a downtown that otherwise died since March.
Of course it'll come back whenever it does, but the "real culture" of the areas that aren't total millennial, college, or medical resident playgrounds is up in Cambridge /Somerville. And those two towns are pretty small ultimately with rough commutes into the city.
Minneapolis and the like start to grow on me, as it's trading one smallish cultural area for another, but at a fraction of the cost.
Of course it'll come back whenever it does, but the "real culture" of the areas that aren't total millennial, college, or medical resident playgrounds is up in Cambridge /Somerville. And those two towns are pretty small ultimately with rough commutes into the city.
Minneapolis and the like start to grow on me, as it's trading one smallish cultural area for another, but at a fraction of the cost.
Agreed. But on the other hand, we live in a connected and distributed world. You could always meet new people and colleagues through virtual networking events, virtual hackathons, even niche subreddits/HN/indiehackers etc.
What do people mean when they say a city is "vibrant"?
I'm not sure there's any one thing. When I think of New York City, which I would say is not only vibrant but nearly vibrating with energy, it's some combination of the following:
* A ton of different languages being spoken within earshot at any one time
* Lots of different smells at any one time, some delicious and certainly some much less so
* Lots of music where you do and do not expect it, all sorts of different genres sometimes complementing and sometimes juxtaposing the surroundings
* People physically moving and speaking faster
* The physical tightness of the city probably adds to all of the above
But most importantly, I think the above compose into an overall sense of serendipity. The phrase, "in the city, anything is possible" is frequently interpreted to mean, "you can achieve the highest version of what you want to achieve!" I think that's actually incorrect. It means exactly what it says: anything is possible. Relative to suburban or rural areas, you simply have no idea what is coming next minute-to-minute. That, I think, gives a sensation of constantly anticipating serendipity, which we round out to the word "vibrant."
* A ton of different languages being spoken within earshot at any one time
* Lots of different smells at any one time, some delicious and certainly some much less so
* Lots of music where you do and do not expect it, all sorts of different genres sometimes complementing and sometimes juxtaposing the surroundings
* People physically moving and speaking faster
* The physical tightness of the city probably adds to all of the above
But most importantly, I think the above compose into an overall sense of serendipity. The phrase, "in the city, anything is possible" is frequently interpreted to mean, "you can achieve the highest version of what you want to achieve!" I think that's actually incorrect. It means exactly what it says: anything is possible. Relative to suburban or rural areas, you simply have no idea what is coming next minute-to-minute. That, I think, gives a sensation of constantly anticipating serendipity, which we round out to the word "vibrant."
> "in the city, anything is possible"
I am reminded of this and grateful anytime I get interested in a new hobby. I started indoor rock climbing and discovered there are at least six gyms in my city that I can bike to. I got interested in film photography and found there was a great community darkroom with all the equipment needed to develop film and make prints. I discovered I enjoy board games and found there are dozens of clubs that meet regularly that I can choose from, depending on what types of games I like and how competitive I want the atmosphere to be. (Asterisk on all of this currently, due to the pandemic of course.)
I am reminded of this and grateful anytime I get interested in a new hobby. I started indoor rock climbing and discovered there are at least six gyms in my city that I can bike to. I got interested in film photography and found there was a great community darkroom with all the equipment needed to develop film and make prints. I discovered I enjoy board games and found there are dozens of clubs that meet regularly that I can choose from, depending on what types of games I like and how competitive I want the atmosphere to be. (Asterisk on all of this currently, due to the pandemic of course.)
This is a good description of the city intangibles.
I think it usually boils down to stuff like this.
I think it usually boils down to stuff like this.
[deleted]
Coffee shops, bars/pubs, cinemas, theaters, opera houses, bigger and nicer libraries, real, physical bookshops (at least for people like me, who visit them regularly like how other people are going to church), and I’m sure I must be missing some other stuff.
As an anecdote, I went through a dark time about 10 years ago and living in a big city and being able to see strangers each and every day on public transport helped me tremendously, it meant not having to live with my dark thoughts. I could have not had the same experience had I lived in suburbia or in the countryside.
As an anecdote, I went through a dark time about 10 years ago and living in a big city and being able to see strangers each and every day on public transport helped me tremendously, it meant not having to live with my dark thoughts. I could have not had the same experience had I lived in suburbia or in the countryside.
A formerly poor neighborhood in the process of being gentrified.
Hilariously enough my artist friends are moving to the racist white trash neighborhoods because those are the only places where they can afford the rent. Here's hoping an art school drop out doesn't get ideas in such an environment.
Hilariously enough my artist friends are moving to the racist white trash neighborhoods because those are the only places where they can afford the rent. Here's hoping an art school drop out doesn't get ideas in such an environment.
I don't think it's easy to describe in words. You actually have to be there. I've lived in a suburb of Toronto for most of my life (similar to a random American suburb), and when I went to Florence for the first time, I had a sense that the city was alive, independent of the people in it. It felt as if I was a part of something, even though I was just visiting for a couple of weeks. On the other hand, I didn't feel that in Rome.
[deleted]
My own hot take on this:
If the fundamental unit of value is provided by people, then the potential to get work done scales with the number of people engaged and ready to do it.
In a city like New York, there are a lot of talented people that are engaged in value creation. That creates an economic ecosystem that provides the potential to take an idea and bring it to value delivery with low friction.
Vibrancy, then, is the attribute where idea potential is able to reach value delivery with low friction.
This is evidenced by a lot of what the other posters have mentioned: restaurants, the arts, startups, etc. These are the result of that potential existing within the ecosystem.
If the fundamental unit of value is provided by people, then the potential to get work done scales with the number of people engaged and ready to do it.
In a city like New York, there are a lot of talented people that are engaged in value creation. That creates an economic ecosystem that provides the potential to take an idea and bring it to value delivery with low friction.
Vibrancy, then, is the attribute where idea potential is able to reach value delivery with low friction.
This is evidenced by a lot of what the other posters have mentioned: restaurants, the arts, startups, etc. These are the result of that potential existing within the ecosystem.
It's hard to say. I've lived din large cities in Europe almost my entire life and that experience was "normal" then moved to the US suburbs where almost nothing happens. But a few years later when I visited New York and stayed for 3 nights, oh man, it was such a weird energy. It felt like I needed to be out every second, it felt that if I spent an hour sleeping in my hotel it's an hour wasted somehow. The fact that at any point in the day or night there were people filling the sidewalks made me want to be out there with them. I don't know how to explain it, but there was an energy driving me to do more.
I can offer contrast between where I grew up, Cleveland, which is not a vibrant city, and Los Angeles, where I live now.
In Cleveland, no one walks. It's jarring when I visit home now and sometimes not seeing a soul walking beyond the occasional drunk down on their luck, even downtown. Even the poorest people here save for a $1000 car, and they can manage it because rent is $400 and insurance is dirt cheap. As a result of all this non walking, most restaurants and shops are located in suburban style developments with hundreds of cars parked in the lot. These are extremely popular. The Eaton Chagrin shopping center, for instance, gets so much traffic the exit ramp backs up onto 271 for a mile and the parking lot typically fills up entirely. I've never seen traffic quite like this in LA, spilling out from a highway offramp directly into a shopping center and gridlocking an entire interchange. Things are slow during rush hour in LA, but traffic actually moves, you are never stopped for 10 mins not moving at all unless there has been a serious car accident.
As a result of all this nonwalking, the few commercial corridors that were built in the streetcar era perennially suffer. For lease signs are more common than open signs, but luckily these rare small lot commercial parcels don't get turned over for development into big box agglomerations very often since the population of the metro area has been entirely stagnant for 50 years. This means that every restaurant and every bar is a drive, and this is a drive you have to make yourself as sometimes it takes 20-30 minutes to wait for an Uber to make it's way to your neighborhood, given the low demand and low density of the population. This is a recipe for a neutered nightlife, neutered pedestrian life, and serves to further amplify the feedback loop of clearing more woods in the fringe suburbs for tract housing and developing more suburban shopping centers.
Because of white flight, the city never really recovered. Cleveland used to have 1 million people living in its borders, now it's 380k, and the city is remarkably hollowed out and many historical buildings have been razed for surface parking. Urban development has focused on getting people downtown for a sports game and nothing more. The bars downtown are a recent phenomenom, brought on by millenials being drinking age and having literally no bars beyond suburban family taverns, bowling alleys, and formerlly smokey dive bars to frequent.
Then the winter hits, and things truly die. No public events really happen, and people just stay in their homes and try not to spend much time in the cold. If they want to spend time in the cold, they drive 4+ hours to upstate New York where there are ski resorts that take longer than 30 seconds to go down the hill.
In LA, every single street has someone walking. Every major artery has a bus that comes at least every 10 mins during rush hour, and I made extensive use of the busses before the pandemic. In other words, because of this sprawling high frequency bus network, the streetcar feel of the city never went away. Commercial corridors are sustained if they are on a bus line with decent ridership. My bus stop was even able to sustain a man who would be there every day in a canopy tent, selling solely roasted peanuts and socks (I'd like to think he started with a wider selection then ended up refining his inventory to his best selling commodities). Also on that corner was a cell phone repair store that also sold excellent crepes, my barbershop, a fruit seller, several weekend vendors, two taco trucks, a pizza shop and night club, several filipino restaurants, four markets, and in the evenings a churro vendor. And this is a rather unremarkable corner in the Rampart Village at first glance, but teeming with vibrancy for the pedestrian.
I walk down a random residential street in LA, and I have good odds of encountering someone selling elote, or sliced fruit, or a truck selling whole fruit directly out the back. The city feels like it's teeming with life, teeming with entrepreneurs, teeming with small business. Before the pandemic, it was rare to see a vacant storefront. Even now, local businesses are doing a lot better than I anticipated and few are folding, versus Cleveland where it seemed like in any given commercial corridor that wasn't a brand new strip mall, vacancy might be 80%.
In short, a vibrant city is like a vibrant ocean reef. Teeming with all walks of life everywhere you look.
In Cleveland, no one walks. It's jarring when I visit home now and sometimes not seeing a soul walking beyond the occasional drunk down on their luck, even downtown. Even the poorest people here save for a $1000 car, and they can manage it because rent is $400 and insurance is dirt cheap. As a result of all this non walking, most restaurants and shops are located in suburban style developments with hundreds of cars parked in the lot. These are extremely popular. The Eaton Chagrin shopping center, for instance, gets so much traffic the exit ramp backs up onto 271 for a mile and the parking lot typically fills up entirely. I've never seen traffic quite like this in LA, spilling out from a highway offramp directly into a shopping center and gridlocking an entire interchange. Things are slow during rush hour in LA, but traffic actually moves, you are never stopped for 10 mins not moving at all unless there has been a serious car accident.
As a result of all this nonwalking, the few commercial corridors that were built in the streetcar era perennially suffer. For lease signs are more common than open signs, but luckily these rare small lot commercial parcels don't get turned over for development into big box agglomerations very often since the population of the metro area has been entirely stagnant for 50 years. This means that every restaurant and every bar is a drive, and this is a drive you have to make yourself as sometimes it takes 20-30 minutes to wait for an Uber to make it's way to your neighborhood, given the low demand and low density of the population. This is a recipe for a neutered nightlife, neutered pedestrian life, and serves to further amplify the feedback loop of clearing more woods in the fringe suburbs for tract housing and developing more suburban shopping centers.
Because of white flight, the city never really recovered. Cleveland used to have 1 million people living in its borders, now it's 380k, and the city is remarkably hollowed out and many historical buildings have been razed for surface parking. Urban development has focused on getting people downtown for a sports game and nothing more. The bars downtown are a recent phenomenom, brought on by millenials being drinking age and having literally no bars beyond suburban family taverns, bowling alleys, and formerlly smokey dive bars to frequent.
Then the winter hits, and things truly die. No public events really happen, and people just stay in their homes and try not to spend much time in the cold. If they want to spend time in the cold, they drive 4+ hours to upstate New York where there are ski resorts that take longer than 30 seconds to go down the hill.
In LA, every single street has someone walking. Every major artery has a bus that comes at least every 10 mins during rush hour, and I made extensive use of the busses before the pandemic. In other words, because of this sprawling high frequency bus network, the streetcar feel of the city never went away. Commercial corridors are sustained if they are on a bus line with decent ridership. My bus stop was even able to sustain a man who would be there every day in a canopy tent, selling solely roasted peanuts and socks (I'd like to think he started with a wider selection then ended up refining his inventory to his best selling commodities). Also on that corner was a cell phone repair store that also sold excellent crepes, my barbershop, a fruit seller, several weekend vendors, two taco trucks, a pizza shop and night club, several filipino restaurants, four markets, and in the evenings a churro vendor. And this is a rather unremarkable corner in the Rampart Village at first glance, but teeming with vibrancy for the pedestrian.
I walk down a random residential street in LA, and I have good odds of encountering someone selling elote, or sliced fruit, or a truck selling whole fruit directly out the back. The city feels like it's teeming with life, teeming with entrepreneurs, teeming with small business. Before the pandemic, it was rare to see a vacant storefront. Even now, local businesses are doing a lot better than I anticipated and few are folding, versus Cleveland where it seemed like in any given commercial corridor that wasn't a brand new strip mall, vacancy might be 80%.
In short, a vibrant city is like a vibrant ocean reef. Teeming with all walks of life everywhere you look.
They were on track to be retired by the time they turned 40 by for the most part having very high incomes and very low overhead - they were planning on spending much more time on experiences then they were able to before.
This is a very consumerist world view (get opportunity and experiences) that not everyone believes in. I choose to live frugally so I can drop jobs when I find projects that interest me more than whatever I'm doing at the time.
For example I have spent the last week reading a very interesting book on transcendental number theory which is completely pointless for any job but has given me a lot more satisfaction than trying the latest ethnic fusion $500 a plate cuisine my peers seem to go insane over. Were it not for forest fires I would have moved to the mountains since sci-hub has made university libraries largely pointless.
For example I have spent the last week reading a very interesting book on transcendental number theory which is completely pointless for any job but has given me a lot more satisfaction than trying the latest ethnic fusion $500 a plate cuisine my peers seem to go insane over. Were it not for forest fires I would have moved to the mountains since sci-hub has made university libraries largely pointless.
I think many people can resonate with the desire for more physical space than afforded by a city condo. To describe it as "consumerist" seems a little excessive. The ease of access to nature is another huge plus of getting outside the city
Those 3 tend to have diminishing returns past 35/40, which is around the time lifestyle concerns that more trend towards safety (financial and otherwise) and stability start mattering much, much more.
It's like the professional equivalent of finally owning a paid-off car and realizing what a difference it all makes.
A nuked mortgage by a tech salary, a home with an extra bedroom that can support your ailing parents who lost their retirements in '08 and then again in '20, a stable school system that balances non-urban but also not bible belt, and the concept of actually being able to save up nearly full college for 3 kids.... all lives in midwestern tech jobs. Of course there are some cultural tradeoffs the less Minneapolis/Chicago and the more Boise/Des Moines you get, but it's a spectrum that's worth considering.
It's like the professional equivalent of finally owning a paid-off car and realizing what a difference it all makes.
A nuked mortgage by a tech salary, a home with an extra bedroom that can support your ailing parents who lost their retirements in '08 and then again in '20, a stable school system that balances non-urban but also not bible belt, and the concept of actually being able to save up nearly full college for 3 kids.... all lives in midwestern tech jobs. Of course there are some cultural tradeoffs the less Minneapolis/Chicago and the more Boise/Des Moines you get, but it's a spectrum that's worth considering.
What do two developers who are DINK need 6 bedrooms for? Genuinely curious.
Who said they needed 6 bedrooms?
they each had home offices and they were "centrally" located for family gatherings. mostly they just wanted the location.
1 bedroom for them + 2 bedrooms for the future kids + 2 rooms for office/storage/miscellaneous.
It's really not hard to find use for rooms.
It's really not hard to find use for rooms.
I don't think DINK implies a lack of desire for children, rather the current state of not having any (and consequently a large amount of disposable income).
in my experience, people with large incomes often have more rooms in their house than they actually need for day-to-day life. sometimes it's just a flex, but often they expect to host their extended family and/or friends (and even their families) over the holidays. nobody needs a second kitchen and four extra bedrooms, but it does make bringing the whole family together under one roof a lot less tense.
in my experience, people with large incomes often have more rooms in their house than they actually need for day-to-day life. sometimes it's just a flex, but often they expect to host their extended family and/or friends (and even their families) over the holidays. nobody needs a second kitchen and four extra bedrooms, but it does make bringing the whole family together under one roof a lot less tense.
1 bedroom for themselves, 2 offices, 3 cat rooms, one spare
I live alone and managed to find uses for 3, and I sleep on a couch in the living room, so am not using a bedroom for a bed. If I slept on a bed, I'd be able to make use of 4 bedrooms.
One is an exercise room. It's the first photo here [1].
The one in the second photo is the electronics and music room. Table on the left for my electronics stuff, and piano on the right (and guitars out of frame on the right, along with a bookshelf full of music books).
Third bedroom is the library, covered by the next two photos. 10 bookshelves.
I could easily see two developers use 6 bedrooms. 1 for sleeping, 1 for a library, 1 for exercise, 1 for a join hobby for interest, and 1 for each for a hobby or interest that the other doesn't share...and that's without even considering using a bedroom as a dedicated office for working from home.
[1] https://imgur.com/a/lVmMv86
One is an exercise room. It's the first photo here [1].
The one in the second photo is the electronics and music room. Table on the left for my electronics stuff, and piano on the right (and guitars out of frame on the right, along with a bookshelf full of music books).
Third bedroom is the library, covered by the next two photos. 10 bookshelves.
I could easily see two developers use 6 bedrooms. 1 for sleeping, 1 for a library, 1 for exercise, 1 for a join hobby for interest, and 1 for each for a hobby or interest that the other doesn't share...and that's without even considering using a bedroom as a dedicated office for working from home.
[1] https://imgur.com/a/lVmMv86
I get what you're saying, but even though I also think that's a ridiculous amount of space for two people without kids, plenty of people's purchase decisions are based on factors beyond the functional.
Some people like feeling of living in a palace. We have after all for millennia equated living in huge spaces with class and prosperity, and The industrial age, especially in last 30 years, has enabled more people than ever to live in palaces.
Of course, heating a six bedroom palace in Minnesota is no joke.
Some people like feeling of living in a palace. We have after all for millennia equated living in huge spaces with class and prosperity, and The industrial age, especially in last 30 years, has enabled more people than ever to live in palaces.
Of course, heating a six bedroom palace in Minnesota is no joke.
Why does a childless couple need six bedrooms? They must have a lot of guests coming to Minneapolis.
I'm skeptical that the food/services/entertainment is actually better. What's the Asian food scene in Minneapolis? Can you get Sichuan, Hunan, Henan, and Yunnan or is it just that one Sichuan place?
How about the movie theaters or theaters? I went from New York to Seattle and finding a theater that showed non-blockbusters was really hard. When I did find one, they were always three months behind New York. If I wanted to watch, say, Parasite, when could I do that? Four, five months after New York?
There's definitely some appeal to Minneapolis. You can't rent a jetski in New York and you certainly can't afford a mansion. But you also can't watch the latest Palm D'Or and get Yunnan noodles in Minneapolis.
How about the movie theaters or theaters? I went from New York to Seattle and finding a theater that showed non-blockbusters was really hard. When I did find one, they were always three months behind New York. If I wanted to watch, say, Parasite, when could I do that? Four, five months after New York?
There's definitely some appeal to Minneapolis. You can't rent a jetski in New York and you certainly can't afford a mansion. But you also can't watch the latest Palm D'Or and get Yunnan noodles in Minneapolis.
There are well known theaters in Minneapolis that focus on indie films.
The restaurant scene regularly wins James Beard awards.
Asian food seems to lean more Korean, Vietnamese (possibly from the large Hmong population in the state), and Thai.
Also, it would be hard to sound more pretentious.
The restaurant scene regularly wins James Beard awards.
Asian food seems to lean more Korean, Vietnamese (possibly from the large Hmong population in the state), and Thai.
Also, it would be hard to sound more pretentious.
Haha fair. I realize I sound very elitist there. Apologies. I agree that Minneapolis probably has wonderful theaters, food and other attractions, but I am skeptical that they're better than Boston or New York.
Well, I think that's just a mismatch in your desire vectors. A couple I know moved to Austin and the guy visited me recently in SF. He was just so happy to be able to eat all the Asian food here. I'm like him as well: I'd like a variety of cuisine that is actually simply not available in most places in America. I also want to be close to major airports, live in a highly ethnically diverse place, the ocean, and a general non-authoritarian vibe. If I lived in the Midwest I'm probably not going to be hyper thrilled.
My genuine hope is that people who don't want the things I do go to places where they're happy. Jobs being located where I want to live actually harms my overall QoL.
Anyway, I hope the dot product of feature availability and desire rise for places that are not San Francisco.
My genuine hope is that people who don't want the things I do go to places where they're happy. Jobs being located where I want to live actually harms my overall QoL.
Anyway, I hope the dot product of feature availability and desire rise for places that are not San Francisco.
For those jealous: they probably could use their jetskis from mid June to the late August, and stored them the rest of the year.
Minnesota is cold.
Minnesota is cold.
Then you just switch to snowmobiles...
>I worked with two developers in Boston who were DINK (Double Income No Kids) and they sold their Boston condo, moved to the Midwest (Minneapolis) and bought a six bedroom house on a lake and two jet-skis for the same price as their condo. Their cost of living went down tremendously. By their own standards they lost nothing compared to Boston (food/services/entertainment actually got better) except that they had to deal with people on the Coast saying how boring it must be.
Not understanding that other people might not want to live exactly the way you do is probably the most stereotypical Massachusetts thing ever.
Not understanding that other people might not want to live exactly the way you do is probably the most stereotypical Massachusetts thing ever.
Stats are from 2018, any idea what the trend has been in the last six months? Are a significant amount of workers truly leaving places like SF and NYC for a cheaper place in the Midwest?
From what I have read a lot of the movement during COVID has been from major metro are to nearby smaller city.
For example in my midwestern city (Minneapolis) there was a recent article in the paper about home prices in a smaller (but touristy / historic )town ~2 hours away (Duluth,MN). The claim was a lot of people from Minneapolis were moving there.
I've read the same about SF residents moving to Sacramento or something like that.
You can work from home, still hit the office 1-4x a month, see family, etc. so it makes sense.
For example in my midwestern city (Minneapolis) there was a recent article in the paper about home prices in a smaller (but touristy / historic )town ~2 hours away (Duluth,MN). The claim was a lot of people from Minneapolis were moving there.
I've read the same about SF residents moving to Sacramento or something like that.
You can work from home, still hit the office 1-4x a month, see family, etc. so it makes sense.
Yes. Droves of workers who got laid off and graduates who can't find a job. It's impossible to remain in the tech hubs without a job given how incredibly expensive the rent is. The average HN commenters at a comfortable FANG really don't grasp how bad the situation is for the rest of the people.
Even many of those at a comfortable FANG still live with roommates in shared housing and have no hope of buying a house on the peninsula where the median price is approaching $3M.
The anti-housing people are mostly locals that bought their house for $300k 20yrs ago and pay no property tax on its new value due to prop13.
The anti-housing people are mostly locals that bought their house for $300k 20yrs ago and pay no property tax on its new value due to prop13.
Minneapolis has a bunch of tech and startups. Microsoft, Cray, Amazon, AWS, Target, Best Buy, then a bunch of medical tech and insurance companies as well as associated startups.
I imagine the med tech AI space will develop here as well. Google is working with the Mayo in Rochester for example.
For people that work in any of these cities, how have you been enjoying it? What sort of tech companies are around? What do the job interviews and salaries out there look like?
For programmers in Indianapolis, there's numerous opportunities. Salesforce has helped advance the salary curve.
Job interviews are pretty straightforward. Nothing like the FAANG grind. Salaries are $80K fresh out of college. Surpassing $200k is doable at places like Salesforce, Eli Lilly, etc..
Lots of "routine" programming jobs are in the $100-$140k range going from Senior to Staff. Higher levels of IC and management of course go up from there.
A nice house costs $200k.
Job interviews are pretty straightforward. Nothing like the FAANG grind. Salaries are $80K fresh out of college. Surpassing $200k is doable at places like Salesforce, Eli Lilly, etc..
Lots of "routine" programming jobs are in the $100-$140k range going from Senior to Staff. Higher levels of IC and management of course go up from there.
A nice house costs $200k.
Can you link to a nice house as a reference?
Seems like a 20-25min drive into the city
It’s in the city limits, and there’s tech firms located all over the city and suburbs. It’d be about 20 min to get downtown though, yes.
There's lots of sprawl in cities like this, especially Indy. Everything is 20 minutes from everything else ;)
If you wanted a house in a more trendy, downtown neighborhood: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1627-Fletc...
If you wanted a house in a more trendy, downtown neighborhood: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1627-Fletc...
Appreciate it. Exactly what I was looking for.
The higher income people in Indianapolis with children tend to gather in the northern suburbs of Carmel/Zionsville, etc. Those house prices ($500k+) are similar to the higher income suburbs of many other higher cost of living cities.
> Salaries are $80K fresh out of college.
I think this is changing (for the higher) in some low cost of living areas (although I can't speak for the midwest) as tech talent moves out of SF. My good friend just got a $120k offer for a pretty "routine" new grad job.
e: for clarity
I think this is changing (for the higher) in some low cost of living areas (although I can't speak for the midwest) as tech talent moves out of SF. My good friend just got a $120k offer for a pretty "routine" new grad job.
e: for clarity
what location and what company (if you can share?) Most ranges I've seen around this parts are 80-120k and upwards of 140-150 for senior talent.
Y'know - a bit of a brain fart on my part, because I forgot we were discussing the midwest in particular and not low cost of living in general.
This was an offer in North Carolina for a testing role, but I'd rather not share the company without asking her.
This was an offer in North Carolina for a testing role, but I'd rather not share the company without asking her.
similar here in detroit but anything above 140k is going to be extremely rare. You probably would have to have some serious negotiation power/leverage to be able to get that.
The problem is the compensation ceiling in these cities. It’s not the Midwest, but when I was searching in Atlanta for tech jobs to stay closer to family, the upper limit was about $150k, which I think was at Square. There are other non-tech companies that offer SWE positions (The Home Depot, Warner Media), but you will always be treated as a cost center and the career growth is limited.
Meanwhile, SWE comp at FANG can end up closer to $350k for senior engineers and $600k for staff positions. With a lot of these companies now offering permanent remote work, even a 50% pay cut is better than the local offerings.
Meanwhile, SWE comp at FANG can end up closer to $350k for senior engineers and $600k for staff positions. With a lot of these companies now offering permanent remote work, even a 50% pay cut is better than the local offerings.
FAANG is currently pretending that the high-pay given to high-quality Bay area engineers is due to the cost-of-living.
I think once remote work really starts in full swing, we'll see wages in remote regions rise as companies realize that they are essentially negotiating with the same people, who still expect to be paid highly for their work.
I think once remote work really starts in full swing, we'll see wages in remote regions rise as companies realize that they are essentially negotiating with the same people, who still expect to be paid highly for their work.
The people making the hiring decisions are providing high pay because if they don't, then the person they want to hire has the option of working elsewhere for high pay. The people accepting the high pay are able to get the high pay because they have the option of selling their labor to someone else who will give them high pay.
Price is based on supply and demand curves, and cost of living isn't directly a causal factor. If it is true that FAANG can keep printing money while hiring people willing to accept lower pay, then that will happen but it will be because the FAANG's prospective supply of labor would have increased.
Price is based on supply and demand curves, and cost of living isn't directly a causal factor. If it is true that FAANG can keep printing money while hiring people willing to accept lower pay, then that will happen but it will be because the FAANG's prospective supply of labor would have increased.
I think you'd sooner see wages fall than rise. People are working those salaries in cheap areas because they couldn't get a higher salary elsewhere, after all. There is a finite amount of these highly paid positions and far more qualified people.
> There is a finite amount of these highly paid positions and far more qualified people.
Disagree - I think that the reality is that most of those in the US who are qualified are already living on the West coast. People underestimate the entry barriers to tech because they are already good at tech.
Salaries will fall as more Gen Z (grew up with tech) enter the labor market, but I'm already seeing higher offers in LCOL areas because the tech labor market remains tight in tech right now.
Disagree - I think that the reality is that most of those in the US who are qualified are already living on the West coast. People underestimate the entry barriers to tech because they are already good at tech.
Salaries will fall as more Gen Z (grew up with tech) enter the labor market, but I'm already seeing higher offers in LCOL areas because the tech labor market remains tight in tech right now.
The real differentiation between west coast/{"non-traditional"|LCOL} areas seems to be around non-base compensation offerings.
I've got a friend who is a remote L6 solutions architect with AWS. His compensation is decidedly west coast: ~30% annual bonus and insane RSU grants, while his base is near or below mine. Stock offerings are atypical in the companies in many of these areas, and 30% bonus is unheard of for technical people.
So while LCOL areas may have better base comp, people expecting six figures worth of stock grants aren't going to bite.
What that means I'm not smart enough to know. :)
I've got a friend who is a remote L6 solutions architect with AWS. His compensation is decidedly west coast: ~30% annual bonus and insane RSU grants, while his base is near or below mine. Stock offerings are atypical in the companies in many of these areas, and 30% bonus is unheard of for technical people.
So while LCOL areas may have better base comp, people expecting six figures worth of stock grants aren't going to bite.
What that means I'm not smart enough to know. :)
I think it runs the gambit, but for sure medical, biotech, and ag companies are huge. One of the biggest and fastest growths we've seen in Madison (even if we weren't cool enough to make the list) is Exact Sciences -- a company that provides and tests mail-in poop kits to test for early signs of colon cancer.
Not working at a tech company, but I live in the Des Moines area. I bet most people don't realize Des Moines is a finance and insurance hub, with Wells Fargo as the largest employer, Principal Financial headquartered here, and numerous other insurance companies.
The cost of living is quite low, and it's routinely ranked very highly on the "good places to live" lists that pop up periodically.
The cost of living is quite low, and it's routinely ranked very highly on the "good places to live" lists that pop up periodically.
Last year I was lured from New York City to one of the US's big 25 metro areas, not in the Midwest.
In New York, I would go to topic-focused programming meetups at Facebook's NYC headquarters and there would be over 200 people there, meeting after meeting. There's nothing like that here. The local university has some tech meetups, and there are some in the city center, but they look nothing like in New York. Due to Covid, I have not gone to any (and they seem to be cancelled any how).
Right now here, there are a handful of job openings that I am well-qualified for, but I can count them on one hand. In New York there are more job openings I could go in for. It's one of the biggest drawbacks in terms of a long term future here.
I have friends in the Phoenix metro area. The Phoenix metro area is larger than the Bay area metro area population wise, but the tech scene is smaller, and it small enough that everyone seems to know each other.
One nice thing in 2000 is as the dot-coms imploded, the job market in New York was not as heavily impacted as the Bay Area market. I started 2000 working for a startup that had IPO'd and ended it working for an investment bank. My salary was bumped up slightly, whereas some more junior people I knew in the Bay Area were laid off as their startups went bust and had trouble finding jobs out there as the market was flooded with junior or even mid-level talent.
I do know good, senior people who are tied to this area for one reason or another, who have moved around the handful of companies that are here. There are only a few big companies here employing a lot of programmers, so just like Phoenix, everybody seems to know each other here. When people are unhappy at my company, they contact former co-workers who moved to one of the other big companies and get pulled into their teams at their companies.
There aren't many "tech" companies, you're working for a Fortune 1000 company in their IT department usually here. Or a smaller company, although startup funding is not fantastic here.
I am not capable of senior level pay on my current stack yet, and a nice, large apartment in a nice, convenient neighborhood is cheaper than in NYC (although not incredibly cheaper). So I don't have much to complain on the salary front. But as it stands, there are less openings on the job market locally, and as I become more senior, it might even feel more constrained. Local companies have trouble attracting and retaining senior talent, and there is a reason for that. My company has been changing compensations rates around and making other changes in order to lure more talent.
Primarily due to the smaller number of job openings locally I don't see much of a long term future here outside of my current company. If I ever decide to look around, it will probably be in New York City or in the Bay Area. And my reasons for going back to New York City would include personal ones. Although one very good young programmer I know said he would prefer New York over San Francisco as he thinks New York would have more of a nightlife etc.
In New York, I would go to topic-focused programming meetups at Facebook's NYC headquarters and there would be over 200 people there, meeting after meeting. There's nothing like that here. The local university has some tech meetups, and there are some in the city center, but they look nothing like in New York. Due to Covid, I have not gone to any (and they seem to be cancelled any how).
Right now here, there are a handful of job openings that I am well-qualified for, but I can count them on one hand. In New York there are more job openings I could go in for. It's one of the biggest drawbacks in terms of a long term future here.
I have friends in the Phoenix metro area. The Phoenix metro area is larger than the Bay area metro area population wise, but the tech scene is smaller, and it small enough that everyone seems to know each other.
One nice thing in 2000 is as the dot-coms imploded, the job market in New York was not as heavily impacted as the Bay Area market. I started 2000 working for a startup that had IPO'd and ended it working for an investment bank. My salary was bumped up slightly, whereas some more junior people I knew in the Bay Area were laid off as their startups went bust and had trouble finding jobs out there as the market was flooded with junior or even mid-level talent.
I do know good, senior people who are tied to this area for one reason or another, who have moved around the handful of companies that are here. There are only a few big companies here employing a lot of programmers, so just like Phoenix, everybody seems to know each other here. When people are unhappy at my company, they contact former co-workers who moved to one of the other big companies and get pulled into their teams at their companies.
There aren't many "tech" companies, you're working for a Fortune 1000 company in their IT department usually here. Or a smaller company, although startup funding is not fantastic here.
I am not capable of senior level pay on my current stack yet, and a nice, large apartment in a nice, convenient neighborhood is cheaper than in NYC (although not incredibly cheaper). So I don't have much to complain on the salary front. But as it stands, there are less openings on the job market locally, and as I become more senior, it might even feel more constrained. Local companies have trouble attracting and retaining senior talent, and there is a reason for that. My company has been changing compensations rates around and making other changes in order to lure more talent.
Primarily due to the smaller number of job openings locally I don't see much of a long term future here outside of my current company. If I ever decide to look around, it will probably be in New York City or in the Bay Area. And my reasons for going back to New York City would include personal ones. Although one very good young programmer I know said he would prefer New York over San Francisco as he thinks New York would have more of a nightlife etc.
In St. Louis, almost all of the engineers working for me in the past 5 years have had total comp between 100 and 170. New grads were in 60-80 range, but I think one or two job changes should have you at 100 in your first 3-5 years.
(Obvious throwaway ;-))
I live & work in one of these cities and have my entire career. I currently work in a midsized tech company but my experiences and numbers hold with my previous work at a non-tech enterprise.
In general, the numbers I see:
* Individual contributor salaries range from 80k to 120k, with a bonus structure from 6%-8% annually.
* Upper-tier ICs and people managers tend to be around 110k-145k with 8-10% bonuses
Currently as a principal engineer I make ~$165k with a 12% annual bonus target. Previously as an enterprise architect I was on around ~$155k with a 15% bonus. A friend at a senior director level is around $185k and I'm not sure about the bonus but I know it is 15%+.
There are a variety of tech companies in the area, but many jobs are tech jobs at a "non-tech company": banking, insurance, healthcare, manufacturing. Even then, don't underestimate the size and scope of what is done; my last job had an IT department of around 200 and was responsible for running a ton of complex systems.
You'll probably skew towards midsized companies to large enterprises. While there are some regional startup incubators you just don't have the same access to capital that you do in the Bay area.
It's ludicrously affordable to live here:
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/43-Fairfie...
I could find a similar home for around $75k.
There's plenty of cultural activities, dining, nightlife - I couldn't be happier.
The biggest risk is likely the limited amount of "slots at the top": there are probably at most a few dozen top-tier positions to fill in this market, so job changes have to be carefully considered and planned.
I live & work in one of these cities and have my entire career. I currently work in a midsized tech company but my experiences and numbers hold with my previous work at a non-tech enterprise.
In general, the numbers I see:
* Individual contributor salaries range from 80k to 120k, with a bonus structure from 6%-8% annually.
* Upper-tier ICs and people managers tend to be around 110k-145k with 8-10% bonuses
Currently as a principal engineer I make ~$165k with a 12% annual bonus target. Previously as an enterprise architect I was on around ~$155k with a 15% bonus. A friend at a senior director level is around $185k and I'm not sure about the bonus but I know it is 15%+.
There are a variety of tech companies in the area, but many jobs are tech jobs at a "non-tech company": banking, insurance, healthcare, manufacturing. Even then, don't underestimate the size and scope of what is done; my last job had an IT department of around 200 and was responsible for running a ton of complex systems.
You'll probably skew towards midsized companies to large enterprises. While there are some regional startup incubators you just don't have the same access to capital that you do in the Bay area.
It's ludicrously affordable to live here:
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/43-Fairfie...
I could find a similar home for around $75k.
There's plenty of cultural activities, dining, nightlife - I couldn't be happier.
The biggest risk is likely the limited amount of "slots at the top": there are probably at most a few dozen top-tier positions to fill in this market, so job changes have to be carefully considered and planned.
Not a typical situation, but I work at a FAANG office that's located in the midwest (I grew up here, so it's all I know culture-wise). The salary is great (paid similar to non-bayarea west coast), but the job interview was the same process as with the coasts and there were a lot of good and experienced applicants per position since this is one of the best-paying opportunities here.
Personally, I strongly prefer this to the hustle and bustle of the big and expensive cities - that's my preference though, and I know that it's not for everyone.
Personally, I strongly prefer this to the hustle and bustle of the big and expensive cities - that's my preference though, and I know that it's not for everyone.
[deleted]
Chicago is vibrant (lots of restaurants, theaters, etc), easy to get around (great, safe transit and often dense neighborhoods), and cheapish (really solid places to live for just about any budget >$700/month).
This article is misleading about tech jobs, though. They're tech roles at non-tech companies. Even our local unicorns are companies like ShipBob (great co, to be clear, just not that _sexy_).
This article is misleading about tech jobs, though. They're tech roles at non-tech companies. Even our local unicorns are companies like ShipBob (great co, to be clear, just not that _sexy_).
1. Chicago: 8th overall US, 344,146 positions, 17.9% growth 2010--2018.
2. Detroit: 11th , 241,135, 37.2%
3. Minneapolis, 14th, 196,151, 17%
4. Kansas City, 24th, 100,782, 17.3%
5. Cincinnati, 28th, 82,088, 23.9%
6. Cleveland, 29th, 76,698, 16.3%
7. Indianapolis, 31st, 74,615, 24.2%
8. Milwaukee, 32nd, 71,755, 9.2%
9. Omaha, 40th, 37,508, 10.7%
10. Des Moines, 42nd, 28,693, 26.9%
TFW article is basically a textualised spreadsheet.
Not listed: wage levels, cost-of-living, industries, skillsets.
2. Detroit: 11th , 241,135, 37.2%
3. Minneapolis, 14th, 196,151, 17%
4. Kansas City, 24th, 100,782, 17.3%
5. Cincinnati, 28th, 82,088, 23.9%
6. Cleveland, 29th, 76,698, 16.3%
7. Indianapolis, 31st, 74,615, 24.2%
8. Milwaukee, 32nd, 71,755, 9.2%
9. Omaha, 40th, 37,508, 10.7%
10. Des Moines, 42nd, 28,693, 26.9%
TFW article is basically a textualised spreadsheet.
Not listed: wage levels, cost-of-living, industries, skillsets.
They should normalize by population/
Chicago has a lot of tech jobs, but also a lot of people. 3rd in population and 8th in tech suggests it's the opposite of a hub. I wonder how much of the hiring is companies like McDonalds, United, or Boeing rather than FAANG.
Chicago has a lot of tech jobs, but also a lot of people. 3rd in population and 8th in tech suggests it's the opposite of a hub. I wonder how much of the hiring is companies like McDonalds, United, or Boeing rather than FAANG.
Maybe, but I think probably not. Market rates (a measure of local supply and demand) would be more useful.
Applying network theory, though up to a substantial fraction of total employment, it's absolute and not relative size that matters.
As of May 2019, total SF Bay Area tech employment was 835,600, an increase of 116,900 over the December 2000 dot-com peak. That increase alone would rank 4th on this midwest list.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/07/05/tech-jobs-soar-all-ti...
In that 835,600 Bay Area workforce, what you're going to find is both breadth 8and* depth. Need the best, or a top-ten, or the top-ten devs in a specific skill? You'll likely find it. Need 10, or 100, or 1,000, or 10,000 bodies within a given specialty or skillset? Likely there as well, certainly more8 likely than elsewhere.
Want to attract* remote talent? Pretty good odds. At least until housing got too rich and smoke too thick. Want to swipe local talent? Noncompetes illegal FTFW, just make a good enough offer.
It's not as if tech talent competes against non-tech talent. It doesn't. At least not for jobs. For housing and transport, yes, but that's where the SF Bay Area by and large loses.
And I'm not making the case for the midwest hubs, mostly the opposite. Unless there's some specific centre of excellence ... they're simply not going to attract talent. The body counts are likely for basic tech skills generally.
The West coast offers entertainment (VFX/CGI/gaming), search, social, ads, business automation (Oracle, Salesforce), commerce, HW & devices (Apple), and some relic defense tech, plus modest manufacturing. NYC has more ads & entertainment, and finance. DC has government, defence, and surveillance.
The midwest has ... relic manufacturing, some new manufacturing, healthcare, food & ag, a lot of back-office work, and ... not too much else that really comes to mind. Real estate? (Cratering.)
Plus a lot of tech-unfriendly legal and political legacy.
Chicago ... kind of has scale? But at 40% the size of the Bay Area's scale, even if equally complex and skilled, by Metcalf's law it would have one sixth the net value.
(There are plenty of issues with Metcalfe's law, this just illustrates how much scale effects alone might affect net prospects.)
Applying network theory, though up to a substantial fraction of total employment, it's absolute and not relative size that matters.
As of May 2019, total SF Bay Area tech employment was 835,600, an increase of 116,900 over the December 2000 dot-com peak. That increase alone would rank 4th on this midwest list.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/07/05/tech-jobs-soar-all-ti...
In that 835,600 Bay Area workforce, what you're going to find is both breadth 8and* depth. Need the best, or a top-ten, or the top-ten devs in a specific skill? You'll likely find it. Need 10, or 100, or 1,000, or 10,000 bodies within a given specialty or skillset? Likely there as well, certainly more8 likely than elsewhere.
Want to attract* remote talent? Pretty good odds. At least until housing got too rich and smoke too thick. Want to swipe local talent? Noncompetes illegal FTFW, just make a good enough offer.
It's not as if tech talent competes against non-tech talent. It doesn't. At least not for jobs. For housing and transport, yes, but that's where the SF Bay Area by and large loses.
And I'm not making the case for the midwest hubs, mostly the opposite. Unless there's some specific centre of excellence ... they're simply not going to attract talent. The body counts are likely for basic tech skills generally.
The West coast offers entertainment (VFX/CGI/gaming), search, social, ads, business automation (Oracle, Salesforce), commerce, HW & devices (Apple), and some relic defense tech, plus modest manufacturing. NYC has more ads & entertainment, and finance. DC has government, defence, and surveillance.
The midwest has ... relic manufacturing, some new manufacturing, healthcare, food & ag, a lot of back-office work, and ... not too much else that really comes to mind. Real estate? (Cratering.)
Plus a lot of tech-unfriendly legal and political legacy.
Chicago ... kind of has scale? But at 40% the size of the Bay Area's scale, even if equally complex and skilled, by Metcalf's law it would have one sixth the net value.
(There are plenty of issues with Metcalfe's law, this just illustrates how much scale effects alone might affect net prospects.)
Just because the markup glitches are annoying me so much:
______________________________
Maybe, but I think probably not. Market rates (a measure of local supply and demand) would be more useful.
Applying network theory, though up to a substantial fraction of total employment, it's absolute and not relative size that matters.
As of May 2019, total SF Bay Area tech employment was 835,600, an increase of 116,900 over the December 2000 dot-com peak. That increase alone would rank 4th on this midwest list.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/07/05/tech-jobs-soar-all-ti...
In that 835,600 Bay Area workforce, what you're going to find is both breadth and depth. Need the best, or a top-ten, or the top-ten devs in a specific skill? You'll likely find it. Need 10, or 100, or 1,000, or 10,000 bodies within a given specialty or skillset? Likely there as well, certainly more likely than elsewhere.
Want to attract remote talent? Pretty good odds. At least until housing got too rich and smoke too thick. Want to swipe local talent? Noncompetes illegal FTFW, just make a good enough offer.
It's not as if tech talent competes against non-tech talent. It doesn't. At least not for jobs. For housing and transport, yes, but that's where the SF Bay Area by and large loses.
And I'm not making the case for the midwest hubs, mostly the opposite. Unless there's some specific centre of excellence ... they're simply not going to attract talent. The body counts are likely for basic tech skills generally.
The West coast offers entertainment (VFX/CGI/gaming), search, social, ads, business automation (Oracle, Salesforce), commerce, HW & devices (Apple), and some relic defense tech, plus modest manufacturing. NYC has more ads & entertainment, and finance. DC has government, defence, and surveillance.
The midwest has ... relic manufacturing, some new manufacturing, healthcare, food & ag, a lot of back-office work, and ... not too much else that really comes to mind. Real estate? (Cratering.)
Plus a lot of tech-unfriendly legal and political legacy.
Chicago ... kind of has scale? But at 40% the size of the Bay Area's scale, even if equally complex and skilled, by Metcalf's law it would have one sixth the net value.
(There are plenty of issues with Metcalfe's law, this just illustrates how much scale effects alone might affect net prospects.)
______________________________
Maybe, but I think probably not. Market rates (a measure of local supply and demand) would be more useful.
Applying network theory, though up to a substantial fraction of total employment, it's absolute and not relative size that matters.
As of May 2019, total SF Bay Area tech employment was 835,600, an increase of 116,900 over the December 2000 dot-com peak. That increase alone would rank 4th on this midwest list.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/07/05/tech-jobs-soar-all-ti...
In that 835,600 Bay Area workforce, what you're going to find is both breadth and depth. Need the best, or a top-ten, or the top-ten devs in a specific skill? You'll likely find it. Need 10, or 100, or 1,000, or 10,000 bodies within a given specialty or skillset? Likely there as well, certainly more likely than elsewhere.
Want to attract remote talent? Pretty good odds. At least until housing got too rich and smoke too thick. Want to swipe local talent? Noncompetes illegal FTFW, just make a good enough offer.
It's not as if tech talent competes against non-tech talent. It doesn't. At least not for jobs. For housing and transport, yes, but that's where the SF Bay Area by and large loses.
And I'm not making the case for the midwest hubs, mostly the opposite. Unless there's some specific centre of excellence ... they're simply not going to attract talent. The body counts are likely for basic tech skills generally.
The West coast offers entertainment (VFX/CGI/gaming), search, social, ads, business automation (Oracle, Salesforce), commerce, HW & devices (Apple), and some relic defense tech, plus modest manufacturing. NYC has more ads & entertainment, and finance. DC has government, defence, and surveillance.
The midwest has ... relic manufacturing, some new manufacturing, healthcare, food & ag, a lot of back-office work, and ... not too much else that really comes to mind. Real estate? (Cratering.)
Plus a lot of tech-unfriendly legal and political legacy.
Chicago ... kind of has scale? But at 40% the size of the Bay Area's scale, even if equally complex and skilled, by Metcalf's law it would have one sixth the net value.
(There are plenty of issues with Metcalfe's law, this just illustrates how much scale effects alone might affect net prospects.)
SF Bay area, May 2019: 835,000.
Here I was just recently eyeballing Minneapolis tech jobs and as salaries vs. 5 bedroom non-mcmansion houses with front porch and some woods nearby. Man it's getting to be an interesting sell. Chicago too if NYC is more your vibe.
These jobs are tech roles in non-tech companies. Boeing, United, McDonalds, Koch Industries... all are big in the midwest, all need lots of tech folks, none are particularly techy companies.
All the really good tech people I've met either (1) leave for SV/NY or (2) work for quant trading shops.
For context, FAANG job postings in the midwest are all satellite-office positions: they'll hire good engineers here, but you're kinda working remote in the downtown office at a certain point.
All the really good tech people I've met either (1) leave for SV/NY or (2) work for quant trading shops.
For context, FAANG job postings in the midwest are all satellite-office positions: they'll hire good engineers here, but you're kinda working remote in the downtown office at a certain point.
Off-topic - for any other non-Americans wondering why this eastern area is considered western: "The term West was applied to the region in the early years of the country. In the early 19th century, anything west of Appalachia was considered the West"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States#Backg...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States#Backg...
Right, but news flash: It's not 1840 any more. Chicago isn't the frontier. Chicago and anywhere east of there is east.
... at least geographically. Culturally, those places are midwest, just like everywhere from just west of Pittsburgh to just east of Denver. (Culturally, Pittsburgh is at least partly east, and Denver is at least partly west.)
... at least geographically. Culturally, those places are midwest, just like everywhere from just west of Pittsburgh to just east of Denver. (Culturally, Pittsburgh is at least partly east, and Denver is at least partly west.)
You're news-flashing me? I know what east and west are, hence the explanation for a name that currently makes no sense.
Well, news-flashing whoever keeps using the name for places east of Chicago.
Related gripe: The University of Michigan's fight song calls them "the champions of the west". Once upon a time that sort of made sense, because they played in an athletic conference that had "west" in the name. But the name of the conference didn't make sense, because California already was a state.
Related gripe: The University of Michigan's fight song calls them "the champions of the west". Once upon a time that sort of made sense, because they played in an athletic conference that had "west" in the name. But the name of the conference didn't make sense, because California already was a state.
What states other than California have reasonable protections for employees' side projects and protections against non-compete agreements?
I don't think any do. Washington almost had a non compete ban, and hopefully it goes through next time.
I would never consider a state that didn't even have parental leave benefits, simply because I would rather my descendants live in a state with some level of protections for employees versus employers. Although a mix of California's laws about overtime pay, giving option of sitting, non competes, and personal projects plus Washington's minimum wages for both hourly and salaried exempt employees would be ideal.
I would never consider a state that didn't even have parental leave benefits, simply because I would rather my descendants live in a state with some level of protections for employees versus employers. Although a mix of California's laws about overtime pay, giving option of sitting, non competes, and personal projects plus Washington's minimum wages for both hourly and salaried exempt employees would be ideal.
> I would never consider a state that didn't even have parental leave benefits, simply because I would rather my descendants live in a state with some level of protections for employees versus employers.
I can understand that, thought I don't personally relate. Once they're grown my kids will likely be able to live in whatever state they want, I just want to make sure they have a good environment for growing up. For me, things like school choice are more important (which California is actually pretty good on).
Also, I haven't personally been in a position where using the state sponsored parental leave made sense. Instead, a combination of saving up vacation time, working from home, and whatever benefits my employer provided for me made more sense. Not a complaint, just an observation.
I can understand that, thought I don't personally relate. Once they're grown my kids will likely be able to live in whatever state they want, I just want to make sure they have a good environment for growing up. For me, things like school choice are more important (which California is actually pretty good on).
Also, I haven't personally been in a position where using the state sponsored parental leave made sense. Instead, a combination of saving up vacation time, working from home, and whatever benefits my employer provided for me made more sense. Not a complaint, just an observation.
How does this increase compare with other regions?
And importantly, how does this increase compare with the amount of engineers available?
It’s all fine and dandy to say there have been cities where “tech jobs has increased more than 100% in these cities” but it says nothing of the labor market. I am under the presumption that labor is exploding for software/tech.
My biggest reason for not moving to non-tech hubs is the lack of companies employing engineers. There are only so many, whereas in the Bay... you could make interviewing your full time job and likely never run out.
It’s all fine and dandy to say there have been cities where “tech jobs has increased more than 100% in these cities” but it says nothing of the labor market. I am under the presumption that labor is exploding for software/tech.
My biggest reason for not moving to non-tech hubs is the lack of companies employing engineers. There are only so many, whereas in the Bay... you could make interviewing your full time job and likely never run out.
It's remarkable to see Detroit on this list, and I'd love to learn how they gathered these numbers. Years ago, I heard the quip that "the janitor at Apple is counted as a tech worker, but the supercomputer engineer at Ford is counted as an auto worker".
Clearly this analysis has solved that. Why have so others missed it?
Clearly this analysis has solved that. Why have so others missed it?
It's not the auto companies that are bringing Detroit up for tech. They are ancient outdated behemoths working on auto focused things. There are a handful of smaller tech companies that do the sexy work for the big 3 though. It's the places like Quicken or Dominos that are putting Detroit on the map for tech.
It is hard to tell if this is general trend or workforce relocation, when only looking at data in these picked cities and for past few years. Job posting data from this year due to pandemic may tell a better story.
Just wait till all the companies start to figure out that they can hire highly talented people in places like the Philippines or India for one tenth of the price of the Midwest.
Most large companies in the US have offices in India and have had them for a while now.
They have, which is why on-shoring has been making a comeback for the last five years
Well yeah, you can pay people pennies on the dollar here while they're convinced it's "cool" to live in bum-f*ck middle america. If you're lucky they might even buy a house, adding another barrier to leaving and moving to a real tech-hub once covid is no longer an issue.
"Take him to Detroit"!!
No thanks
If you want to live in a mansion, the Midwest makes this dream obtainable. Buy a 6 bedroom, lake (reservoir) side, 4k sqr ft home for less than a million. Of if you want an acre of lawn, but not live too far in the country.
What you will find is that people are friendly, as long as you look like them (white). (EDIT: This gets more pronounced the more rural you are. Cities tend to be more accepting. What you will find is that rural areas have more relative sway on thought compared to the West Coast.) Towns outside of major metropolitan areas are dying as most major industries that supported that last two generations have left. Drugs are a huge issue, but its not as obvious because the floor for homelessness is so much lower. The only major infrastructure and building projects that get approved are sports stadiums, because idiots in local government rather have sports teams than functioning schools.
What the Midwest does have is solid engineering and research universities, that graduate thousands of STEM oriented students a year. Unfortunately there are often over an hour from the nearest 250k+ city. I went to one, and I think less than 25% of my friends stayed in state. The brain drain is real.