Talent May Be Shifting Away from Superstar Cities: Study(citylab.com)
citylab.com
Talent May Be Shifting Away from Superstar Cities: Study
https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/11/job-growth-cities-county-data-workers-talent-attraction/602200
206 comments
> recent grads that stay for longer than three years since we invest in their career growth and provide much more mentorship.
definitely not why recent grads stay. wet behind the ears folks don’t know any better so don’t know how good they have it. they stay for either the reason they are there in the first place: quality of life; or out out of inertia; or from lack of thinking big. NOT because they realize they’ve got it good.
definitely not why recent grads stay. wet behind the ears folks don’t know any better so don’t know how good they have it. they stay for either the reason they are there in the first place: quality of life; or out out of inertia; or from lack of thinking big. NOT because they realize they’ve got it good.
This seems really dependent on finding a good company with openings, which is not always the case. I tried to stay in the Midwest as a recent cs grad with an internship under my belt, but after spending 4 months doing job search I just gave up and went coastal.
1. The offers I got were abysmally small and out of touch with the market even when adjusting for my experience and local cost of living.
2. Most places were either extremely poorly reviewed on glassdoor, or were not hiring junior/midlevel developers.
3. Places I interviewed at were using ancient software stacks from 2000-era that would have hampered my professional growth.
Until all these things are fixed and accounted for there is no way brain drain is going to stop. I literally spent 4 months interviewing, fully willing to relocate in the general Midwest to stay in a smaller more affordable town within reasonable driving distance of my family. If people want to keep smart people around, give them reasonable offers in line with the global market, and take risks on junior developers.
1. The offers I got were abysmally small and out of touch with the market even when adjusting for my experience and local cost of living.
2. Most places were either extremely poorly reviewed on glassdoor, or were not hiring junior/midlevel developers.
3. Places I interviewed at were using ancient software stacks from 2000-era that would have hampered my professional growth.
Until all these things are fixed and accounted for there is no way brain drain is going to stop. I literally spent 4 months interviewing, fully willing to relocate in the general Midwest to stay in a smaller more affordable town within reasonable driving distance of my family. If people want to keep smart people around, give them reasonable offers in line with the global market, and take risks on junior developers.
It's very easy to explain. Even very weak companies that are located in "hot" cities have chance to catch really experienced and knowledgable talent. One good guy employed for 6 months can be an amazing catalyst of great changes, you can very quickly modernize process and technologies if you have passionate people on board. It does not matter that they will all leave in couple months, the know-how will stay. The "less popular" places are the polar opposite of this mindset. If talent is not easily available, you will find companies with no proper culture, stupidly old technologies and "old guard" not wanting to change much if anything.
> It does not matter that they will all leave in couple months, the know-how will stay.
How about no. I think there is a big divide between people who do project maintenance and those tornadoes. Most new hotness people want to put on their resume will bite you in the ass 2 or 3 years down the line. But the super hero tornado will already be 4 companies out of sight so they'll never see what the things they started ended being. And when they stumble upon an old project started by another different team of tornadoes they'll complain.
How about no. I think there is a big divide between people who do project maintenance and those tornadoes. Most new hotness people want to put on their resume will bite you in the ass 2 or 3 years down the line. But the super hero tornado will already be 4 companies out of sight so they'll never see what the things they started ended being. And when they stumble upon an old project started by another different team of tornadoes they'll complain.
There is resume driven introduction of new technologies and then there is introducing modern source control, a CI pipeline, a modern compiler toolchain with activated warnings, a usable bugtracker... all of which is often missing in small companies that only do software on the side, or live in a slow moving market.
I work in defense contracting and version control is either non existent or dated at most companies. I've gotten very good at selling git to management.
2 months to introduce those kind of changes usually mean it will still be in the "people don't want to change their way of doing things" phase. With most of the infrastructure half deployed, the process ready to be cargo-culted and a lot of things directly copied from stack-overflow into critical parts of this process. The know-how never got shared and won't appear to fill the void.
That our hypothetical tornado managed to start introducing change during just 6 months is imho a strong sign that at least some people want to change. In my experience introducing changes takes years.
I moved back to the Midwest from the West Coast once having kids to be close to family and be able to afford a house. I do think it is hard to find the pockets of exciting jobs in the Midwest that pay reasonably well. I personally got lucky with Amazon in Detroit which is an engineering office with exciting projects. One good thing is the pay for Amazon doesn’t change from Seattle to Detroit which is awesome.
In my experience, a lot of the companies in the Midwest wouldn't survive if they were paying salaries aligned with big coastal tech. I.e., they exist in the Midwest because they can't exist elsewhere. And the rest are taking advantage of people who don't have the motivation or freedom to move out. (I knew a lot of CS grads in the Midwest who didn't bother applying to coastal companies.)
This is a fairly global phenomenon I think.
I've been living up in Northern Sweden for a bit, which is obviously a smallish market.
I was getting offers for less than a third of what I made in London, and mostly for old enterprise tech stuff. At that point there's no reason to even bother negotiating. I went back to remote.
Living costs aren't realistically that much cheaper aside from housing.
The only people you're going to hire for the long term are locals that are staying in the town for reasons unrelated to work. Which is fine and describes many people - but it's definitely a huge limiter on access to top talent.
I've been living up in Northern Sweden for a bit, which is obviously a smallish market.
I was getting offers for less than a third of what I made in London, and mostly for old enterprise tech stuff. At that point there's no reason to even bother negotiating. I went back to remote.
Living costs aren't realistically that much cheaper aside from housing.
The only people you're going to hire for the long term are locals that are staying in the town for reasons unrelated to work. Which is fine and describes many people - but it's definitely a huge limiter on access to top talent.
Is this a Northern Sweden problem or a Sweden problem in general? I've looked at a couple of hiring boards and hourly contractor rates are only €50-€70, even in Stockholm. Compared to the €70-€90 in London and Amsterdam that sounds a bit low, but please correct me if I am wrong.
If you're contracting in Sweden you are 90% looking at Stockholm (the remaining 10% being Gothenburg or Malmö/Copenhagen). My experience is that Stockholm hourly rates are around 750-1200 SEK which would be ap. 70-110 EUR.
I have not worked in London but a quick search says the rates are pretty similar.
I have not worked in London but a quick search says the rates are pretty similar.
In that case I was looking at the wrong rates, thank you for the correction.
Not the midwest per se, but Salk Lake City has more software jobs than you shake a stick at.
One of the bigger software companies, Qualtrics (acquired this year by SAP for $8B) eventually gave up fining enough local engineers and opened a Seattle office.
One of the bigger software companies, Qualtrics (acquired this year by SAP for $8B) eventually gave up fining enough local engineers and opened a Seattle office.
Grew up and graduated from a small University in the Midwest. All of those are a big problem especially with remote work which I prefer. Before we moved for school I interviewed a couple places in the city and they would offer 60% of offers for remote positions and I would have to commute ~30 mins each way? No thanks.
The other problem with my city in particular was everyone seemed to be locked into the same tech stack (C#\.net) that I was not interested in
The other problem with my city in particular was everyone seemed to be locked into the same tech stack (C#\.net) that I was not interested in
Tell me more about your interview process? I'm trying to get out of the midwest as well. All my friends from school are out in the coastal cities.
Not to mention that the quality of life outside big cities is far healthier and more human scale and human paced. People are more focused on things like children than on Kubernetes — the world needs progress but boy does it take a toll. In the Bay Area I worked with people making $400K who said they decided they could only afford two kids. Meanwhile where I live now it’s very feasible for a schoolteacher couple to afford five kids, and not in privation. I like that Elon Musk exists but holy hell I do not want his life.
How is driving around everywhere human scale? The rest I agree with.
Outside big cities, driving 10 minutes to work is more human scale than driving 60 minutes in Bay Area. The choice in the US is not really driving vs not driving, but rather about how much.
Small city: everything is in walking or cycling distance, there's little congestion. Big city: distance between points of interest is large, there's lots of traffic and congestion, people complain about public traffic, and take an hour to get from place A to place B.
This is my experience, having lived most of my life in small places (ranging from a monastery to a city with 25k people) while listening to people in big cities complain about their commutes.
Now I live in a city that isn't exactly small but not huge either. I'm already suffering the consequences of traffic and longer distances. Moving out of small cities is when I started to actually need a car... of course having more people and congestion doesn't show up in traffic only; it's also in the grocery store queues, restaurants packed full, parcels not delivered to home because they're too busy to deal with everyone personally, etc.
This is my experience, having lived most of my life in small places (ranging from a monastery to a city with 25k people) while listening to people in big cities complain about their commutes.
Now I live in a city that isn't exactly small but not huge either. I'm already suffering the consequences of traffic and longer distances. Moving out of small cities is when I started to actually need a car... of course having more people and congestion doesn't show up in traffic only; it's also in the grocery store queues, restaurants packed full, parcels not delivered to home because they're too busy to deal with everyone personally, etc.
I've lived in places ranging from 20k to big cities. All base necesseties were in walking distance where I lived in the cities, and mostly in the smaller places as well.
The thing with smaller places is that you can generally get like 80% of what you need locally, but on occasion you have to go a few towns over or into the nearest city to get that 20%. So you can easily live in a city w/o a car, but it's substantially harder to do so in smaller places.
The thing with smaller places is that you can generally get like 80% of what you need locally, but on occasion you have to go a few towns over or into the nearest city to get that 20%. So you can easily live in a city w/o a car, but it's substantially harder to do so in smaller places.
I don't believe in that 20% being a problem. I mean you can take a bus / taxi / train / buddy to get you to the next town if you need to be there. If you need to transport stuff, then you might need a car, but it's not like you would be transporting that same stuff without a car in a big city. So you need the car there too.
Also, my experience is that the 20% is more like 1-2% (when I lived in smaller cities, I needed to visit other towns or bigger cities a few times a year).
Like I said, I started needing my car only after I moved out. As a matter of fact, I only got a car a year before moving out, and I only got it because it was given to me for free.
Also, my experience is that the 20% is more like 1-2% (when I lived in smaller cities, I needed to visit other towns or bigger cities a few times a year).
Like I said, I started needing my car only after I moved out. As a matter of fact, I only got a car a year before moving out, and I only got it because it was given to me for free.
You guys are having a martian conversation for those of us who live in the States. Not driving is only an option in a handful of cities like NYC.
Elon has 5 kids (just saying)
people don't realize the enormous difference in living cost of bay area vs midwest. 400K on the penninsula is less than 150K in the midwest. I once calculated the average salaries of the bay area vs mid western cities and adjusted those salaries based on the cost of housing: https://skilldime.com/blog/see-which-cities-pay-the-highest-...
This is commonly brought up but isn't correct simply because what matters more is generally the absolute amount of disposable income you have, not the percentage of your total salary.
If you make 400k / year (typical for a FAANG senior engineer, which plenty of people people reach in their mid-to-late 20s) your expenses might break down as:
- 160k taxes
- 50k housing (luxury 1 bedroom in SF or Palo Alto)
- 10k food (eat at work on weekdays for free, $200 a weekend to eat out at nice restaurants)
- 10k transportation (Tesla Model 3 like everyone else)
= 230k total
So you end up with ~170k a year of disposable income while living very well. If you were willing to cut expenses to the bone (roommates is the big one, cook for yourself, old car) you'd probably end up at around 200k of disposable income. 170k-200k is more than most software engineers can hope to make in gross income in the Midwest. Sure, you might not want to buy a house for $2M, but with just two years of savings you can move to the Midwest and buy a house outright. After 10 years (remember, most of these people would be in their late thirties) you could easily save ~$2M before investment returns and retire to a low cost of living area.
For people who are not tech workers and live in the Bay Area making <$100k / year, there is definitely a great argument that the cost of living is way too high. For software engineers, it's worth remembering the cost of living is so high only because software engineers get paid so much.
If you make 400k / year (typical for a FAANG senior engineer, which plenty of people people reach in their mid-to-late 20s) your expenses might break down as:
- 160k taxes
- 50k housing (luxury 1 bedroom in SF or Palo Alto)
- 10k food (eat at work on weekdays for free, $200 a weekend to eat out at nice restaurants)
- 10k transportation (Tesla Model 3 like everyone else)
= 230k total
So you end up with ~170k a year of disposable income while living very well. If you were willing to cut expenses to the bone (roommates is the big one, cook for yourself, old car) you'd probably end up at around 200k of disposable income. 170k-200k is more than most software engineers can hope to make in gross income in the Midwest. Sure, you might not want to buy a house for $2M, but with just two years of savings you can move to the Midwest and buy a house outright. After 10 years (remember, most of these people would be in their late thirties) you could easily save ~$2M before investment returns and retire to a low cost of living area.
For people who are not tech workers and live in the Bay Area making <$100k / year, there is definitely a great argument that the cost of living is way too high. For software engineers, it's worth remembering the cost of living is so high only because software engineers get paid so much.
Wow, I swear every time I read one of these salary threads the "typical" salary for a FAANG engineer jumps by 50k.
Not doubting it, it's just fucking nuts. I do wonder though what percentage of engineers are making that type of money though? How typical is it really?
Not doubting it, it's just fucking nuts. I do wonder though what percentage of engineers are making that type of money though? How typical is it really?
I've noticed that, too -- the way the typical FAANG salary keeps going up and up and up and up and up and up and up whenever it's quoted here. I've been in Silicon Valley since 2002, always working for tech companies, either as a technical writer or a web developer, and I have never made anywhere near the "average salary" that HN tells me I should have been making.
Even granting that I'm not very good as a salary negotiator, I suspect an awful lot of software engineers, even out here, are making around $150-200K for their base pay, and are not getting another $100K+ annually in benefits and stock options.
Even granting that I'm not very good as a salary negotiator, I suspect an awful lot of software engineers, even out here, are making around $150-200K for their base pay, and are not getting another $100K+ annually in benefits and stock options.
Typical FAANG total comp for senior engineers in the bay area will be somewhere in the $300,000s, with moderate tenure (say 4+ years)
Of that, maybe 60% is salary, and the rest is bonus/stock/etc. The breakdown varies by company, and the non-salary comp is somewhat highly variable.
A senior new hire will be more like $250k
More junior folks will naturally make less.
Of that, maybe 60% is salary, and the rest is bonus/stock/etc. The breakdown varies by company, and the non-salary comp is somewhat highly variable.
A senior new hire will be more like $250k
More junior folks will naturally make less.
Percentage of engineers, or senior engineers?
Overall, I'd guesstimate 40% make 400k or more, with most senior engineers making that much. Not at all atypical, particularly if you've been at one for a couple years.
Overall, I'd guesstimate 40% make 400k or more, with most senior engineers making that much. Not at all atypical, particularly if you've been at one for a couple years.
So you're saying 40% of FAANG engineers (not just seniors, but all engineers) are pulling in 400k?
That's nuts... I swear the number being thrown around for FAANG was ~250k not that long ago. Next time I check one of these threads it will be 500k....
Is this really accurate? And even if total comp is somehow $400k, how much of that is equity, and how many senior engineers are liquidating it every year to get $400k in cash? That seems wildly overblown. And that equity shouldn’t be factored into the above breakdown anyway, at least not in the taxes calculation!
RSUs are not the same as private equity in a startup. While they are subject to market fluctuations they can be liquidated immediately on vesting (annually then frequently quarterly). They are taxed just like regular income... because they are regular income.
As to how many engineers are liquidating at vest? It’s honestly the most sensible option to diversify quickly since you don’t want your investment, savings and income all tied up in one company.
As to how many engineers are liquidating at vest? It’s honestly the most sensible option to diversify quickly since you don’t want your investment, savings and income all tied up in one company.
Equity is a whole lot of that. And yes, people liquidate it immediately. RSUs count as income.
I'd say most of the FAANG engineers I know cash out their RSUs when they vest, or within about a year or two after.
The point-in-time percentage isn't the best metric. These companies hire a huge number of recent grads each year, with sub-200k total comps. Need to look at expected 5+ year compensation to get a better picture.
Using FB as an example, engineers are expected to make it to E5 within a set time period (~5 years) or they're fired. So anyone still employed after that time is at least an E5. The E5 comp target is 330-400k. So yes, anyone still employed after 5/6 years is making at least that much.
Its not expected nor required to go beyond that, so that will be the career top for many. E6 is a 500-600k range, and I've no clue about E7-9.
Google is similar, and there are equivalent levels at Uber, Lyft, etc.
And then there's Netflix which only hires senior engineers and has a single level with a huge comp range. Pretty much 100% of Netflix enginners are making 300k+, most 400k+. But, Netflix is also an all cash shop - need to pay for benefits out of pocket, buy stock out of pocket, etc; so not 1:1 comparable to others.
Using FB as an example, engineers are expected to make it to E5 within a set time period (~5 years) or they're fired. So anyone still employed after that time is at least an E5. The E5 comp target is 330-400k. So yes, anyone still employed after 5/6 years is making at least that much.
Its not expected nor required to go beyond that, so that will be the career top for many. E6 is a 500-600k range, and I've no clue about E7-9.
Google is similar, and there are equivalent levels at Uber, Lyft, etc.
And then there's Netflix which only hires senior engineers and has a single level with a huge comp range. Pretty much 100% of Netflix enginners are making 300k+, most 400k+. But, Netflix is also an all cash shop - need to pay for benefits out of pocket, buy stock out of pocket, etc; so not 1:1 comparable to others.
Exactly this.
LOTS of grads do not make it to the $500K land. The FAANG companies have also been around a bit, so now google / facebook etc just have a fair number of more senior folks who are making good money. So pay is out of control but these companies make so much gross revenue (check out apple / google financials) that they can afford it.
Totally annoying if you are not in tech! And sometime you are like, do you really need to be spending x billion on comp to run y website?
LOTS of grads do not make it to the $500K land. The FAANG companies have also been around a bit, so now google / facebook etc just have a fair number of more senior folks who are making good money. So pay is out of control but these companies make so much gross revenue (check out apple / google financials) that they can afford it.
Totally annoying if you are not in tech! And sometime you are like, do you really need to be spending x billion on comp to run y website?
> Wow, I swear every time I read one of these salary threads the "typical" salary for a FAANG engineer jumps by 50k.
Go look at the 2-year or 5-year stock charts of any of the FAANG companies and you'll see why.
An engineer who started working at a FAANG company several years ago got some RSU grants, and the value of the unvested shares grew a lot since then. On top of that, refresher grants every year or two are pretty common. Total compensation really ramps up after a few years even if you don't get promoted.
Go look at the 2-year or 5-year stock charts of any of the FAANG companies and you'll see why.
An engineer who started working at a FAANG company several years ago got some RSU grants, and the value of the unvested shares grew a lot since then. On top of that, refresher grants every year or two are pretty common. Total compensation really ramps up after a few years even if you don't get promoted.
So are the RSU grants typically done as a fixed number of shares or is it adjusted based on how much those shares are worth on the market? For example, if the stock price tumbled would new offers be granted more shares to make up for the collapse in value to keep the overall compensation the same?
If the stock price collapses, many employees lose their homes.
Nobody knows what will happen when the inevitable finally happens.
Maybe the companies will step in and make employees mostly whole. Maybe they will have to in order to keep their best people.
Or maybe the gravy train will end.
L
All anyone can tell you for sure is that the companies will continue to pay what is required to get the people they need, and no more.
Nobody knows what will happen when the inevitable finally happens.
Maybe the companies will step in and make employees mostly whole. Maybe they will have to in order to keep their best people.
Or maybe the gravy train will end.
L
All anyone can tell you for sure is that the companies will continue to pay what is required to get the people they need, and no more.
I'm sure it depends on the company, but my company grants a dollar amount and figures out how many shares add up to that amount. If the stock price tumbled I would get more shares next time I get a refresher grant, because more shares would be needed to add up to the dollar amount the company would grant me.
[deleted]
As someone making ~$100k in Iowa, all of those numbers are crazy to me.
But I also make more than basically all of my friends / family, and manage to save 30-40% of my income each year, so I have to say I can't complain.
But I also make more than basically all of my friends / family, and manage to save 30-40% of my income each year, so I have to say I can't complain.
As a dev making €50k in Western Europe, your salary is crazy to me. :)
And I'd wager COL here is also higher than Iowa.
And I'd wager COL here is also higher than Iowa.
As someone making £27k in the UK your salary is also crazy to me. The kind of numbers that get thrown around really have no meaning to me.
I've earnt that as a monthly figure as a London contractor.
There is a market if you're willing to play the game.
There is a market if you're willing to play the game.
That's above market rates. You'd have to be on £1350 a day. Most contracts I see are £450-£750. How did you swing agency / big consultancy rates as a freelancer?
I sold myself as a one man consultancy without the land and expand bullshit. I hit £1500 a day, which was the max before you hit a world of bureaucracy. It's a lot easier to sit on about £1000-1200k a day.
The intention isn't to brag, it's just to point out there is a market here that can be tapped even if you can't travel to SoCal.
The intention isn't to brag, it's just to point out there is a market here that can be tapped even if you can't travel to SoCal.
Nice. What kind of contracting gig did you do?
DevSecOps consulting for a large brand that was hacked and a bank undergoing a transformation. Managed it for about 2 years, before that the standard rate was £700-£800 p/d.
Did have a large transformation under my belt and critical national infrastructure as feathers in my hat.
Did have a large transformation under my belt and critical national infrastructure as feathers in my hat.
As someone making 18k€ in Eastern Europe your salary is also crazy to me. And I manage to save >30% of my salary and my quality of living is fine.
I have a friend who works for a FAANG company. He moved from California to London, staying with the company.
He took a 35% pay cut, and he tells me that cost of living in London is much higher than what he left behind in California.
It made sense for him, because he had personal reasons both to be in Europe and to take the specific open position he took that he wouldn't have been able to get on California, but he was much richer in California.
He took a 35% pay cut, and he tells me that cost of living in London is much higher than what he left behind in California.
It made sense for him, because he had personal reasons both to be in Europe and to take the specific open position he took that he wouldn't have been able to get on California, but he was much richer in California.
How many people (actual number) are "FAANG senior engineers" ? I feel like this comp package number gets a lot of attention but my intuition is that it's a rare thing, compared to the number of people working in tech as a whole.
My napkin math tells me about 100-200k engineers at FAANG proper, about 100k more getting paid at FAANG level outside of FAANG (depends on who you include like Microsoft and if you count high-paying startups with high chances of success like Airbnb). Roughly half the people I work with (including first line managers) are "senior" so I would guess about 100k-150k people.
I would estimate that between 10% and 15% of FAANG software engineers are senior or higher.
It does take a few years of being at senior for pay to ratchet up to the $350k range that is typical of long-tenured senior engineers at FAANG companies. A newly-minted senior engineer will be more in the $300k range
It does take a few years of being at senior for pay to ratchet up to the $350k range that is typical of long-tenured senior engineers at FAANG companies. A newly-minted senior engineer will be more in the $300k range
That math will change quite a bit if you decide to have a family.
Also, I was under the impression that those 400K FAANG salaries were not that common in the bay area, i could be wrong.
Also, I was under the impression that those 400K FAANG salaries were not that common in the bay area, i could be wrong.
I’d rather earn $400K for several years, live as cheaply as possible, and when I start to feel fatigued, then switch to one of these slower companies in the Midwest. By that time, your portfolio is decent strong and you’re already set for retirement.
Starting your career in the Midwest at their typical salary levels and given the kinds of problems many of these companies or their IT departments are solving is a very short sighted approach. I say that having been there.
I pivoted my career. My first 6 months I had more impact and learned way more than in working 4 years in the Midwest.
Starting your career in the Midwest at their typical salary levels and given the kinds of problems many of these companies or their IT departments are solving is a very short sighted approach. I say that having been there.
I pivoted my career. My first 6 months I had more impact and learned way more than in working 4 years in the Midwest.
These calculators are highly misleading. You absolutely can live comfortably and squirrel away much more cash at 400k anywhere in the US vs 150k. I’ve lived this experience between “low” COL and high areas.
Lets compare salaries on a city by city basis and adjust those salaries based on the Cost of living in dollars per square foot (cost of a house/condo from Zillow). To calculate the location adjusted salary, we simply multiply the salary by 500 (rough average of $/sq foot) and divide by the cost per square foot in that city.
This comparison makes sense only if your salary is spent on literally nothing else but housing.
This comparison makes sense only if your salary is spent on literally nothing else but housing.
Lots of truth here. Having lived in both types of places I can say with certainty that yes, housing is a big difference. But otherwise much is the same and the vastly higher salaries lead to much accelerated retirement savings and wealth generation.
Some very expensive places like nyc allow you to factor out automobile expenses making the rent burden manageable.
Food is a bit more, going out is the same if you figure out where to go, and day to day expenses aren’t too far off either.
I’d say it’s about 20% more overall all things considered.
Some very expensive places like nyc allow you to factor out automobile expenses making the rent burden manageable.
Food is a bit more, going out is the same if you figure out where to go, and day to day expenses aren’t too far off either.
I’d say it’s about 20% more overall all things considered.
Yes, more detailed math here: https://thestartupconference.com/2018/09/21/about-that-silic...
Well their yearly savings is a bit off to be sure. Unless you live in a dumpster which isn’t compatible with a spouse. But the general idea is right.
Pre-tax savings and having more to set aside after tax as well as faster appreciating real estate equity is the winning path in today’s economy.
Pre-tax savings and having more to set aside after tax as well as faster appreciating real estate equity is the winning path in today’s economy.
The dirty secret about staying in smaller markets through your 20s and 30s is that your pay never catches up.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for you, but I'm swallowing some pretty bitter pills here having just crossed the 30 year mark and watching my company hire in people at my level for 20-50% more.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for you, but I'm swallowing some pretty bitter pills here having just crossed the 30 year mark and watching my company hire in people at my level for 20-50% more.
I don't think that's the market. It sounds more likely that you're just not negotiating well or selling yourself to your best advantage, or you're accepting a tradeoff for something else in return. My advice is to search for a new job ASAP seeking 50% more than what you're making now, tweak how you're applying and interview, and you'll have it within a year or less.
Remember also that remote work is becoming much more normal.
Remember also that remote work is becoming much more normal.
I'm curious if what is current / high level work in midwest is different to what you are exposed to at least in SF -> there is a risk in some quieter areas that you just are not current and plugged in with the meetups, the hackathons, exposure to strong other talent.
When I was in my late 20's someone gave me a real kick in the butt to go the distance -> which paid off in hindsight big time.
When I was in my late 20's someone gave me a real kick in the butt to go the distance -> which paid off in hindsight big time.
great advice; i agree completely. that response was so passive and defeatist i'm almost upset on his/her behalf. it is almost beyond belief what high quality engineers can earn by simply changing jobs.
>it is almost beyond belief what high quality engineers can earn by simply changing jobs.
(and not just top engineers; just about everyone benefits from competing offers. If you haven't gotten a competing offer in the last year or two, you have no idea what you could be getting, and you are probably underpaid.)
This, I think, is one of the major advantages of silicon valley; I can walk from my house to tens of big name employers; hundreds of smaller ones. I can switch jobs and I don't have to move. I can pretty easily still get drinks with the same people after work (if that's what we all want) - and the culture is such that it's okay to go work somewhere else for a few years and then to come back. it's not even a little weird.
(and not just top engineers; just about everyone benefits from competing offers. If you haven't gotten a competing offer in the last year or two, you have no idea what you could be getting, and you are probably underpaid.)
This, I think, is one of the major advantages of silicon valley; I can walk from my house to tens of big name employers; hundreds of smaller ones. I can switch jobs and I don't have to move. I can pretty easily still get drinks with the same people after work (if that's what we all want) - and the culture is such that it's okay to go work somewhere else for a few years and then to come back. it's not even a little weird.
Your company will continue to pay you the maintenance rate to keep you on. If you are willing to go through the process of finding a new job, someone will pay you more, but to your current company you're a fixed asset. That's just the market now. If you want a 20% raise you're gonna have to go across the street to the competitor. Otherwise, why would they pay you more money when you're obviously willing to settle for what they're paying you now.
By that logic, companies shouldn't offer raises.
A company cannot assume that someone is "willing to settle" just because they accepted an offer. Good companies try to proactively keep people, and part of that is making sure their compensation roughly keeps Pace with the market. By the time a company gets the signal that the "maintenance rate" isn't it's too late to do anything about it.
A company cannot assume that someone is "willing to settle" just because they accepted an offer. Good companies try to proactively keep people, and part of that is making sure their compensation roughly keeps Pace with the market. By the time a company gets the signal that the "maintenance rate" isn't it's too late to do anything about it.
Companies who want to keep you need to offer you enough that stay. You can skip raises to keep people for a few years, but they will remember that and expect you to make it up latter. (the ability to keep your paycheck through a downturn - and thus house and local friends - is valuable) Eventually employees catch on that their pay is significantly less than they can get elsewhere and they will leave. It is better to proactively give raises to everyone so that they don't go looking: replacing someone who leaves is going to be more expensive than keeping them in general.
> If you are willing to go through the process of finding a new job, someone will pay you more
Be careful, though - there’s some cartelization/collusion going on. If you change jobs too many times, that’ll be used as a strike against you, and a reason to offer you lower pay.
Be careful, though - there’s some cartelization/collusion going on. If you change jobs too many times, that’ll be used as a strike against you, and a reason to offer you lower pay.
You have to change jobs, nobody gives raises worth anything.
By "just crossed the 30 year mark" I'm not sure if you mean you just turned 30, or that you have been working at the same place for 30 years.
Assuming that you meant you just turned 30, I am 31 and managed to get myself a 50% raise this past year by getting the offer from a different company in town and then negotiating to stay in my current role for the same pay as the offer.
To get better pay, you need to force your employer to acknowledge that someone else out there is willing to pay you more. That requires you to do most of the legwork, and to actually be willing to switch jobs.
Assuming that you meant you just turned 30, I am 31 and managed to get myself a 50% raise this past year by getting the offer from a different company in town and then negotiating to stay in my current role for the same pay as the offer.
To get better pay, you need to force your employer to acknowledge that someone else out there is willing to pay you more. That requires you to do most of the legwork, and to actually be willing to switch jobs.
So this is just (relatively inexperienced) me, or maybe it's just some misplaced mistrust of even the best places to work but...
I would never have confidence in my job security after negotiating a 50% raise with a competing offer.
I have negotiated some large increases in compensation in short period of times due to changing output and expectations from a role, but I feel like bringing a competing offer is inviting being replaced or made redundant, because companies don't want everyone to hold that level of negotiation over them just by saying "I could leave you know?"
Also, in my head, if they were underpaying me by 50%, I'd assume a big part of my value proposition was I cost 50% less than market rates.
And maybe this is even more paranoia, but I'd imagine a laser pointed at me and my performance afterwards, which ironically might end up affecting my performance (or at least my enjoyment of work)
-
Also for context, I just accepted an offer from what will be my first company in a "superstar" city last week, even the signing + relocation bonus almost felt like life changing money compared to what I've made at other companies.
One big problem is companies are moving to "up and coming" cities then paying less based on cost of living... but the cost of living on those cities is rapidly rising due to their "up and coming" status, as more and more "superstars" move into the area.
So COL ends up rising faster than your salary unless you're on a seriously fast moving career path.
I would never have confidence in my job security after negotiating a 50% raise with a competing offer.
I have negotiated some large increases in compensation in short period of times due to changing output and expectations from a role, but I feel like bringing a competing offer is inviting being replaced or made redundant, because companies don't want everyone to hold that level of negotiation over them just by saying "I could leave you know?"
Also, in my head, if they were underpaying me by 50%, I'd assume a big part of my value proposition was I cost 50% less than market rates.
And maybe this is even more paranoia, but I'd imagine a laser pointed at me and my performance afterwards, which ironically might end up affecting my performance (or at least my enjoyment of work)
-
Also for context, I just accepted an offer from what will be my first company in a "superstar" city last week, even the signing + relocation bonus almost felt like life changing money compared to what I've made at other companies.
One big problem is companies are moving to "up and coming" cities then paying less based on cost of living... but the cost of living on those cities is rapidly rising due to their "up and coming" status, as more and more "superstars" move into the area.
So COL ends up rising faster than your salary unless you're on a seriously fast moving career path.
I had every intention of taking the competing offer, things just ended up working differently.
The company I work for is very small (~10 people), so the negotiating dynamics were probably different than they would have been somewhere larger.
Plus, even if I did get "made redundant", that just means the next time around I have a larger base salary to negotiate from.
Who knows.
The company I work for is very small (~10 people), so the negotiating dynamics were probably different than they would have been somewhere larger.
Plus, even if I did get "made redundant", that just means the next time around I have a larger base salary to negotiate from.
Who knows.
you know, you can just lie about your base. It's not unethical to lie if the only reason they're asking is to use it against you during negotiations.
when interviewing, tell the prospective employer you already have the base you want, and that you're only looking for a small pay bump, or retaining the same pay. New employer is now forced to evaluate your pay on an "absolute" basis (Are they really worth X?), rather than a relative one (am I willing to give them a pay increase of Y?). This eases tensions a lot. Don't let anyone hold you back because your previous employer underpaid you.
Yes, someone in HR might find out when they process your tax slip (P45 in the UK), but:
a) the salary person almost definitely won't be looking out for that, they have no interest in screwing you out of a job, unless it's a very, very small company, and the CEO is also the HR guy and the team lead.
b) they're probably not allowed to tell your manager, legally speaking.
c) they simply won't care.
If they really do find out and kick up a fuzz, who cares? you have a legally binding contract. besides, screw those people, if they thought you were worth the money before, what changed? Nothing, that's what. Besides, you now have proof you're worth that money, so someone else will think that too.
when interviewing, tell the prospective employer you already have the base you want, and that you're only looking for a small pay bump, or retaining the same pay. New employer is now forced to evaluate your pay on an "absolute" basis (Are they really worth X?), rather than a relative one (am I willing to give them a pay increase of Y?). This eases tensions a lot. Don't let anyone hold you back because your previous employer underpaid you.
Yes, someone in HR might find out when they process your tax slip (P45 in the UK), but:
a) the salary person almost definitely won't be looking out for that, they have no interest in screwing you out of a job, unless it's a very, very small company, and the CEO is also the HR guy and the team lead.
b) they're probably not allowed to tell your manager, legally speaking.
c) they simply won't care.
If they really do find out and kick up a fuzz, who cares? you have a legally binding contract. besides, screw those people, if they thought you were worth the money before, what changed? Nothing, that's what. Besides, you now have proof you're worth that money, so someone else will think that too.
If I wouldn't tell my salary to my parent or friends, I won't tell it to some random recruiter. They get lies when they ask for salary.
The people you _should_ tell your salary to are colleagues at similar levels, especially those from often-underpaid groups (immigrants, women, etc.).
The people you _should_ tell your salary to are colleagues at similar levels, especially those from often-underpaid groups (immigrants, women, etc.).
I second this. Never tell an interviewer what you are currently making, only what you want them to pay you. There is no need for them to know and it only gives them leverage.
That's the strategy I took, but there is also a psychological aspect to asking ridiculous amounts more than you are currently making. Particularly if you are unsure what the true market rates are for the area you're living.
What I more-so meant was since I pulled it off once, I'd be more confident the next time I went to interview to ask for even more.
What I more-so meant was since I pulled it off once, I'd be more confident the next time I went to interview to ask for even more.
Isn't the risk here that they find out what your real base was in the background check and rescind the offer?
I have been honest up until this point and feel that I have been anchored by my base pay at least two times. Still got 5 figure increases but who knows how much I could have got.
The way I did it was to never directly say my salary, so I wasn't lying. I just said, "I need an offer of $X to seriously consider this position", which was true.
It just happened that $X was a 50% increase from what I was previously making.
It just happened that $X was a 50% increase from what I was previously making.
[deleted]
Changing jobs is only way to fix this.
>my quality of life and financial freedom is immeasurably improved. This regularly surprises my acquaintances that stayed.
The people of Austin once had traffic free commutes and the people of Denver could once easily afford housing. Then other people became aware of those things, showed up in droves and those good things went away.
If you want to keep your perks in the long term you should probably not be telling everyone how great it is.
The people of Austin once had traffic free commutes and the people of Denver could once easily afford housing. Then other people became aware of those things, showed up in droves and those good things went away.
If you want to keep your perks in the long term you should probably not be telling everyone how great it is.
Build more homes. Put them near these new jobs. Add schools and bike routes. Cities aren't static unless they're dying.
You're not wrong but I have zero faith that importing a bunch of people from the SV tech scene isn't going to stifle housing construction with SV style zoning, stifle infrastructure improvements with pandering to the environmental crowd^, and price out everyone who isn't making six figures in the proces. Of course they all realize SV style regulation of land use sucks, you need to allow for density and all that but everyone is gonna push for the one or two "little things" that they liked and you have a tragedy of the commons.
I know everyone is gonna read this and thing "I would never do that" but as they say, a person is smart but people are stupid.
^not that that isn't a consideration but in an urban setting "plan, build, assess, mitigate any impacts" is a better workflow than "never building anything because there's always one person who isn't yet satisfied with the proposed environmental impact".
I know everyone is gonna read this and thing "I would never do that" but as they say, a person is smart but people are stupid.
^not that that isn't a consideration but in an urban setting "plan, build, assess, mitigate any impacts" is a better workflow than "never building anything because there's always one person who isn't yet satisfied with the proposed environmental impact".
We agree - SV is a disaster for the reasons you state, though it's worked tidily for anyone who bought a house there 30 years ago. Texas likes to take an anti-regulation stance as I understand it, so maybe they could address that. The first step could be to remove the parking minimums they impose despite their anti-regulation reputation...
I feel like the decision is very different if you’re gay (speaking as a gay male). Urban centers are pretty much the only places with gay culture, and the idea of moving outside of one of those centers is hard to imagine. It’s tough because I also want the lower cost of living of living away from SF/LA/NY but feel like it would be especially lonely to move to a small or even mid-sized city that has a small or non-existent gay scene.
Come to Atlanta. We have A super diverse gay culture and low cost of living.
Yup. 10th and Piedmont is the gayest place within 600 miles.
Café Lafitte in Exile and the 700 Club in the French Quarter would like a word.
Maybe, but Atlanta is just a much bigger population center.
Lol also as a person of color (i.e black) that is an immigrant. When i see the whole --I moved to a small city town/the country/small city -- I tend to assume the persons race. Not a bad thing but they say it like the shoe fits everyone. I also like how new ideas come to the big city faster--
Is that still true if you settled down with a partner? Perhaps I don't have perspective as a straight male, but now that I'm married I couldn't care less if the people that surround me are gay or straight.
In a lot of the counties mentioned in the article, people still care quite a bit if you are gay, unfortunately
I think this is the same for any community: Jews, Armenians, Female Body Builders, etc...
It's part of the benefit of a big city. By virtue of being big, there's bound to be people like you.
It's part of the benefit of a big city. By virtue of being big, there's bound to be people like you.
When I graduated from College I applied heavily to jobs in the MD/VA area because of their strength in competitive Super Smash Bros.
I found a job here and love being closer to so many people I can share my favorite hobby with.
I found a job here and love being closer to so many people I can share my favorite hobby with.
This is fascinating. For some reason it makes me really appreciate the modern economy and mobility when someone can choose their job and home based on a video game community.
Well unsure about other minority groups but at least with LBGT communities the biggest are specifically in urban coastal cities. San Francisco is smaller than, say, San Antonio or Columbus but obviously has a much higher % of LGBT residents and more gay culture.
Gay guy here in San Antonio who has lived in the Bay Area, thought I would chime in with my perspective since you mentioned the city. There is definitely more gay culture in SF/large coastal cities, but I don't think it's as desolate as one may think.
There are for sure way fewer bars, but the few that are here are always packed on weekends. The scene is also less centralized, so I don't think I meet as many LGBTQ people randomly as I would in say SF.
On the other hand, I would say that a good percentage of my friends are LGBTQ. I also my met my husband here, gone to our Pride events many times, have seen a bunch of live drag, and generally feel comfortable being out.
If someone's thinking of moving to a smaller city and the perceived lack of gay culture was the only thing holding them back, I would say just go for it.
There are for sure way fewer bars, but the few that are here are always packed on weekends. The scene is also less centralized, so I don't think I meet as many LGBTQ people randomly as I would in say SF.
On the other hand, I would say that a good percentage of my friends are LGBTQ. I also my met my husband here, gone to our Pride events many times, have seen a bunch of live drag, and generally feel comfortable being out.
If someone's thinking of moving to a smaller city and the perceived lack of gay culture was the only thing holding them back, I would say just go for it.
Jew here (oh boy that sounds funny). While I can, sort of, voluntarily "factor out" the possibility that if I live far away from the centroids of the Jewish community, I might be spat at or beaten up in the street for being Jewish - that happens in Brooklyn or LA anyway these days - the thing is, I grew up in dense, highly urbanized/suburbanized parts of the country. I'm miserable when I live "five miles from everywhere", even in relatively "accessible" inner-ring suburbs.
(An actually rural area along the lines of my old college town is another matter. Driving half an hour on freeways to get "anywhere" is intolerable in a way that bicycling through Nature for half an hour is not.)
So yeah, between one thing and another, there would need to be a pretty strong incentive for me to ever move to "the burbs" or "the middle". Give me a city, give me a village or kibbutz, but don't give me that rubbish people put in the middle!
(An actually rural area along the lines of my old college town is another matter. Driving half an hour on freeways to get "anywhere" is intolerable in a way that bicycling through Nature for half an hour is not.)
So yeah, between one thing and another, there would need to be a pretty strong incentive for me to ever move to "the burbs" or "the middle". Give me a city, give me a village or kibbutz, but don't give me that rubbish people put in the middle!
I mean, I know Jews and most Asian nationalities have a bigger representation in cities than in small towns. Like the LGBT community, usually the bigger the city, the bigger the difference in representation. I can only assume this is for similar reasons. People like to be around similar people.
Do you really not realize how many cities there are (for instance, Columbus Ohio) that have a large gay scene, yet a low cost of living?
There are gay people everywhere, you might just have to use a dating app or something. There are also lots of smaller towns with a progressive atmosphere like New Paltz, New York for one specific example I'm aware of. It's not the wasteland out there beyond the city limits you might think it is.
It's not so much that there aren't gays in those places its about whether or not someone is in a place in their life where they want to be a "trailblazing gay," ya know? The guy that cuts my hair was in Bend, Oregon in a nice store and got called a 'faggot' a month or so ago. There are definitely gay people and maybe even a community in Bend, but those types of things just don't happen in that way in NYC and when they do you can expect passersby to be absolutely reviled.
absolutely. i can't imagine someone dropping the f*g slur in a store in a core urban center and not being called on it almost immediately.
[deleted]
This is the main reason one of my friends says he's thinking about moving from Raleigh to SF.
He told me that he mostly loves the triangle area, and there's lots of culture in the sense that there are constant events happening and multiple bars and dance venues that cater to the LGBT community. But he also says that after a few years of dating, he's pretty much exhausted the local pool of guys on grindr.
That said, he makes great money and pays so little to live here it's not an easy switch to make. For a while, his strategy was to use the extra discretionary money to travel more and maybe meet people that way. But he's always talking about how great it must be to live in "gay mecca", so I think he'll probably make the move eventually. Even if is just a "grass is greener" thing, I definitely understand the appeal.
He told me that he mostly loves the triangle area, and there's lots of culture in the sense that there are constant events happening and multiple bars and dance venues that cater to the LGBT community. But he also says that after a few years of dating, he's pretty much exhausted the local pool of guys on grindr.
That said, he makes great money and pays so little to live here it's not an easy switch to make. For a while, his strategy was to use the extra discretionary money to travel more and maybe meet people that way. But he's always talking about how great it must be to live in "gay mecca", so I think he'll probably make the move eventually. Even if is just a "grass is greener" thing, I definitely understand the appeal.
As another gay male, there is a point where you age out of the club scene, and would prefer a private night at home, even if its at home alone.
Not gay, but my wife is Korean and we currently live in an area with a very large Korean population. It means a substantial diversity of friendly culture and services that she can take advantage of that only really exist in a handful of other places in the world outside of her home country. It's had a major impact on our life choices and decisions about where to live and eventually retire.
In other news counties with the highest incidence of kidney cancer (very rare) have few people [1] and surprisingly many of the best schools are small [2].
In any noisy metric small samples tends to be overrepresented at the extremes. Emsi (the company behind this article) should note this where appropriate.
[1]: https://dataremixed.com/2015/01/avoiding-data-pitfalls-part-...
[2]: https://caroljacoby.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/are-small-schoo...
In any noisy metric small samples tends to be overrepresented at the extremes. Emsi (the company behind this article) should note this where appropriate.
[1]: https://dataremixed.com/2015/01/avoiding-data-pitfalls-part-...
[2]: https://caroljacoby.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/are-small-schoo...
Which also means some of the worst schools are small.
And counties with the lowest incidence of kidney cancer are small.
The analysis is based on Emsi’s Talent Attraction Index, which is comprised of six key metrics: job growth, skilled job growth, net migration, annual openings for skilled workers (per capita), educational attainment growth (based on adults with associate degrees and above), and a broad measure of regional competitiveness.
All of these (except the last, which is an ambiguous indicator) are based on flows, not stocks. Beyond that, as far as the reason the report names the top big county in the country as Jacksonville's...
Duval County is the heart of the Jacksonville metro, a rising economic powerhouse that is consistently attracting new residents and growing its talent base. Its population increased 7% from 2014 to 2018. Jobs were up 11% over the same time, nearly twice the national rate.
Notably, the largest industries in Duval County are restaurants and hospitals—the kind of industries that exist everywhere, and which do not usually involve the big manufacturing centers we tend to think of as job drivers. But over the past two years, the presence of both Wayfair and Amazon distribution centers has spurred 242% growth in the electronic shopping industry, an addition of over 5,000 more jobs than expected given national trends.
I'd love to see a report that analyzed trends around changes in talent (the "Creative Class" jobs that Richard Florida identified back in the day), because I'd love to get more bang for buck than I do in one of the Superstar Cities. But this report is mis-advertised. Show me surprising or up-and-coming places where most people have college degrees or advanced degrees from good schools, cultural events, and the potential for high wages doing interesting work.
All of these (except the last, which is an ambiguous indicator) are based on flows, not stocks. Beyond that, as far as the reason the report names the top big county in the country as Jacksonville's...
Duval County is the heart of the Jacksonville metro, a rising economic powerhouse that is consistently attracting new residents and growing its talent base. Its population increased 7% from 2014 to 2018. Jobs were up 11% over the same time, nearly twice the national rate.
Notably, the largest industries in Duval County are restaurants and hospitals—the kind of industries that exist everywhere, and which do not usually involve the big manufacturing centers we tend to think of as job drivers. But over the past two years, the presence of both Wayfair and Amazon distribution centers has spurred 242% growth in the electronic shopping industry, an addition of over 5,000 more jobs than expected given national trends.
I'd love to see a report that analyzed trends around changes in talent (the "Creative Class" jobs that Richard Florida identified back in the day), because I'd love to get more bang for buck than I do in one of the Superstar Cities. But this report is mis-advertised. Show me surprising or up-and-coming places where most people have college degrees or advanced degrees from good schools, cultural events, and the potential for high wages doing interesting work.
I moved from the bay area to Charlotte NC this year, and it's fantastic. A big brand new apartment in a walkable area downtown is $1200. I'm making the same salary and brand new houses can be had for $300k in a nice neighborhood. It's the number 2 banking capital in the US after New York, so there's endless growth potential for someone interested in fintech. We're on the same line of latitude as San Francisco so there's plenty of sun and the winters are extremely mild with little to no snow. I really can't think of any reason other than chasing FAANG positions why anyone would stay in the bay at this point.
Charlotte is my hometown. I actually considered moving back after 5 years in Seattle doing the FAANG thing, but it's not really comparable to other big cities in some ways. It's still a great place for the right type of person, but I wouldn't have been happy there. I ended up taking my remote job with a Seattle-salary to Raleigh instead, and am really digging it.
The main issues I had with Charlotte are: - The banker culture downtown is too formal - The live music scene is in a bad spot (the gentrification of the southend area + NoDa killed off the best venues) - Calling any neighborhood "Walkable" is kind of a stretch. It would be hard to live in Charlotte without a car. Even downtown is littered with huge blocks of parking lots. It really kind of terrible to walk down those blocks in the summer due to the heat and lack of shade.
But it's still a pretty solid place with lots of opportunity, even if it's not everyone's scene. Also, the light rail has been a great addition to the city and the walkability issue around rail stations is definitely improving.
The main issues I had with Charlotte are: - The banker culture downtown is too formal - The live music scene is in a bad spot (the gentrification of the southend area + NoDa killed off the best venues) - Calling any neighborhood "Walkable" is kind of a stretch. It would be hard to live in Charlotte without a car. Even downtown is littered with huge blocks of parking lots. It really kind of terrible to walk down those blocks in the summer due to the heat and lack of shade.
But it's still a pretty solid place with lots of opportunity, even if it's not everyone's scene. Also, the light rail has been a great addition to the city and the walkability issue around rail stations is definitely improving.
I moved to Durham last year, which outsiders consider to be part of Raleigh-Durham (despite them being separated by almost 2hrs of traffic at peaks).
I hate the Triangle and am already leaving. A particularly nasty type of sprawl here, out of control real-estate market, serious crime problems, no proper "downtown" where you can live and walk to everything you need, hours away from mountains or beaches.
The crime is what really angers me, maybe Raleigh is better off, but both Durham and Charlotte manage to be less safe than the worst parts of most cities, which is incredible to me considering just how many people seem to be selling the area as great for families and "settling down".
I actually considered Charlotte for having more of a "downtown", but decided to leave the South.
The weather is marginally better than where I came the Northeast, the heat is worse and I feel more oppressive.
And sure my tax burden is reduced... but so is my salary.
There's tons of traffic in both places, but in CT a lot of my daily traffic was to one of the most incredible cities in the world, and here it's traffic between multiple clusters of suburban sprawl caused by underinvestment in infrastructure.
The culture outside the triangle is lukewarm at best, I'm black and enjoy visiting the mountains, but the number of confederate flags seems to have a very strong correlation to the elevation I'm at...
I don't know, maybe I'm just salty I fell for the hype, but I really see no redeeming value for coming to this part of the country.
I hate the Triangle and am already leaving. A particularly nasty type of sprawl here, out of control real-estate market, serious crime problems, no proper "downtown" where you can live and walk to everything you need, hours away from mountains or beaches.
The crime is what really angers me, maybe Raleigh is better off, but both Durham and Charlotte manage to be less safe than the worst parts of most cities, which is incredible to me considering just how many people seem to be selling the area as great for families and "settling down".
I actually considered Charlotte for having more of a "downtown", but decided to leave the South.
The weather is marginally better than where I came the Northeast, the heat is worse and I feel more oppressive.
And sure my tax burden is reduced... but so is my salary.
There's tons of traffic in both places, but in CT a lot of my daily traffic was to one of the most incredible cities in the world, and here it's traffic between multiple clusters of suburban sprawl caused by underinvestment in infrastructure.
The culture outside the triangle is lukewarm at best, I'm black and enjoy visiting the mountains, but the number of confederate flags seems to have a very strong correlation to the elevation I'm at...
I don't know, maybe I'm just salty I fell for the hype, but I really see no redeeming value for coming to this part of the country.
Durham is getting better in many ways, but it earned it's reputation for crime in some neighborhoods there. I never seriously considered living there for that reason alone. It's weird how it gets lumped in with Raleigh for everything.
I live in downtown Raleigh, and it is seriously one of the safest places I've ever experienced. Even though Seattle was mostly safe on paper, there were so many homeless people who would yell death threats at random people, assault people, and engage in straight up harassing behavior in public places like buses, I soon became uncomfortable walking alone even in the day time hours. I don't feel that way about Raleigh or Charlotte.
The crime in Charlotte really didn't seem that bad to me. I lived in a affordable part of north Charlotte, but the worst things we had in 18 years were 2 car break-ins and someone stealing a grill from the backyard. A neighbor got burglarized when they were out of town once. I never experienced or even witnessed physical violence or threats, never knew a person who has been attacked or robbed with a weapon, though it happened especially to people dealing drugs or doing other illicit stuff.
If you like CT that's great, but I definitely think Charlotte and Raleigh are nice places to live and are good alternatives to west coast cities for the cost. Sorry that your experience didn't match up to your high expectations.
I live in downtown Raleigh, and it is seriously one of the safest places I've ever experienced. Even though Seattle was mostly safe on paper, there were so many homeless people who would yell death threats at random people, assault people, and engage in straight up harassing behavior in public places like buses, I soon became uncomfortable walking alone even in the day time hours. I don't feel that way about Raleigh or Charlotte.
The crime in Charlotte really didn't seem that bad to me. I lived in a affordable part of north Charlotte, but the worst things we had in 18 years were 2 car break-ins and someone stealing a grill from the backyard. A neighbor got burglarized when they were out of town once. I never experienced or even witnessed physical violence or threats, never knew a person who has been attacked or robbed with a weapon, though it happened especially to people dealing drugs or doing other illicit stuff.
If you like CT that's great, but I definitely think Charlotte and Raleigh are nice places to live and are good alternatives to west coast cities for the cost. Sorry that your experience didn't match up to your high expectations.
Downtown Raleigh is also 1 square mile with barely anyone living in it... and the moment you leave it's just more suburban sprawl. I would never in a million years compare it to Seattle if I wanted "downtown living", they're not the same type of city. But I am glad to hear it at least has less crime.
Charlotte on the other hand was one of the US's most deadly cities a couple of years back, and this year is one of the most violent in over a decade so it is really bad.
-
But yeah... I wouldn't say it's fair to write it off as a case of high expectations, every city is a balancing act.
I've lived in cities that had comparable crime to Durham that did not leave me unhappy, the problem is enduring that crime should have some benefit, maybe there's great natural resources nearby, or salaries are very high and you can afford to live in a "good neighborhood" or some strong cultural richness.
This area has none of that. If you're looking for a 1sq mile downtown, there are so many options, if you're looking for suburban sprawl as far as the eye can see, there's tons of options for that too.
So I ask myself, why is this specific area of the country experiencing a massive influx of people along with matching insane real-estate hikes, and worsening traffic? What culture is there? What special entertainment? What natural attractions?
And I come up empty.
Durham especially just boggles the mind, it's growing like it has none of these glaring issues. At least other cities I lived in had "good" areas, this is like a warzone: https://i.imgur.com/dfEPqgi.png
Maybe you can argue Raleigh is inoffensive enough to get a pass, but it's not just Raleigh seeing all these people, Durham and Charlotte are too.
My comment wasn't about how much I love CT, if I loved it so much I wouldn't have left. But its about what else is out there.
Cities like Austin and Miami have a lot of the pains this area of the country has... but way more culture at least, more entertainment, more options for people who prefer living in a "real" downtown. Some actual justifications for the very real problems they have.
Charlotte on the other hand was one of the US's most deadly cities a couple of years back, and this year is one of the most violent in over a decade so it is really bad.
-
But yeah... I wouldn't say it's fair to write it off as a case of high expectations, every city is a balancing act.
I've lived in cities that had comparable crime to Durham that did not leave me unhappy, the problem is enduring that crime should have some benefit, maybe there's great natural resources nearby, or salaries are very high and you can afford to live in a "good neighborhood" or some strong cultural richness.
This area has none of that. If you're looking for a 1sq mile downtown, there are so many options, if you're looking for suburban sprawl as far as the eye can see, there's tons of options for that too.
So I ask myself, why is this specific area of the country experiencing a massive influx of people along with matching insane real-estate hikes, and worsening traffic? What culture is there? What special entertainment? What natural attractions?
And I come up empty.
Durham especially just boggles the mind, it's growing like it has none of these glaring issues. At least other cities I lived in had "good" areas, this is like a warzone: https://i.imgur.com/dfEPqgi.png
Maybe you can argue Raleigh is inoffensive enough to get a pass, but it's not just Raleigh seeing all these people, Durham and Charlotte are too.
My comment wasn't about how much I love CT, if I loved it so much I wouldn't have left. But its about what else is out there.
Cities like Austin and Miami have a lot of the pains this area of the country has... but way more culture at least, more entertainment, more options for people who prefer living in a "real" downtown. Some actual justifications for the very real problems they have.
Did you give NOLA a second look? You might be surprised these days...
Doesnt NOLA have an insanely high crime rate itself?
See his remarks about cultural richness.
Honestly during my last job search, I had a lot of recruiters try an contact me about jobs in Charlotte (was living in SC at the time and Charlotte was the closest 1 million+ metro) but ultimately decided not to pursue anything there. Primarily, it just seems like one of the dullest, most sterile city even when compared to other southern cities like Atlanta, Nashville, etc. It seems like a fine place if you're getting older and looking to settle down / have a family / buy a house, etc., but not for a young single guy. Ironically I ended up taking a job in a tiny city / large town in Florida which is likely worse, but I just wanted a break from the South-proper scene.
I'm kinda regretting it tbh, because at the least moving to Charlotte would have exposed me to the Finance industry which I could bounce off of to land myself in pretty high paying roles later in life, but I think my next job search I'm going to leave the south altogether.
I'm kinda regretting it tbh, because at the least moving to Charlotte would have exposed me to the Finance industry which I could bounce off of to land myself in pretty high paying roles later in life, but I think my next job search I'm going to leave the south altogether.
See, that's the type of thing that's intriguing! And it seems like it should be possible to capture in the statistics (at least so that Charlotte appears above Jacksonville), but it seems like this report is more about advertising for Emsi to try to make potential clients (municipal governments in currently unpopular places to live) feel like there's hope if they just hire the company to consult with them.
I personally don't see this happening in San Francisco, at least not with top-tier companies. The only workers I've seen leaving SF have moved to NYC for adventure, or moved back to China.
Or to LA, which has all the perks California has to offer (but with better weather and better affordability than SF, while being a world-class city with more to offer than the Bay). In terms of quality of life SoCal is pretty hard to top.
I’ve done the math and not really sure how LA is more affordable than SF if you factor in time value of money (things spread apart = commuting) and cost of keeping a car.
Also as a single person housing is flexible for most. If you rent a room in a house in SF (most apartments are houses) you’d most likely be spending less than if you rented a 1 bedroom in LA.
Also as a single person housing is flexible for most. If you rent a room in a house in SF (most apartments are houses) you’d most likely be spending less than if you rented a 1 bedroom in LA.
Commute from Burbank to Glendale is easy peezy. ;)
And the houses are (slightly) cheaper, even in Burbank, than in the SF Bay Area.
And the houses are (slightly) cheaper, even in Burbank, than in the SF Bay Area.
I think you might need a new calculator.
I have a 2 bedroom place in a very nice part of Los Angeles for less than my brother pays for a 1 bedroom studio apartment in a okay part of Silicon Valley. My commute is the same distance as his, but mine only takes an hour (rail + walking) while his takes 1.5 hours or more each way (driving). I don't need a car in LA to get to most of the major destinations; he can't travel around the Bay Area without one.
I have a 2 bedroom place in a very nice part of Los Angeles for less than my brother pays for a 1 bedroom studio apartment in a okay part of Silicon Valley. My commute is the same distance as his, but mine only takes an hour (rail + walking) while his takes 1.5 hours or more each way (driving). I don't need a car in LA to get to most of the major destinations; he can't travel around the Bay Area without one.
Silicon Valley and San Francisco are very different.
I live in San Francisco, so I’m comparing my experience living and working in the city to LA, not Silicon Valley.
We've considered relocating to LA and the universal advice of everyone who's lived there was "it's a great place as long as you don't ever go anywhere". According to multiple people, if you stay home/very close (e.g. someone went to college there and rarely left its general vicinity), it's fine; as soon as you need to go anywhere it's hell because every mode of transportation is abysmal. And that is often the 3rd largest part of one's life after office time and sleep.
For me personally, even SFBA was too much in that regard so we quickly dropped SoCal from consideration :)
Still much easier to get around SF w/o a car than LA (obviously with the caveat of LA being much larger and building their metro system at a rapid pace).
The bus network in LA is pretty comprehensive. Pretty much every artery is going to have a line running back and forth, and sometimes rapid lines too.
It's also surprisingly bikeable. Could there be more bike lanes? Of course. More are always coming at least. But when an artery is backed up (which it usually is), you can slither along the side, and with the grids there are usually residential routes that you can just fly along.
It's also surprisingly bikeable. Could there be more bike lanes? Of course. More are always coming at least. But when an artery is backed up (which it usually is), you can slither along the side, and with the grids there are usually residential routes that you can just fly along.
I’m surprised anyone can get around without a car in sf. It’s not a walkable city and the public transit options are terrible.
That's an interesting viewpoint; since I moved here ~5 years ago (has it been that long already?) it's always been my opinion that owning a car here was a fool's errand due to the problems with parking when leaving the house, and cost of parking when staying at the house, plus the annual break-ins etc. I do spend probably $200/mo on uber but it's a quarter of the cost of owning a car, and get around on foot otherwise. I don't typically leave the marina/north beach/fidi/soma/mission areas of the city though. If you live in the sunset that would change the equation quite a bit.
Oh I definitely agree that owning a car is horrible in SF! Parking is super difficult and when you do find a spot, it's so tight that you need to be an expert to even get in/out. I don't think there's a good option for getting around in SF. I end up doing a mix of walking, taxis (also bad), Uber/Lyft (ok) and occasionally rent a car if I'm going to be making trips to the valley (very bad).
I'm just comparing the walkability to other major cities. I find SF to be pretty unwalkable all things considered. Especially compared to European cities or NY.
I'm just comparing the walkability to other major cities. I find SF to be pretty unwalkable all things considered. Especially compared to European cities or NY.
I found San Francisco to be very walkable, with good (not great) transit. I lived there for over 15 years without a car. I commuted for 5 years from Russian Hill to what is now Mission Bay -- walked 10 minutes to catch the 30/45 bus which dropped me off a few blocks from work. I could walk it in about 45 minutes.
When I lived in the Sunset, I took the train, and that was worse than the bus - overcrowded trains meant that they sometimes skipped stops. So I usually biked instead.
The city is just not that big, most places are within walking distance if you're not going to/from far-flung areas of the city -- you can walk from the Marina to the Financial District in under an hour. (but the 30X made it a tolerable commute, usually under 30 minutes)
When I lived in the Sunset, I took the train, and that was worse than the bus - overcrowded trains meant that they sometimes skipped stops. So I usually biked instead.
The city is just not that big, most places are within walking distance if you're not going to/from far-flung areas of the city -- you can walk from the Marina to the Financial District in under an hour. (but the 30X made it a tolerable commute, usually under 30 minutes)
It probably depends on where you live in SF. I was on the border between Noe and Mission. I lived there for a decade and found it very walkable. I owned a car but drove maybe once a month. I had good produce at corner stores (both Asian and Mexican), a butcher and seafood store in walking distance. Nice restaurants and parks in walking distance. I took BART downtown to work. Sometimes went to the ferry building. There was a summer farmers marker a block from work and dozens of restaurants in a one block radius. (We moved for more space and better schools.)
I've only been there as a visitor, and the public transport definitely isn't _great_, but it seems doable.
I know a couple who live in SF without owning a car. But they do a lot of Ubering and short-term/daily rentals.
There is no place to park.
The city works if you are able-bodied without kids. In that case, you walk as far as 11 miles but usually just a few miles. It also sort of works for the people with $2,000,000 single-family homes, because driving to a distant supermarket (with parking) becomes an option.
The city works if you are able-bodied without kids. In that case, you walk as far as 11 miles but usually just a few miles. It also sort of works for the people with $2,000,000 single-family homes, because driving to a distant supermarket (with parking) becomes an option.
I'm by no means lazy but I found the distances between things extremely far to walk, with many large hills in the way (usually). For reference, Manhattan is only 2 miles wide and stuff to do is extremely clustered and easy to access and there's a great subway and cab system. SF is pretty abysmal for many reasons and getting around is one of the main ones.
Totally agreed that there's no place to park btw, yet another difficult thing about that city.
Totally agreed that there's no place to park btw, yet another difficult thing about that city.
From someone who tried to make it walkable, it really isn't designed that way.
This is only true if you strictly mean the city of SF, i.e., the tiny metro at the very tip of the peninsula. If you mean the metropolitan metro area, than SF is a nightmare without a car.
LA has a very good bus network within the city proper--one of the biggest in the world. It's possible to get within 1 mile of any publicly-accessible address by bus, and to neighboring cities (i.e., Santa Monica, Long Beach) and enveloped cities (i.e., Beverly Hills, Inglewood) as well.
LA's rail also enables car-free travel between Santa Monica, Culver City, Long Beach, North Hollywood, Hollywood, Pasadena, and Downtown. Including regional rail (i.e., the BART equivalent), it's possible to get as far out as Ventura County to the north, San Bernardino and Riverside to the east, and Disneyland/Orange County and San Diego County to the south.
LA has a very good bus network within the city proper--one of the biggest in the world. It's possible to get within 1 mile of any publicly-accessible address by bus, and to neighboring cities (i.e., Santa Monica, Long Beach) and enveloped cities (i.e., Beverly Hills, Inglewood) as well.
LA's rail also enables car-free travel between Santa Monica, Culver City, Long Beach, North Hollywood, Hollywood, Pasadena, and Downtown. Including regional rail (i.e., the BART equivalent), it's possible to get as far out as Ventura County to the north, San Bernardino and Riverside to the east, and Disneyland/Orange County and San Diego County to the south.
> If you mean the metropolitan metro area, than SF is a nightmare without a car.
Really depends where in the bay you are -- there are definitely areas outside of San Francisco you can do without a car. I lived in Berkeley and later Oakland without a car (probably four years total), and honestly it was pretty damn nice not having to deal with one. Menlo Park on the other hand? You'll probably need a car.
Really depends where in the bay you are -- there are definitely areas outside of San Francisco you can do without a car. I lived in Berkeley and later Oakland without a car (probably four years total), and honestly it was pretty damn nice not having to deal with one. Menlo Park on the other hand? You'll probably need a car.
There's women in LA. I go on dates.
I've seen companies, definitely top-tier, with a SF office but who decide to limit hires in SF and boost hires in other offices. Still in tech hubs, but less expensive/hard to retain than SF.
Or leaving because they’re really good in their field and can work remotely for their job of choice. Seems to be a natural path for senior devs that care more about their craft than the Valley startup ecosystem
Agreed, I can’t tell if the Bay Area is an exception to this trend or if this trend is just wishful thinking by those who have left/want to leave.
I've seen it happen with Austin and Seattle as well -- both of which have no state income tax -- which is a nice pay increase, even if you're grossing the same amount.
What are "top-tier" companies to you, though?
I'd count true high-tech among them personally (Waymo, for example), but would not count adtech (Google, Facebook) or employers known to be unpleasant to work for (Amazon, Netflix).
Also, it may be that the workers moving away from places like SF are just not people who define themselves by the name brand of their employer and just want better overall quality of life.
I'd count true high-tech among them personally (Waymo, for example), but would not count adtech (Google, Facebook) or employers known to be unpleasant to work for (Amazon, Netflix).
Also, it may be that the workers moving away from places like SF are just not people who define themselves by the name brand of their employer and just want better overall quality of life.
People come and go from SF all the time.
Unless you are one of the lucky few that has struck it really rich, a lot of people who turn late 20s/early 30s, get married, and have or want kids cannot afford to stay in the Bay Area even if they make a well above average income.
Unless you are one of the lucky few that has struck it really rich, a lot of people who turn late 20s/early 30s, get married, and have or want kids cannot afford to stay in the Bay Area even if they make a well above average income.
Superstar cities don't have and never have had a monopoly on talent. What they do have is a monopoly on capital. Try raising money in a non-superstar city.
This monopoly may fade as younger angels, VCs, and other forms of investors who are comfortable with telework and therefore with tele-investing take over. I've already seen a bit of that, but it's still far easier to raise money in e.g. San Francisco / SV.
Of course if you do raise money in the Bay you're just going to spend it all on real estate. VCs there should skip the middleman and cut checks directly to property owners.
This monopoly may fade as younger angels, VCs, and other forms of investors who are comfortable with telework and therefore with tele-investing take over. I've already seen a bit of that, but it's still far easier to raise money in e.g. San Francisco / SV.
Of course if you do raise money in the Bay you're just going to spend it all on real estate. VCs there should skip the middleman and cut checks directly to property owners.
Noticing that some of the cities are actually just small energy counties :
Denton=hydraulic fracturing
Cameron County=LNG facilities new builds and expansion. A few poly plants
Pecos= hydraulic fracturing and some wind and solar
Ohio= PTTGC plant plant being built within the next 2 years still in planning.
Talent is shifting to 2-5 year energy/EPC related projects but will most likely only retain a few people for over 10 year.
Talent will erupt from the energy market in particular Houston as the hydraulic fracturing boom comes to end. As profitability is not being met and PE money is drying up. 27 bankruptcies so far this year. Retaining top engineers at some of the largest service and oil and gas companies. The cities you have cited will not be on your report in 2 years. With more than enough reserves in the world for LNG and crude and the cost of extracting either LNG or crude. Countries like Mozambique, Guyana, our pals in the Middle East... This shift will be smaller intl countries vs cities
Denton=hydraulic fracturing
Cameron County=LNG facilities new builds and expansion. A few poly plants
Pecos= hydraulic fracturing and some wind and solar
Ohio= PTTGC plant plant being built within the next 2 years still in planning.
Talent is shifting to 2-5 year energy/EPC related projects but will most likely only retain a few people for over 10 year.
Talent will erupt from the energy market in particular Houston as the hydraulic fracturing boom comes to end. As profitability is not being met and PE money is drying up. 27 bankruptcies so far this year. Retaining top engineers at some of the largest service and oil and gas companies. The cities you have cited will not be on your report in 2 years. With more than enough reserves in the world for LNG and crude and the cost of extracting either LNG or crude. Countries like Mozambique, Guyana, our pals in the Middle East... This shift will be smaller intl countries vs cities
Most of us cannot afford superstar cities: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-broughel-hamilto.... Or, if we can afford it, we choose not to.
Yep. For me it would be too hard going back to living in an apartment after having my own house.
Indeed. I'm in the "choose not to" camp. "Superstar cities" offer me nothing of serious value, and come with a great deal of cost (not just money).
I'm in a similar camp. The things I value about a place of residence simply are outweighed by the downsides of these cities.
I work remotely for a medium-big tech-related company, based out of one, and had to visit HQ for a few days. The weather was much nicer than where I live this time of year, but otherwise was not my cup of tea.
I work remotely for a medium-big tech-related company, based out of one, and had to visit HQ for a few days. The weather was much nicer than where I live this time of year, but otherwise was not my cup of tea.
You can see this in the recent selections of places like Amazon HQ2. Under the headlines there are big companies, huge organizations, doing extraordinary technical work that exist in places like Columbus Ohio, Oak Ridge Tennessee, Tri-Cities Washington, Northern Virginia, etc.
The pay is good for the areas, the work is incredibly challenging and interesting, and the quality of living can be much much better than squeezing out living in a box in the Bay Area or NYC.
In fact, Amazon HQ1 is in a more or less underserved city (Seattle) and Portland, OR ain't bad if you're on the West Coast.
The pay is good for the areas, the work is incredibly challenging and interesting, and the quality of living can be much much better than squeezing out living in a box in the Bay Area or NYC.
In fact, Amazon HQ1 is in a more or less underserved city (Seattle) and Portland, OR ain't bad if you're on the West Coast.
I was born and live in Georgia and went to college for a bit in South Georgia. My parents also grew up in South Georgia. Macon and Waynesboro are places people talk about leaving unless they have strong family ties. There are some IT jobs in Macon but nothing like Atlanta and nothing like the North/South suburbs of Atlanta.
I'll see it when I believe it. This isn't true in the bay area whatsoever. There's "talent" everywhere you look. The uber I took to the airport today was driven by a guy who just came to the US and is primed for a product manager role based on his entrepreneurship in his home country.
I have this constant internal argument of where do I go to live. I work in a city with an outdated tech scene, and very little vertical growth. The local tech managers and developers are trying. But the local government is raising taxes, making it a non lucrative way to start or run a business in the city area.
As someone who has been primarily remote for the past four years, part of this seems like an unnecessary argument. On the other hand my roles are largely short term contracts. So when ever my contract ends I think about moving to another city.
But I'm only looking at a very minor pay bump in the range of 10 to 20k. While rent doubles at the lowest option, and regular expenses increase by ~15%.
The other trend I'm seeing is the rise of reverse commuting. Due to the aforementioned tax issue in my area. A lot of companies are moving out to the suburbs. I've seen really interesting job opportunities. But the distance/travel is an issue. I'm not traveling four hours a day to job, and having to walk several miles along an interstate to get to work.
As someone who can't drive for medical reasons. I feel I have a very limited number of cities in America I can live in. I prefer walking, and transit. Going out several times a week. I'd love to live in NYC. But fiscally it doesn't make sense right to me. Only 10k more than my current role, but double the rent and higher cost of living.
Of the cities with transit. NYC hands down wins in regards to better opportunities to my current city. But at the cost of work life balance, and fiscal independence.
So I can see this. I know a number of old co-workers who have moved to a more rural environment. From a big city environment to reduce cost of living, or stress of city living. Or move outside the city to a nearby suburb.
Being a general short term contractor. I've worked in a few of these super star cities on site. Trying to help boot strap a new team. They have an issue finding "talent", paying well below market rate with really hard work and long hours. I try and sell them on partial remote, or full remote. Which isn't a stretch because they have a full staff-aug team in another time zone. But the hire has to be on site.
I also know a number of co-workers adhering to fatFIRE. There are a number of people who are tired of this rat race, and just want to be done with it. It's something that needs to be addressed, but there isn't an easy solution.
http://money.com/money/5241566/vicki-robin-financial-indepen...
As someone who has been primarily remote for the past four years, part of this seems like an unnecessary argument. On the other hand my roles are largely short term contracts. So when ever my contract ends I think about moving to another city.
But I'm only looking at a very minor pay bump in the range of 10 to 20k. While rent doubles at the lowest option, and regular expenses increase by ~15%.
The other trend I'm seeing is the rise of reverse commuting. Due to the aforementioned tax issue in my area. A lot of companies are moving out to the suburbs. I've seen really interesting job opportunities. But the distance/travel is an issue. I'm not traveling four hours a day to job, and having to walk several miles along an interstate to get to work.
As someone who can't drive for medical reasons. I feel I have a very limited number of cities in America I can live in. I prefer walking, and transit. Going out several times a week. I'd love to live in NYC. But fiscally it doesn't make sense right to me. Only 10k more than my current role, but double the rent and higher cost of living.
Of the cities with transit. NYC hands down wins in regards to better opportunities to my current city. But at the cost of work life balance, and fiscal independence.
So I can see this. I know a number of old co-workers who have moved to a more rural environment. From a big city environment to reduce cost of living, or stress of city living. Or move outside the city to a nearby suburb.
Being a general short term contractor. I've worked in a few of these super star cities on site. Trying to help boot strap a new team. They have an issue finding "talent", paying well below market rate with really hard work and long hours. I try and sell them on partial remote, or full remote. Which isn't a stretch because they have a full staff-aug team in another time zone. But the hire has to be on site.
I also know a number of co-workers adhering to fatFIRE. There are a number of people who are tired of this rat race, and just want to be done with it. It's something that needs to be addressed, but there isn't an easy solution.
http://money.com/money/5241566/vicki-robin-financial-indepen...
This is good. Having everyone try to live in the same few places is not sustainable. There's plenty of room still in this country, we should use it.
Really? I totally wanted to spend my best years mindlessly lurching through eight solid lanes of traffic just to make someone else filthy rich.
[deleted]
A lot of tech companies seem to be regularly laying off teams from the Bay Area and moving the jobs to Austin, Chandler, Raleigh, Omaha and other cheaper cities. I know I've seen this where I work and heard about it at other big tech companies.
I've seen this when a company switches from startup/growth to maintenance.
The jobs may be spreading out but the compensation sure hasn’t been. The best paying jobs with the most interesting, cutting-edge work are still located in just a few cities. I keep hoping some more opportunities will appear in the southeast near my family, but it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen, so for the time being I will be staying in the Bay Area.
As a remote employee, I'd argue quite the opposite is happening.
Sure, the absolute top paying jobs still require you to live and work in a few, select cities. However, there are many companies that are competing with SF/NYC companies regardless of talent location.
Sure, the absolute top paying jobs still require you to live and work in a few, select cities. However, there are many companies that are competing with SF/NYC companies regardless of talent location.
Remote employees account for a very tiny percentage of the job market, to the point where it quite literally doesn't matter.
Correct. However, the opportunities are certainly there.
Any leads?
Check the monthly job threads on HN. Last months: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21419536
There are a couple of good tools for searching.
I've had an extremely good response rate from the HN jobs. It seems to have a lot more motivated listings.
Weworkremotely.com is my go to for remote specific jobs. There are dozens of spin-offs, but they essentially scrape the same underlying data.
Weworkremotely seems to have less desirable/less motivated roles, but I have had some good conversations. You will notice a handful of companies that seem to be endlessly posting on those sites.
There are a couple of good tools for searching.
I've had an extremely good response rate from the HN jobs. It seems to have a lot more motivated listings.
Weworkremotely.com is my go to for remote specific jobs. There are dozens of spin-offs, but they essentially scrape the same underlying data.
Weworkremotely seems to have less desirable/less motivated roles, but I have had some good conversations. You will notice a handful of companies that seem to be endlessly posting on those sites.
Today, but large scale efforts like city development happen over multiple decades, over which the number of remote workers will almost certainly increase due to new technology.
Undoubtedly. At the same time wages will likely drop for them, as developers buy in to the rather stupid notion that their geographic location, rather than the value of their labor, should have anything whatever to do with their salaries.
I think rennie working is difficult culturally, we have the technology for at least 10 years
Compensation may be lagging but still being pushed up by national competition and a mobile workforce. However the 2x cost of living premium over the national average in the Bay Area doesn’t seem to have any downward pressure.
Then the cutting edge work seems to be rather myopically focused on advertising, surveillance, yuppie culture products or developer tools.
Plenty of arguments for talent to look away from the Bay Area.
Then the cutting edge work seems to be rather myopically focused on advertising, surveillance, yuppie culture products or developer tools.
Plenty of arguments for talent to look away from the Bay Area.
I think the latest Bay trend has been acquihiring teams on in remote locations to cut down on labour costs by shifting more responsibility onto those areas with lower costs of living.
Right? If these companies could stop being so reliant on in person meetings they could save money on office space and just pay me more for being remote where I want to live.
The companies are also signaling that they find random in person collaboration more valuable than heads down efficiency.
I imagine there is a correlation between novel/interesting ideas that generate new revenue and being immersed in an environment of peers that you collaborate/chat with.
I imagine there is a correlation between novel/interesting ideas that generate new revenue and being immersed in an environment of peers that you collaborate/chat with.
Anecdotally I would imagine the opposite. I am not going to innovate for you after even a 20 or 30 minute commute and all the in-office interruptions and ceremony. After 5 I'm out the door and the lights upstairs are off. I'm not responding to emails or picking up my phone.
However remotely I am basically never off. A common thing that comes up with remote work is you have a hard time just turning off, but I don't mind as I'm not mentally exhausted by interruptions and can actually enjoy the work I'm doing.
But I'm sure its a person to person thing, type of environment, industry, etc.
However remotely I am basically never off. A common thing that comes up with remote work is you have a hard time just turning off, but I don't mind as I'm not mentally exhausted by interruptions and can actually enjoy the work I'm doing.
But I'm sure its a person to person thing, type of environment, industry, etc.
If those companies didn't need people on-site, the jobs would, and typically do, go overseas to lower-wage countries. There are tons of companies using remote work. It's called outsourcing.
There are plenty of remote employment opportunities that are stable career paths. So I don't think it's fair to say that as soon as remote work is a possibility the job will be sent overseas.
I think the early 2000s burned a lot of companies for trying to cheap out on dev costs by offshoring - offshoring is a valid choice in some situations and will probably become more and more competitive as time goes on... but there still is quite a lot of value in hiring out of the four year uni grad pool.
I think the early 2000s burned a lot of companies for trying to cheap out on dev costs by offshoring - offshoring is a valid choice in some situations and will probably become more and more competitive as time goes on... but there still is quite a lot of value in hiring out of the four year uni grad pool.
You think the only barrier to outsourcing white collar work is the physical location of workers?
If it every becomes status quo to work remotely at a tech company, what will that do to the housing markets? Will people flood out of the cities and towards cheaper parts of the country?
I don't believe it will happen, but if it did, I think cities and outlying areas would return to a division according to desired excitement level, instead of who can afford what.
Probably nothing because most people don't work at a tech company and couldn't/wouldn't work remotely regardless. Also the city has plenty of other benefits.
I suspect people will live where they want (which may be where they already are) - I think it will have a bigger impact on tech company turnover than on housing markets. (Very few markets are SF - there are very large cities like Dallas and Houston that really aren't tech hubs)
I wrote about that some: https://journal.dedasys.com/2018/07/27/fight-or-flight-yimby...
I think it's an open question. My recollection is that Moretti's research still shows people being pushed towards cities.
I think it's an open question. My recollection is that Moretti's research still shows people being pushed towards cities.
There is this constant hope out there that somehow someway workers will move away from cities at a critical enough mass to reach an equilibrium regarding affordability.
Why? Humans converge on cities for many, many reasons. Even if remote work is ubiquitous there are many other reasons why living in a big city is advantageous. Even now the cities that people are moving to are those that can provide similar services to the larger cities, and with enough time those cities will become just like their larger counterparts with all the issues of a modern city.
Why? Humans converge on cities for many, many reasons. Even if remote work is ubiquitous there are many other reasons why living in a big city is advantageous. Even now the cities that people are moving to are those that can provide similar services to the larger cities, and with enough time those cities will become just like their larger counterparts with all the issues of a modern city.
> will move away from cities
That's not what this article is about. The key word is "superstar".
The trend its describing is how different cities (though still certainly cities, with 1M+ metro areas) are now the most attractive to talented workers.
That's not what this article is about. The key word is "superstar".
The trend its describing is how different cities (though still certainly cities, with 1M+ metro areas) are now the most attractive to talented workers.
Exactly. Houston is far larger than SF or Austin, and is definitely not a tech hub, but you can buy a 4 bedroom single-family home here cheaper than a 1 bedroom condo in SF.
For many people the hope is not that big cities become more affordable, but that you can get more freedom to live whenever you want.
Currently too many people would want to live in a smaller city but are forced to live in megalopolis because that's where the jobs are.
Currently too many people would want to live in a smaller city but are forced to live in megalopolis because that's where the jobs are.
Perhaps it’s impossible to have the job security and income levels that people desire in smaller cities.
I have been talking about PHX having a mini boom of IT jobs. The cost of living has taken a hit though.
Just gotta stand the heat.
Just gotta stand the heat.
PHX, and more specifically Scottsdale and Tempe, definitely has been having a jobs/IT boom. And I'd say its that heat that has kept the cost of living relatively mild (as well as the sheer amount of buildable land in and around the city).
I work remote this year I have
- written a data science pipeline build on kube that improves our understanding on climate models
- helped a fortune 500 company automate their reliability testing of equipment on their production lines
- advise and impliment the production environment for space command
- opened a new line of business for our company
It has been the most productive year of my career and I owe it to my companies remote first structure.
It has been the most productive year of my career and I owe it to my companies remote first structure.
In the “sunbelt dominates” graphic, the Maryland and Virginia portions of the Delmarva peninsula are highlighted, along with Western Maryland, but the remainder of Maryland is not.
What’s up here?
What’s up here?
I’ve now lived in a much smaller city for the past 5 years. My company hires both senior developers tired of the mercenary treadmill as well as many recent grads that stay for longer than three years since we invest in their career growth and provide much more mentorship. Also the biking distance commute to work are a big selling point.
I loved living in a big city in my 20s but don’t regret moving away in my 30s. my quality of life and financial freedom is immeasurably improved. This regularly surprises my acquaintances that stayed.