MainStreet – $10k to Leave Bay Area(workonmainstreet.com)
workonmainstreet.com
MainStreet – $10k to Leave Bay Area
https://workonmainstreet.com/
199 comments
Thanks, I never knew there was a name for this, though I've seen this kind of house all through the Peninsula - there are also a lot of them in the hills west of San Mateo. And, now that I think of it, Erlich Bachmann's house is one.
Yep, Erlich Bachmann's house immediately came to mind when I saw the picture.
Likely intentional because Steve Jobs grew up in a similar home.
https://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/jobs-likeler-no-eichl...
https://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/jobs-likeler-no-eichl...
The link's headline that you posted says
"For the record: Steve Jobs wasn’t raised in an Eichler—but partner Steve Wozniak was."
"For the record: Steve Jobs wasn’t raised in an Eichler—but partner Steve Wozniak was."
The article is entirely about Steve Jobs growing up in a home very similar to, but not technically, an Eichler.
Ehrlichs house isn't an Eichler - Eichler refer to houses made by a specific developer who built mid-century modern neighborhoods around California. They're a sub-set of mid century architecture.
Wow, he was pretty ahead of his time, i don't mean on only architecture but that is also great.
Weird. The splash page says:
> help you find a job you love in a city you can afford
But the "About", "For Companies" and "How it works" pages are pretty focused on remote work:
> Companies are more ready than ever to utilize distributed workforces, and this is creating opportunities for workers everywhere to be part of the digital economy... MainStreet provides the community, communication, and career tools you need to be happy and successful as a remote employee.
> Interested in expanding your remote workforce? ...All our candidates have been evaluated for remote-readiness so they can hit the ground running from day one.
> The companies we work with pay us to help successfully recruit and retain remote talent.
Sounds like it's REALLY about setting up remote work, which is not what the home page implies, right?
Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. Ah right, the "About" page leads with:
> We are three former Googlers who are on a mission to help create jobs in rural and suburban cities around America.
OK, it's just the usual engineer-entrepeneurs trying to "get rich by doing good," with a plan that may or may not make sense either on the business or the pro-social end.
I suppose the employer's interest in paying them to help recruit and coordinate remote workers is... paying them less then they'd have to in the bay area? (plus less overhead compared to on-premises in the bay area, office rent etc).
> help you find a job you love in a city you can afford
But the "About", "For Companies" and "How it works" pages are pretty focused on remote work:
> Companies are more ready than ever to utilize distributed workforces, and this is creating opportunities for workers everywhere to be part of the digital economy... MainStreet provides the community, communication, and career tools you need to be happy and successful as a remote employee.
> Interested in expanding your remote workforce? ...All our candidates have been evaluated for remote-readiness so they can hit the ground running from day one.
> The companies we work with pay us to help successfully recruit and retain remote talent.
Sounds like it's REALLY about setting up remote work, which is not what the home page implies, right?
Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. Ah right, the "About" page leads with:
> We are three former Googlers who are on a mission to help create jobs in rural and suburban cities around America.
OK, it's just the usual engineer-entrepeneurs trying to "get rich by doing good," with a plan that may or may not make sense either on the business or the pro-social end.
I suppose the employer's interest in paying them to help recruit and coordinate remote workers is... paying them less then they'd have to in the bay area? (plus less overhead compared to on-premises in the bay area, office rent etc).
I think its crystal clear.
They are making remote work easy for employees and employers, which enables you to work from cities other than coastal ones.
Is that really such a hard thing to understand? I Think most people connect the dots. It doesn't need a mini blog post to explain.
They are making remote work easy for employees and employers, which enables you to work from cities other than coastal ones.
Is that really such a hard thing to understand? I Think most people connect the dots. It doesn't need a mini blog post to explain.
Sure. But what's not clear is how, especially you read further about "Main Street offices" and "MainStreet member." It's not clear if they're just remote-focused recruiting agency or something else.
I'll agree with you there. They are incredibly opaque about what, where, how much, etc.
I came away thinking ... hmmm I'm interested in remote work. I'm really interested in convincing my current employer to use a program like this.
BUT, I'm not going to take the trouble to email people because I'm an engineer, and I'd prefer to just send a link to HR.
But this link has no information. So meh.
I came away thinking ... hmmm I'm interested in remote work. I'm really interested in convincing my current employer to use a program like this.
BUT, I'm not going to take the trouble to email people because I'm an engineer, and I'd prefer to just send a link to HR.
But this link has no information. So meh.
As a remote worker who left a high cost of living city (NYC) myself, I'm all in favor of promoting remote work, but I don't see the value add in me adding my email there. What exactly do I get? Job listings? The site doesn't really make it clear.
I guess every startup these days starts off with a fancy landing page who's goal is to get you to input your email, which they then use to gauge interest and decide whether or not to actually build out the product. Doesn't really tempt me to want to sign up.
Also I'm all in favor of promoting underdeveloped communities in America, but my #1 hesitation would be boredom. America seems extremely rural outside of the big cities and you need a car to do anything, and I'd imagine there isn't much of a sense of community. I grew up in the suburbs of Washington D.C. and even that I found very boring. I'd love to be proven wrong, but in any case that's why I choose to work remotely from outside the U.S.
I guess every startup these days starts off with a fancy landing page who's goal is to get you to input your email, which they then use to gauge interest and decide whether or not to actually build out the product. Doesn't really tempt me to want to sign up.
Also I'm all in favor of promoting underdeveloped communities in America, but my #1 hesitation would be boredom. America seems extremely rural outside of the big cities and you need a car to do anything, and I'd imagine there isn't much of a sense of community. I grew up in the suburbs of Washington D.C. and even that I found very boring. I'd love to be proven wrong, but in any case that's why I choose to work remotely from outside the U.S.
[deleted]
I'm not sure if this is a real site or not... but let's assume it is, what's the deal with "Stop waiting in line for brunch"? I get the commute and own your own home things, these seem like BIG deals in life. Is standing in life for brunch really the 3rd biggest problem with living in the Bay Area or is this an inside joke or something like that? Everything I know about living around there I've learned from HN and I don't think I've ever seen someone complain or even joke about troubles at brunch.
> Is standing in life for brunch really the 3rd biggest problem with living in the Bay Area
It's not a problem. More another manufactured nuisance of the kind San Francisco seems to enjoy creating.
New Yorkers have brunch later, brunch boozier and--broadly speaking--brunch with a reservation. San Franciscans (or at least my friends in San Francisco) eat brunch at the crack of dawn at establishments that prefer lines out the door to taking reservations. (They may claim to take "reservations" at the door. Those aren't reservations. They're names on a wait list. Lots of waiting.)
It's a cultural factor loosely related to (a) recent population and affluence increases outstripping a locale's (b) ability to build new businesses in the midst of (c) a greater value placed on exclusivity than time. (It's also present in Brooklyn and parts of Los Angeles.)
It's not a problem. More another manufactured nuisance of the kind San Francisco seems to enjoy creating.
New Yorkers have brunch later, brunch boozier and--broadly speaking--brunch with a reservation. San Franciscans (or at least my friends in San Francisco) eat brunch at the crack of dawn at establishments that prefer lines out the door to taking reservations. (They may claim to take "reservations" at the door. Those aren't reservations. They're names on a wait list. Lots of waiting.)
It's a cultural factor loosely related to (a) recent population and affluence increases outstripping a locale's (b) ability to build new businesses in the midst of (c) a greater value placed on exclusivity than time. (It's also present in Brooklyn and parts of Los Angeles.)
"Brunch" at the crack of dawn is just breakfast, no?
And do denizens of SF/SV eat brunch mid-week on a regular basis?
Here in DC, it's typically a Sunday late-morning thing, which aligns with the British origins of the term. Reservations suggested for swankier establishments.
And do denizens of SF/SV eat brunch mid-week on a regular basis?
Here in DC, it's typically a Sunday late-morning thing, which aligns with the British origins of the term. Reservations suggested for swankier establishments.
Having a line out the door also serves as a sort of free advertising for the restaurant. If people are willing to line up and wait for their brunch, it must be good, right?
> If people are willing to line up and wait for their brunch, it must be good, right?
That, itself, tells you about the local culture.
A culture that responds positively to a line out of the door puts a lot of value on trendiness. This is (much of) San Francisco. (It's not true across the Bay Area.)
A culture that responds neutrally or negatively to a line out of the door either responds less aggressively to trend pressure and/or has fewer supply-side restrictions. This is New York. A line out of the door in New York tells me it's a new place that's still getting its act together, there's an event there that night, they're filming or it's a shitshow.
That, itself, tells you about the local culture.
A culture that responds positively to a line out of the door puts a lot of value on trendiness. This is (much of) San Francisco. (It's not true across the Bay Area.)
A culture that responds neutrally or negatively to a line out of the door either responds less aggressively to trend pressure and/or has fewer supply-side restrictions. This is New York. A line out of the door in New York tells me it's a new place that's still getting its act together, there's an event there that night, they're filming or it's a shitshow.
Actually, I appreciate the places that don't take reservations for brunch. The number of prospective patrons is wildly out of proportion to the number of really good brunch spots. If they took reservations, you wouldn't be able to get in for a month to a place like Plow.
Instead, I can grab a coffee (or mimosa) while I stand outside chatting with my friends or wander around the neighborhood.
If you want convenience, there are plenty of places that take reservations or can take walk-ins immediately. Some of them are pretty damn good too.
Instead, I can grab a coffee (or mimosa) while I stand outside chatting with my friends or wander around the neighborhood.
If you want convenience, there are plenty of places that take reservations or can take walk-ins immediately. Some of them are pretty damn good too.
And there's always the "hidden gems" like Wayfare Tavern that only started doing brunch recently, so no line-ups yet.
[deleted]
File London under this too, the majority of 'upper mid range' or 'cool' places to eat now are, turn up, sign up to waiting list, come back in 30mins-2hr
You could be in a smaller city and have next to no cool places, and have an even bigger line at those fewer cool places.
Then leave for the smaller, but still not short, line at Waffle House instead because it turns out no matter where you are, meal-time rushes are a thing...
Then leave for the smaller, but still not short, line at Waffle House instead because it turns out no matter where you are, meal-time rushes are a thing...
Or you could, you know, make breakfast for your friends. I don’t really get the brunch lines thing. Most of the food is pretty easily made in even a minimal kitchen. (And bread can be bought the day before.)
I'm guessing people in tiny apartments may not be able or willing to deal with a bunch of friends crowding it in the morning. Or maybe they don't live near each other, so they'd rather brunch near the office. Or would rather brunch during a work pause, rather than before getting to the office.
What working people have brunches with friends during the week--except perhaps on a very rare basis?
I'll grant the tiny apartments but I'll also observe that, in undergraduate, we had space for a sizable number of people in a shared kitchen area. If where you live once you start working in a tech job is a downgrade from college, personally I consider that a problem.
I'll grant the tiny apartments but I'll also observe that, in undergraduate, we had space for a sizable number of people in a shared kitchen area. If where you live once you start working in a tech job is a downgrade from college, personally I consider that a problem.
I mean, this isn't just brunch around here. A dinner spot that would be one step above counter service in a larger city can have a line out the door in a smaller one because there's just that much less competition
[deleted]
at least they text you when your table is ready!
I'm a software engineer at a FANG, in a VHCOL city...and I feel completely out of touch with whatever cultural circles these people live in.
> We are three former Googlers who are on a mission to help create jobs in rural and suburban cities around America.
Ok, yeah, that explains it
> We are three former Googlers who are on a mission to help create jobs in rural and suburban cities around America.
Ok, yeah, that explains it
Could you please explain how that explains it to someone who needs more explanation?
I'm also a software engineer allegedly in the same cultural circles as these folks...but this brunch reference is honestly baffling to me to an extent that it makes me wonder if I even am in the same class as these folks. I've never even been to brunch!
For anyone like me who hasn't seen the VHCOL acronym before: Very High Cost Of Living.
And what is FANG? and why are acronyms so overused in an UCC (unlimited characters context)?
Facebook Amazon Netflix Google (normally another a as in FAANG, but I forgot what that is)
Apple
[deleted]
Last A is Apple
I think it's meant to be a synecdoche for all of the bad parts of living in a crowded metropolis.
It honestly seems like a Brooklynite's take on urban woes, without understanding that brunch isn't nearly as big a deal in the Bay Area as it is there.
It's not a problem here.
Seriously.
Name the last time you went to brunch. Now name the last time you were so upset at a brunch line that it inspired you to bitch about it online, let alone make it a part of your job-sites pitch...
Name the last time you went to brunch. Now name the last time you were so upset at a brunch line that it inspired you to bitch about it online, let alone make it a part of your job-sites pitch...
It's also just volume of spots, and walkability/ease of transport between them. I made a mistake and tried to get brunch at 11am in Bushwick recently, the place didn't open till noon. I walked a few minutes and just got it somewhere else.
By 1pm there was a wait, but for the first three hours that spot is open, no big deal at all.
By 1pm there was a wait, but for the first three hours that spot is open, no big deal at all.
It's about waiting in line for everything you have to wait in line for.
heh last time I stood in line for brunch was in Nashville. There are all sorts of pros/cons wherever you go. I’ve lived in Charlotte, Denver, Chicago, Austin, New York and have traveled enough to places like La, SF, London, etc that I don’t need maps to get around and know many of the neighborhoods fairly well. I don’t have a 6 horse barn like the person above but we did move a bit further out and have a pretty decent chunk of property but I can still be at one of several airports in around an hour. What would I change? I’d be closer to family. My wife and I both grew up as transplants in towns that were separate from our extended families. We don’t know what it’s like to walk down the street to visit grandma. Or having lots of siblings and cousins nearby. I recently had a conversation with an acquaintance who bought a house for his daughter and fiancé to renovate. He and his extended family own close to twenty houses in a neighborhood together - I’m sure they have a whole other set of issues being that close but I’d be happy if close was like a two hour drive or less rather than an all day flight a few times a year. Give that some thought. in my view it almost doesn’t matter where you live. Everything has something nice to like and something you won’t like.
I do think it's funny that the footer lists an address in San Jose.
It's also unclear from the "how it works" page whether it's actually required that participants initially reside in the Bay Area to be eligible for the program.
It's also unclear from the "how it works" page whether it's actually required that participants initially reside in the Bay Area to be eligible for the program.
Yeah, they should definitely clarify that on the "how it works" page. However, they do state residency as a requirement in section 4(a) here: https://workonmainstreet.com/incentive-terms
From the contact details:
105 North 1st Street #28, San Jose, CA 95113
I'm certainly not an expert, but Wikipedia claims that's in the Bay Area...
Are they paying their own team to quit?
105 North 1st Street #28, San Jose, CA 95113
I'm certainly not an expert, but Wikipedia claims that's in the Bay Area...
Are they paying their own team to quit?
Ask most people in SF or Oakland and they'll probably think SJ is not part of the bay area. Lol.
Mostly joking, but I grew up in the Bay Area and live in SJ so it's not actually that uncommon to hear, especially from new folks to the area.
Mostly joking, but I grew up in the Bay Area and live in SJ so it's not actually that uncommon to hear, especially from new folks to the area.
I think it's a post office box: https://www.yelp.com/biz/us-post-office-san-jose-35
I was surprised to see that too. They aren’t walking the walk.
Extra cynicism: by getting others to leave, they can stay and it gets better for them.
If I owned a house in the bay area, I would be asking anyone and everyone to move there. More money for me!
Rent in downtown Mountain View is higher than Manhattan.
Rent in downtown Mountain View is higher than Manhattan.
I moved to Boston about 18 months ago, and while it's not as crazy out here as it is in the Bay, I really don't think I want to spend the next ten years with a 3 hour daily commute, living in a house that costs four times as much, for half the square footage, as the one I had in rural New York.
A 1.5 hour commute is pretty unusual, how did you end up in that situation?
I'm around Boston too. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but what's your commute like now?
So it looks like you have to join one of their "Main Street Communities" and work remotely from there for 1 year, but I can't find a listing of the community locations anywhere. Do they not exist yet? What gives?
Terms: https://workonmainstreet.com/incentive-terms
Terms: https://workonmainstreet.com/incentive-terms
So...basically good luck ever collecting on that 10k.
Fine print here https://workonmainstreet.com/incentive-terms
Where does the money come from?
It is not entirely clear from the website, but it basically seems to be a kind of employment agency--they set you up with a workspace, and get you jobs with their paying corporate clients. So the deal they're offering is to give you a cut of the fee in exchange for moving, because they need to have workers to sell before they can make any money.
Also a little odd is that they want to bring jobs to non-urban areas, but they're selling themselves as an escape for people in expensive urban areas, rather than an opportunity for people in non-urban areas who need jobs. And it also leaves aside less expensive urban areas that need jobs.
Also a little odd is that they want to bring jobs to non-urban areas, but they're selling themselves as an escape for people in expensive urban areas, rather than an opportunity for people in non-urban areas who need jobs. And it also leaves aside less expensive urban areas that need jobs.
The idea is sound. There are a lot of amazing places in Italy where I am from. Some of these towns sell houses for few thousands. Just think about it. No traffic. No over-crowded restaurants. Your own property. Sun. Sea side.
I think this is more an issue of community. Of course if you are the only remote worker in a place with aging population is not fun. But if some start up would be able to build a community of remote workers in a specific location, wouldn't that make a lot of sense? Also once you have a bunch of highly skilled people in a specific location it gets easier for companies to hire there.
I think this is more an issue of community. Of course if you are the only remote worker in a place with aging population is not fun. But if some start up would be able to build a community of remote workers in a specific location, wouldn't that make a lot of sense? Also once you have a bunch of highly skilled people in a specific location it gets easier for companies to hire there.
Another option is you can just find a job in Dallas or Atlanta or something. There's enough programming jobs in cities like that, the COL is relatively low, you can live in pretty much any part of town that suits your fancy, and they're probably much nicer to live in than you might imagine if you've never left the coasts.
Personally if I were looking to move anywhere after leaving the bay I'd consider Raleigh or Nashville. Midsize-to-largeish cities are pretty cool.
Personally if I were looking to move anywhere after leaving the bay I'd consider Raleigh or Nashville. Midsize-to-largeish cities are pretty cool.
I think it depends on each person. I briefly lived in Dallas, it's just way too ... flat? No sea, no mountains, no thanks :)
That's a good point, which is actually why I listed Nashville and Raleigh. Actually, Boulder would be pretty damn cool but without checking, I think it's essentially a high COL place by now.
It is.
I live in Atlanta and have to go to Dallas for work every so often. Compared to Atlanta, it's too flat and has no trees.
So all of the Midwest :)
No sea, but you can find some very beautiful places along the great lakes!
Absolutely, I grew up there. Who needs the sea when you can't see the other side of the lake and it doesn't stink like the ocean?
Live there now, a block from Lake Erie. It's cool for 3 summer months, the other 9 months I might as well be in flyoverland cornfields...
I agree that it can be harsh. At the same time, I enjoy having the different seasons. Although this year it didn't feel like we had Fall.
Just FYI the traffic in these midsize cities is ridiculous. Nearly all have seen no real investment in urban planning and infrastructure, but have jumped in size. IMO remote is the only real viable option in many unless you plan to live in very few places that have easy transport access or walking distance. And in those places the COL is much higher.
Yeah I'm in Nashville and the traffic is way worse than people probably expect. probably not LA or DC but way above what you want to deal with.
Work anywhere near downtown? Live in one of our two most popular suburbs? 1.5 hours one way, so 3 hrs commuting a day.
Housing is also shooting up, we're very firmly MCOL. We're selling shacks that need to be torn down for 350-400k on tiny lots anywhere within 10 miles of downtown.
Our housing is more expensive than Atlanta, but unless you're working at the new Amazon office or remote your salary is going to go down to below Atlanta wages. Using Atlanta as it's an easy regional comparative.
On the other side the city is pretty cool, evidenced by the fact that you have to hunt high and low to find a 'Nashville-native' or even someone from Middle Tennessee. People move here in packs.
Work anywhere near downtown? Live in one of our two most popular suburbs? 1.5 hours one way, so 3 hrs commuting a day.
Housing is also shooting up, we're very firmly MCOL. We're selling shacks that need to be torn down for 350-400k on tiny lots anywhere within 10 miles of downtown.
Our housing is more expensive than Atlanta, but unless you're working at the new Amazon office or remote your salary is going to go down to below Atlanta wages. Using Atlanta as it's an easy regional comparative.
On the other side the city is pretty cool, evidenced by the fact that you have to hunt high and low to find a 'Nashville-native' or even someone from Middle Tennessee. People move here in packs.
While not yet at coastal levels, the cost of living in the City of Atlanta has shot up in recent years, mostly due to increasing real estate prices. Some, but certainly not all, of the suburbs are getting expensive at a even faster rate than the city. The reputation for low cost of living is deserved but not as much as it used to be and probably will continue to change. If you don't need to commute into one of the business districts each day, there are good bargains to be found especially if you don't have school age children.
> Some of these towns sell houses for few thousands
Name of the place or it didn't happen :)
Name of the place or it didn't happen :)
Here you go: https://casea1euro.it/case-a-1-euro-in-sardegna-a-15-minuti-...
You buy the house for 1 euro but then you have to fix it. So I guess you have to invest few thousands.
You buy the house for 1 euro but then you have to fix it. So I guess you have to invest few thousands.
I don’t know about Italy but in the US fixing up an old house in bad condition can be extremely expensive and time consuming. Cheaper to buy empty land and build a new one.
A significant portion of homeowners do a significant portion of the work themselves. I wouldn't say it's expected that you'll DIY everything but someone buying a house that needs substantial work without the intention of doing at least some of it themselves would certainly raise eyebrows.
Which is why I said time consuming. Since time is finite you also can't simply discount it versus spending money and consider it a net savings.
It's a massive net savings for most people because the opportunity cost of free time is very low. Very few people are forgoing income by spending their free time on home improvement versus other things.
You're making the same error about opportunity cost as the classic "it's not worth Bill Gates' time to pick up a $100 bill" fallacy.
You're making the same error about opportunity cost as the classic "it's not worth Bill Gates' time to pick up a $100 bill" fallacy.
Plus if you're a knowledge worker it can help to engage in physical activities and even mental ones that exercise your mind in different ways than your job does. Seymour Cray famously used dig under his backyard when he was stuck on design problems for his supercomputers. He claimed elves from the nearby forest (the destination of the tunnel he was digging) came into his study and solved his problems while he was out digging the tunnel. He considered the digging to be an essential part of his design process.
The news article talks about an estimation of €20k to renovate them. They're likely not very large, though.
About ten years ago in some of the rust belt you could buy a house for under twenty - Detroit comes to mind. Some of the sales had conditions that you tear down the structure and agree not to build so that city services could be removed from the town’s budget. There are still deals all over to be had - I’ve long thought it would be fun to have an Instagram of what $1m or less could buy in different parts of the country. I’ve found things like 200 acres / waterfront and numerous structures in Maine and the UP in Michigan. It all depends on your perspective of a “good deal.” But the days on the $50k house going for $2k are long gone.
I've read about lots of stories like this in the last few years. Small (generally remote) Italian towns that are shrinking quickly are trying to attract new residents. The catch is generally that you have to live there full time and can't just use it as a holiday home.
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/one-dollar-home-sambu...
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/one-dollar-home-sambu...
UK variant: https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/you-qualify-buy-1-house...
(Stoke-on-Trent is a former pottery manufacture town, and is halfway between the UK's second and third largest cities at roughly an hour and a half's drive or 40 miles per google maps)
(Stoke-on-Trent is a former pottery manufacture town, and is halfway between the UK's second and third largest cities at roughly an hour and a half's drive or 40 miles per google maps)
"To collect the $10,000, you’ll need to become a MainStreet Member and work out of one of our MainStreet offices for at least 12 months."
This is raising red flags, somehow.
This is raising red flags, somehow.
I think they meant to write work at of one of our MainStreet companies (who hired you) for at least 12 months. This might be a recruiter + wework deal
MainStreet is sharing a cut of their fee taken in from employers who want to pay less for labor, but aren't entirely comfortable with remote work. Think of it as headhunter meets coworking space meets UpWork.
If you can't fix your corporate culture, and you can't compete on comp, fake it until you make it.
If you can't fix your corporate culture, and you can't compete on comp, fake it until you make it.
That's not really that different from a signing bonus. Just rebranded for a catchy headline
[deleted]
Besides have you tried moving a modest amount of stuff across the country these days? Unless it’s literally the clothes on your back, $10k is barely enough to move very far.
More details seem to be in https://workonmainstreet.com/how-it-works
At the risk of sounding overly woke, houses and cars are terrible for the climate. Also, there's a reason that big businesses and highly-educated professionals gravitate towards. More fluid labor and job markets. I'd think a better goal here would be build up technology industries in smaller cities.
They do not necessarily have to be smaller cities just cities that have lost population or just are stagnant but have the infrastructure already in place to support more people.
I totally can get behind the idea of building up tech industries elsewhere, though it is a really tough chicken/egg problem. Smart people are not going to smallTown X if there's just one/two tech firms with which to bounce between. Love to hear ideas of how to bootstrap this (or will it get just so expensive that tech firms move out first?)
Houses are terrible for the climate?
sprawling suburbs that necessitate driving everywhere are terrible for the climate
Houses themselves aren't great for the climate (there's CO2 emission in materials productions, heavy machinery operation, etc), but they're necessary for human survival so it's hard to claim we have an alternative
Houses themselves aren't great for the climate (there's CO2 emission in materials productions, heavy machinery operation, etc), but they're necessary for human survival so it's hard to claim we have an alternative
>it's hard to claim we have an alternative
The alternative is apartments, which use roughly half as much energy as single-family houses.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=11731
The alternative is apartments, which use roughly half as much energy as single-family houses.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=11731
Oh sure, I was counting that as "house" but you're correct that denser housing is absolutely more environmentally friendly
Also heating a 2k+ Sqft home when you're just two old folk (used to get this a lot in more expensive retirement communities) can't be great!
I am assuming that they mean the clear cutting of natural habitats to build more housing in some areas.
The biggest factor is actually heating and cooling. Central heated apartment buildings use far less energy than individually heated houses.
Apartment buildings are way better. Doesn't fit all lifestyles though of course.
It's really hard to beat living and working in San Francisco. Having lived here a few years I find costs highly overstated for single people.
e.g. some costs:
Studio in Lower Haight (water + trash included): $2100/month Utilities: $50 Monthly Muni: $81
Groceries are no more expensive than anywhere else. Eating out is similar vs other cities I've been to, and if anything the quality of the food is better here at the mid price range.
If I lived in a smaller or mid-sized city there's a good chance I would have to get a car, so any savings in terms of rent would just go to owning and maintaining a car.
e.g. some costs:
Studio in Lower Haight (water + trash included): $2100/month Utilities: $50 Monthly Muni: $81
Groceries are no more expensive than anywhere else. Eating out is similar vs other cities I've been to, and if anything the quality of the food is better here at the mid price range.
If I lived in a smaller or mid-sized city there's a good chance I would have to get a car, so any savings in terms of rent would just go to owning and maintaining a car.
I live in a medium sized city in Wisconsin (~100k population) and my costs are:
- $850 for rent for a 2 bedroom 1200sqft apartment
- ~$70 for utilities (i have free heat so it's less in the winter and more in the summer)
and if i still had the car i previously had, my only expense would be gas (~$100/mo) and the minor maintenance it needed, which was less than $1000/yr (i tracked everything each year i had it). I bought a newer car recently and am financing it. I pay $350/mo on it and gas is closer to $200/mo for it but that's still well within the over $1000 difference in living costs.
I think you vastly understate just how insane $2100/mo for rent is, and overstate how much it costs to own a car. If $1k a month in savings isn't enough to own/maintain a car and that's a problem for you, you need a car that doesn't cost over $1k a month to own.
- $850 for rent for a 2 bedroom 1200sqft apartment
- ~$70 for utilities (i have free heat so it's less in the winter and more in the summer)
and if i still had the car i previously had, my only expense would be gas (~$100/mo) and the minor maintenance it needed, which was less than $1000/yr (i tracked everything each year i had it). I bought a newer car recently and am financing it. I pay $350/mo on it and gas is closer to $200/mo for it but that's still well within the over $1000 difference in living costs.
I think you vastly understate just how insane $2100/mo for rent is, and overstate how much it costs to own a car. If $1k a month in savings isn't enough to own/maintain a car and that's a problem for you, you need a car that doesn't cost over $1k a month to own.
Paying an extra $1.5k per month on rent isn't insane when it gets you $50 or $100k additional annual salary.
Generally speaking true, but what happens when you deduct state taxes, in a place like either California or New York. Suddenly the budget seems just about right and nothing too extravagant to write home about
What happens is you still come out way ahead. I'd dearly love to get out of the bay area, but even as a relatively low paid government contractor it's very hard to find an interesting job elsewhere that leaves more money in my pocket.
You may come out way ahead if non-local expenses are a large portion of your budget. Everybody else loses.
I'm out of the bay area, at a government contractor, with an interesting job. I can afford a huge family, currently with 14 people in the household supported on one income. Life is just easier where the houses are affordable.
I don't know what you'd consider an interesting job or what you'd qualify for, but how seriously have you looked? People can have a bias that stops them: if you allow that the interesting jobs exist, then you have to seriously consider them and ultimately act by moving, but that is a lot to think about and a lot of bother, so therefore there aren't any interesting jobs elsewhere.
I'm out of the bay area, at a government contractor, with an interesting job. I can afford a huge family, currently with 14 people in the household supported on one income. Life is just easier where the houses are affordable.
I don't know what you'd consider an interesting job or what you'd qualify for, but how seriously have you looked? People can have a bias that stops them: if you allow that the interesting jobs exist, then you have to seriously consider them and ultimately act by moving, but that is a lot to think about and a lot of bother, so therefore there aren't any interesting jobs elsewhere.
Yeah it's really the startup lotto ticket. I "won" at one company, and it's big enough to justify any increase in CoL I paid to live here.
If you just want to work at the Big G then might as well move to Seattle with lower CoL and no state income tax.
If you just want to work at the Big G then might as well move to Seattle with lower CoL and no state income tax.
$1.5k is generous...it's more like $500-$1k maybe. I'm lucky to have my own place in SF but most people have roommates because SF rentals is mostly houses, but if you lived nearly anywhere else you'd almost certainly find your own place and not scramble to find a roommate.
So you go from paying $2k/month with roommates to maybe $1.5k/month without. Not a huge difference.
So you go from paying $2k/month with roommates to maybe $1.5k/month without. Not a huge difference.
Not having roommates is 100% worth not saving a whole ton of money to me.
Fuck having roommates.
Fuck having roommates.
I think people in SF have normalized having roommates as adults. It's possible to find your own place, for sure, but you're going to pay at least $3500/month then for something decent unless you get a studio like me, which there are very few.
I think you may be right about normalizing roommates, which is a horrifying thought. Roommates aren't even OK in college. Past college, I can't see how it would be willingly endured. It's barely above being homeless. Being in a SRO, even the tiny cage-like ones of East Asia, would be superior.
Having a place of your own, shared only with desired family, is fundamental to being an independent adult. Ideally you should even own the land.
Having a place of your own, shared only with desired family, is fundamental to being an independent adult. Ideally you should even own the land.
Here's a hot take: having roommates is actually better than living alone if they're the right roommates. (I know many people will disagree with this.)
Sure if they're great roommates it could be worth it.
But I feel like if you have roommates for financial reasons, you generally don't get the choice.
But I feel like if you have roommates for financial reasons, you generally don't get the choice.
[deleted]
But if you're purely remote you're banking that extra money
True, but most people don't have the option of Bay Area salary outside the Bay Area.
It's certainly possible I've become numb to the idea of paying $2k+ a month in rent, but as far as I'm aware this is the cost of a typical 1 bedroom in LA or Seattle and cost of a smaller studio in NYC.
The difference is the salary you can command in SF is well above the difference in cost.
The difference is the salary you can command in SF is well above the difference in cost.
1k is a studio in Seattle if you're lucky, more like 1200-1500. 1Br start in this range too.
LA, yes.
NYC, nope.
LA, yes.
NYC, nope.
Much of my extended family is from the Bay Area, mostly circa the North end of the Golden Gate Bridge. My experience is that food is meaningfully more expensive in the Bay Area, whether eating out or eating in.
Transport does cost me more. I estimate my vehicle's ongoing TCO amounts to ~$250/month (purchase, registration, gas, repairs, insurance, etc.). (It's also worth noting that having a lower monthly TCO for a vehicle than me is possible. The math on an acquaintance's used vehicle brings TCO to ~ $150/month barring major repairs, with him driving more than me.) And of course if you have a fancier car it's more expensive.
So far as "housing costs" go, my total home costs (homeowners insurance, utilities, property taxes, internet, etc.) are less than half yours even treating my mortgage payment/home equity as a total loss. Which is to say cost of living is drastically more expensive in the Bay Area.
But more pertinent to your comment, car ownership is not cheap, but the difference in housing costs between SF and elsewhere is massively more than the cost of operating a vehicle.
Likewise, if I wanted a 2 Bed/ 2 Bath place like mine or a similar flat in SF, I think it'd be more like $4k/month.
So while I do agree it's possible to live in SF for maybe less than you'd expect, it's still very expensive.
That last time I did the math on it, supposedly ~$85k where I am in Arizona was about equivalent to ~$120k in the SF Bay Area, but the SF Bay Area seemed like it'd have lower quality of life. (Though maybe going carless would help more than I think with QoL.) And in general there's sort of a pattern, where at every pay level SF Bay Area has to increase pay by more to match elsewhere for less.
Transport does cost me more. I estimate my vehicle's ongoing TCO amounts to ~$250/month (purchase, registration, gas, repairs, insurance, etc.). (It's also worth noting that having a lower monthly TCO for a vehicle than me is possible. The math on an acquaintance's used vehicle brings TCO to ~ $150/month barring major repairs, with him driving more than me.) And of course if you have a fancier car it's more expensive.
So far as "housing costs" go, my total home costs (homeowners insurance, utilities, property taxes, internet, etc.) are less than half yours even treating my mortgage payment/home equity as a total loss. Which is to say cost of living is drastically more expensive in the Bay Area.
But more pertinent to your comment, car ownership is not cheap, but the difference in housing costs between SF and elsewhere is massively more than the cost of operating a vehicle.
Likewise, if I wanted a 2 Bed/ 2 Bath place like mine or a similar flat in SF, I think it'd be more like $4k/month.
So while I do agree it's possible to live in SF for maybe less than you'd expect, it's still very expensive.
That last time I did the math on it, supposedly ~$85k where I am in Arizona was about equivalent to ~$120k in the SF Bay Area, but the SF Bay Area seemed like it'd have lower quality of life. (Though maybe going carless would help more than I think with QoL.) And in general there's sort of a pattern, where at every pay level SF Bay Area has to increase pay by more to match elsewhere for less.
Agree with all your points.
I call shenanigans on people who say the cost of food/eating out is similar in SF to other cities. Eating out in SF is much more expensive. While there is great food to be had there, there is just as much mediocre fare which you will still be charged an arm and a leg for. Also the lack of proper cooking space in a tiny apartment means that many will be tempted to eat out more often versus cooking for themselves.
Similarly, cost to run my vehicle is around ~$200 a month and provides me great freedom and flexibility to get around and take trips out of the city when I want to.
When comparing cost of housing, I notice people always compare the cost of a tiny apartment (usually with roommates) with the cost of a much nicer apartment/house to oneself in a LoC area. Rent a small studio or apartment with roommates and your rent cost in a LoC can get into the sub $300 range easily. I knew many people renting shared spaces for $100-150 while in college.
Live wherever you want (different strokes for different folks and all that) but I feel people in these discussions are often not being completely forthright in their comparisons.
I've crunched the numbers quite a few times, outside of a hotshot FAANG job it just doesn't make sense $$ wise compared to my salary/location now despite what many on HN insist. I'd have to downgrade my standard of living drastically for it to even begin to make sense.
I call shenanigans on people who say the cost of food/eating out is similar in SF to other cities. Eating out in SF is much more expensive. While there is great food to be had there, there is just as much mediocre fare which you will still be charged an arm and a leg for. Also the lack of proper cooking space in a tiny apartment means that many will be tempted to eat out more often versus cooking for themselves.
Similarly, cost to run my vehicle is around ~$200 a month and provides me great freedom and flexibility to get around and take trips out of the city when I want to.
When comparing cost of housing, I notice people always compare the cost of a tiny apartment (usually with roommates) with the cost of a much nicer apartment/house to oneself in a LoC area. Rent a small studio or apartment with roommates and your rent cost in a LoC can get into the sub $300 range easily. I knew many people renting shared spaces for $100-150 while in college.
Live wherever you want (different strokes for different folks and all that) but I feel people in these discussions are often not being completely forthright in their comparisons.
I've crunched the numbers quite a few times, outside of a hotshot FAANG job it just doesn't make sense $$ wise compared to my salary/location now despite what many on HN insist. I'd have to downgrade my standard of living drastically for it to even begin to make sense.
One difference I have noticed is that in the midwest you can eat out and often spend less than $20 per person on the entire check. For even a mid range restaurant in the bay area, you are at $20 per person after food/drink (not including tax/tip). There are absolutely much better restaurants in SF compared to cities in say IL or WI. However, the prices are definitely higher in SF.
Agreed. Prices are way higher in SF for eating out. I don't mind if the place is legitimately better but even the crap and mediocre places will charge a ton.
I don't understand the logic by which people say that in smaller towns, you need a car. For me the exact opposite has been true: the larger the city, the more likely I am to need a car. In small cities everything is in walking distance, that's what small means. Big means things are far. Also, based on all the complaining about public traffic and congestion and whatnot, the larger the city, the more likely you are to be stuck in traffic..
As for the cost of owning and maintaining a car, I recently calculated that mine is about 300 eur/month, assuming I keep it for 5 years and sell or scrap it for 1000 eur. I'm likely to keep it longer (and/or sell for more), however, and that will bring the cost down.
By contrast, I'm paying 1045 eur/month for a 3BR apartment with sauna :-).
As for the cost of owning and maintaining a car, I recently calculated that mine is about 300 eur/month, assuming I keep it for 5 years and sell or scrap it for 1000 eur. I'm likely to keep it longer (and/or sell for more), however, and that will bring the cost down.
By contrast, I'm paying 1045 eur/month for a 3BR apartment with sauna :-).
USA small towns != European small towns. Many small cities in the US have no walking infrastructure, horrible (unreliable, slow, etc.) public transportation, and are victims of sprawl.
Having just come off a trip to a handful of smaller European cities, if I lived there I would most likely just walk, bike, or maybe scooter everywhere.
Having just come off a trip to a handful of smaller European cities, if I lived there I would most likely just walk, bike, or maybe scooter everywhere.
Many small towns have downtowns with good walking infrastructure (though often in poor repair). The problem is almost everything has closed down because the strip of big box stores located out on the highway bypass on the edge of town attracted away all the customers.
However lots of people in those cities do in fact own cars.
Larger cities tend to be denser, which means that while, yes, there are things farther than in a small city, there are also more things accessible at the same distance.
Plus, that density makes it economical to support other alternatives besides car ownership or walking, like public transportation and delivery services. I once carried a foam mattress for 12km on the Brussels subway. In any small town I lived in, that would have required a car, even if the shop was half the distance away.
And small towns are more likely to be missing something entirely, which means you have to travel to another town, possibly much farther than crossing a big city.
Currently I live in a medium-sized city, 10m by train from a big one, and I find it to be a sweet spot :)
Plus, that density makes it economical to support other alternatives besides car ownership or walking, like public transportation and delivery services. I once carried a foam mattress for 12km on the Brussels subway. In any small town I lived in, that would have required a car, even if the shop was half the distance away.
And small towns are more likely to be missing something entirely, which means you have to travel to another town, possibly much farther than crossing a big city.
Currently I live in a medium-sized city, 10m by train from a big one, and I find it to be a sweet spot :)
I feel like only someone from SF would find $2100 reasonable for a studio. To me that seems ludicrous in other cities. IME in Seattle, that's how much it would cost for a 2 BR apartment.
Additionally: 2100 * 12 = $25200. The general rule of thumb is don't spend more than 30% of your take home on housing. That means you need to make at _least_ $84000 dollars per year in take home. That hardly seems overstated. Would love to be proven wrong since I love the SF area and would love to live there. However, I cannot justify the costs because I do not make $84000 in take home.
Additionally: 2100 * 12 = $25200. The general rule of thumb is don't spend more than 30% of your take home on housing. That means you need to make at _least_ $84000 dollars per year in take home. That hardly seems overstated. Would love to be proven wrong since I love the SF area and would love to live there. However, I cannot justify the costs because I do not make $84000 in take home.
Roughly how big a studio would that get you?
Based on a few minutes on padmapper, I'm guessing about 0sqft in Lower Haight. Certainly doable in the Tenderloin though.
It's decent sized. Maybe a little less than 500 sqft. Bright & does not feel claustrophobic. Honestly surprised it was this affordable when I first saw it over the summer.
Atlanta for $ to cost of living/quality. Rural Alabama like Sylacauga (metro/eletric company fiber to your home) for "work from home". Both my wife and I work from home in rural Georgia (Carrollton)...$300k bought us 25 acres, a refurbished 2500 square feet farm house, 6 stall horse barn, 1/2 acre pond, and shop with concrete floor and electricity. There are options out there, lots of them.
My first thought about Rural Alabama is how much I'd hate that sociopolitical environment (I'm black)
Granted I googled Sylacauga and the first line on their website is
>Sylacauga (syl-a-cau-ga) is a progressive community where all the pieces fit.
So they're aware of the image which is a pretty good sign...
But I'm not doing these cities/towns that are "progressive" oases in vast deserts of backwards communities ever again.
At the end of the day, the people in backwards communities are still numerous. They still end up dominating state-level politics.
Instead of embracing change and the wealth that not being a backwards backwater can bring, they actively fight it and if anything become more emboldened in trying to band together against the "common enemy"... that is progressive people (read: non-white, non-straight and/or non-Christian).
In a more ideal world, the answer to these people would be exactly what Sylacauga seems to be, forcing them to co-exist with people who are in the 21st century, but I now feel like the answer is to let these areas wear themselves down. When the pie of wealth grows and these people are locked out for their views, they'll eventually lose the power they had.
Granted I googled Sylacauga and the first line on their website is
>Sylacauga (syl-a-cau-ga) is a progressive community where all the pieces fit.
So they're aware of the image which is a pretty good sign...
But I'm not doing these cities/towns that are "progressive" oases in vast deserts of backwards communities ever again.
At the end of the day, the people in backwards communities are still numerous. They still end up dominating state-level politics.
Instead of embracing change and the wealth that not being a backwards backwater can bring, they actively fight it and if anything become more emboldened in trying to band together against the "common enemy"... that is progressive people (read: non-white, non-straight and/or non-Christian).
In a more ideal world, the answer to these people would be exactly what Sylacauga seems to be, forcing them to co-exist with people who are in the 21st century, but I now feel like the answer is to let these areas wear themselves down. When the pie of wealth grows and these people are locked out for their views, they'll eventually lose the power they had.
Much of rural Alabama, especially through the central and southwestern parts of the state are majority black with most local governments and social institutions dominated by the local majority population. The real big problems in those areas are poverty and medical care. Even if you're well off, living in an impoverished community does negatively impact your quality of life. And you really don't want to have a medical emergency out there. The medical facilities can be few and far between with middling quality.
I somewhat relate to your view as a non-white POC. However, I don't think
> they'll eventually lose the power they had.
would do much to change the situation. Georgia, Virginia and Texas are states that are being fundamentally changed because of the influx of progressives from both rural areas and urban coasts. The fastest way to change seems to be to move to these places and use the democratic process to introduce real changes, and these folks will have no choice but to change their views or retreat to more rural areas of their states (usually its the latter).
The other aspect is that a lot of the southern states do actually have sizeable populations of African Americans...I really do hope that we don't just ignore them as successive generations seem to have done....
> they'll eventually lose the power they had.
would do much to change the situation. Georgia, Virginia and Texas are states that are being fundamentally changed because of the influx of progressives from both rural areas and urban coasts. The fastest way to change seems to be to move to these places and use the democratic process to introduce real changes, and these folks will have no choice but to change their views or retreat to more rural areas of their states (usually its the latter).
The other aspect is that a lot of the southern states do actually have sizeable populations of African Americans...I really do hope that we don't just ignore them as successive generations seem to have done....
> Georgia, Virginia and Texas are states that are being fundamentally changed because of the influx of progressives from both rural areas and urban coasts.
Why are progressives moving en mass so much that that are able to replace the local population and fundamentally alter voting patterns? What is happening to drive people out like that? I'm not an American for the record and likely am missing parts of the context here.
Why are progressives moving en mass so much that that are able to replace the local population and fundamentally alter voting patterns? What is happening to drive people out like that? I'm not an American for the record and likely am missing parts of the context here.
They made their own states too expensive, by choice, and then couldn't live with the result.
They are moving to affordable places that vote against taxes, regulations, and government services. Oddly they continue to vote for the policy that caused them to migrate, and so eventually they must migrate again.
They are moving to affordable places that vote against taxes, regulations, and government services. Oddly they continue to vote for the policy that caused them to migrate, and so eventually they must migrate again.
They don’t have to replace everyone, just tip the scales enough
High cost of living in urban centers.
Internal migration to the south and west of the US has always been strong due to generally cheaper housing and strong jobs growth (though wages are lower to match.)
The advent of mass air conditioning made the climates much more bearable to live in, fueling economic expansion. Otherwise it’d be too hot and humid.
The advent of mass air conditioning made the climates much more bearable to live in, fueling economic expansion. Otherwise it’d be too hot and humid.
If no one progressive lives in these states, there's no foothold for change, I agree with that.
But it's like a see-saw, injecting wealth while the ride is still tipped so strongly towards these backwards communities is counter-productive. It's adding more weight (money) to the other side than it is to the side of progressives and African-Americans already living there.
Especially when you consider even in these "progressive" oases, it's not uncommon for gentrification to disproportionately affect African Americans, and even end up destabilizing otherwise functional communities of black people.
I want to see us set up the progressives who live in those states for success with federal actions like fighting gerrymandering and national political movements before pouring money into those states.
The old guard losing power as wealth left their states has very much been a large part of why places like Virginia have been able to transform. You need the backwards incumbents to be weakened enough not to take your wealth generation and turn it back on the group you're trying to uplift.
But it's like a see-saw, injecting wealth while the ride is still tipped so strongly towards these backwards communities is counter-productive. It's adding more weight (money) to the other side than it is to the side of progressives and African-Americans already living there.
Especially when you consider even in these "progressive" oases, it's not uncommon for gentrification to disproportionately affect African Americans, and even end up destabilizing otherwise functional communities of black people.
I want to see us set up the progressives who live in those states for success with federal actions like fighting gerrymandering and national political movements before pouring money into those states.
The old guard losing power as wealth left their states has very much been a large part of why places like Virginia have been able to transform. You need the backwards incumbents to be weakened enough not to take your wealth generation and turn it back on the group you're trying to uplift.
You can find an apartment to buy in any neighborhood in Chicago for $200k. Same spaces in SF would be around $1M. Maybe Chicago would be a palatable alternative to rural Alabama?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to imply there are no alternatives to the major tech cities.
I don't even want to imply there are no backwards communities right on the doorsteps of the major cities that everyone just kind of sweeps under the rug.
I don't even want to imply there are no backwards communities right on the doorsteps of the major cities that everyone just kind of sweeps under the rug.
Yes! Palo Alto vs. East Palo Alto being a good Bay Area example of your latter point ;)
My dad's side of the family is in Georgia. You couldn't pay me $300k to deal with the racism in rural Georgia. Yes not all people out there are bad, but there's enough I'd rather line elsewhere.
Are sweeping generalizations of almost 11 million people the kind of comment we want to encourage on HN?
The commenter did not say all in Georgia are racist; he said ‘enough’ are to concern him.
Discussing cultural factors and our perceptions of them are fair game, especially in this thread, because they affect the relocation thought process.
I invite people to weigh in on the degree of racism across regions and states. I would like to see if there are ways to get more specific with data, though I don’t demand it. There are many aspects of society that are not easy to measure. That lack of data does not mean we should not talk about our experiences and perceptions.
Discussing cultural factors and our perceptions of them are fair game, especially in this thread, because they affect the relocation thought process.
I invite people to weigh in on the degree of racism across regions and states. I would like to see if there are ways to get more specific with data, though I don’t demand it. There are many aspects of society that are not easy to measure. That lack of data does not mean we should not talk about our experiences and perceptions.
Yeah we should keep it a secret how racist America is.
Could you please link to some data or at least share you personal experience of how racist America is today?
Personal? I guess, I'm Central American, and just because of how I look I get followed at the mall and every 2 minutes I get asked "is everything okay sir?" Obviously they think I'm there to steal something.
In Denver I went to a restaurant I overheard "why do I have to serve that spic". So okay no racism in America right? You idiot.
In Denver I went to a restaurant I overheard "why do I have to serve that spic". So okay no racism in America right? You idiot.
Judging by your demeanor here, i guess that might be the problem why people are not comfortable around you.
You can do it yourself I guess whites are the lazy ones.
I see that you are not a stranger to racism your self. Calling a billion people lazy because because of their skin color is really classy.
Not all means exists some. It includes at least one. The further qualification reinforces the more narrow scoping. An existential generalization seems inherently not sweeping.
This is not to mention the personal connection to people with direct experiences (although perhaps availability bias).
This is not to mention the personal connection to people with direct experiences (although perhaps availability bias).
It's called virtue signaling. His group is the best and everyone else is despicable.
I'm an immigrant and I am not white. I've only lived in big cities (NYC) and a handful of smaller, but progressive cities. I'd never be able to buy even a one bedroom apartment in a place like NYC - would love to move to a rural place, with less traffic/noise/pollution etc.
These kinds of comments scare me off...
These kinds of comments scare me off...
Agreed. I also grew up in a semi rural town, on the East Coast, and I wouldn’t ever want to go back.
If you’re a minority, in an interracial relationship, or are LGBT, living in a rural area can have serious quality of life issues that often aren’t mentioned.
If you’re a minority, in an interracial relationship, or are LGBT, living in a rural area can have serious quality of life issues that often aren’t mentioned.
"often aren't mentioned"? Nothing could be further from the truth.
Literally 100% of the time that anywhere in the US outside of the major tech cities gets brought up, the comments are full of people claiming that the inhabitants of those areas are racist, stupid, dangerous, unwelcoming, or otherwise bad and undesirable to be near.
The double-standards on this website are mind boggling, for how casually and openly people will believe negative stereotypes and repeat discriminatory beliefs when the 'out group' is rural, southern, or even just non-coastal.
Literally 100% of the time that anywhere in the US outside of the major tech cities gets brought up, the comments are full of people claiming that the inhabitants of those areas are racist, stupid, dangerous, unwelcoming, or otherwise bad and undesirable to be near.
The double-standards on this website are mind boggling, for how casually and openly people will believe negative stereotypes and repeat discriminatory beliefs when the 'out group' is rural, southern, or even just non-coastal.
If 25% of the population of a town were rapists, would you agree with the characterization that that town is full of rapists and to stay away from there?
In my daily sheltered life in the Bay Area, I hardly ever see overt racism. And when it happens, it bothers me.
If I’d see it happen on a daily basis, it would seriously impact my quality of life.
I see nothing wrong with saying: don’t move to this or that place because racism is rampant, even if 75% of inhabitants are not.
In my daily sheltered life in the Bay Area, I hardly ever see overt racism. And when it happens, it bothers me.
If I’d see it happen on a daily basis, it would seriously impact my quality of life.
I see nothing wrong with saying: don’t move to this or that place because racism is rampant, even if 75% of inhabitants are not.
You're making a (large, most likely incorrect) assumption that 25% of a given town is made up of ra(p|c)ists. I suspect if you got down to it, you'd find it's most like 1% or less in the 'bad' areas, and the major difference of the makeup between 'rural' and 'coastal-urban' is that 1% in the rural area is incredibly vocal. See 'the three Cooters theory of Internet Discourse' https://monsterhunternation.com/2019/07/16/the-three-cooters...
The false dichotomy is that you either live in the bay area or the deep south. Forget about Chicago, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Providence, Minneapolis, DC... these places might as well not exist in the mind of HN
No laws against non compete, parental leave, sick leave, fewer protections for laborers overall are a dealbreaker for me in the quality of life aspect.
One downside as a lifelong resident of the South: rather hot. A monthly record high of 103 F (39.44 C) was set last month (October) in Alabama.
This happens mostly during the summers and you have air conditioning everywhere... This is why so many folks move to Texas despite the horrific summers.
wow that almost exactly describes where i'm headed to next but
outside of Dallas. My plan is to lease the stables since I have no livestock and don't desire any. Most of my family are West Texas ranchers and oil hands, i'm the lone computer nerd. I have no desire to work as hard as the ranchers in my family do.
How far out of Dallas do you need to get 25 acres for 300k?
well, ok not exactly. I'm not getting 25 acres for 300k but am getting 10 with horse barn/stables, a large "shop", a house+pool the wife loves and a MIL suite for about 650k and 30min Southeast of downtown. It's not a done deal but my mother-in-law will be moving in with me/wife+2kids so we're taking it seriously and will be making an offer soon.
Congrats on the estate!
Texas is the #1 destination for people leaving California.
https://m.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/move-ca...
https://m.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/move-ca...
Las Vegas for great rock climbing and growing Californication.
Who is this targeting? An engineer already saves far more than this moving to a lower income tax state with lower COL (e.g. Washington, Nevada, Texas).
It's targetting people that don't want to move.
"How it Works":
> A free remote-first office, designed specifically for the needs of remote workers
So what it is, is a we-work like space aggregator, positioning themselves somewhat above the value chain of just empty space.
"How it Works":
> A free remote-first office, designed specifically for the needs of remote workers
So what it is, is a we-work like space aggregator, positioning themselves somewhat above the value chain of just empty space.
> To celebrate our company’s launch, we’re passing along our fees back to you in the form of a $10,000 check. To collect the $10,000, you’ll need to become a MainStreet Member and work out of one of our MainStreet offices for at least 12 months.
But what is a "MainStreet Member" and how does one become one? What/where are "MainStreet offices"? So is it remote or not? You're working remotely for a customer out of one of their offices? Is one an employee of MainStreet and contracting with their customers? What happens when I give them my email address? Their site raises more questions than it answers.
But what is a "MainStreet Member" and how does one become one? What/where are "MainStreet offices"? So is it remote or not? You're working remotely for a customer out of one of their offices? Is one an employee of MainStreet and contracting with their customers? What happens when I give them my email address? Their site raises more questions than it answers.
We (Zapier) did this a few years back, its been really cool: https://zapier.com/blog/move-away-from-sf-get-remote-job/
I hope it continues to catch on! Major metros certainly have a lot to offer, but minor metros or rural America does too -- it's a little odd that all the online "tech" jobs land in the former. If you have a decent internet connection, you can do your work from anywhere.
I hope it continues to catch on! Major metros certainly have a lot to offer, but minor metros or rural America does too -- it's a little odd that all the online "tech" jobs land in the former. If you have a decent internet connection, you can do your work from anywhere.
Let’s be honest, $10k is chump change for engineers pulling $400k. If you want people to move, how about offer $400k ?
I doubt there are more than a few hundred engineers with that salary in the entire Bay Area and they aren’t the ones who complain about cost of living.
This is the software engineer making $80,000 a year who tries to live alone and has to spend half their paycheck on a studio.
This is the software engineer making $80,000 a year who tries to live alone and has to spend half their paycheck on a studio.
That is quite false. When I worked at Google, my W2 income was about $270k every year, as a nobody senior engineer. I worked with multiple people that made at least $600k a year. There are thousands of engineers at Google making that kind of money, and no doubt Uber/Lyft/Facebook/Apple/Netflix/Microsoft are paying similar salaries.
This was not the Bay Area, rather New York, but the salaries are about the same in both areas.
The people that own homes in the Bay Area are Googlers that married each other. That is some good income. Enough for a shed in someone's backyard anyway!
This was not the Bay Area, rather New York, but the salaries are about the same in both areas.
The people that own homes in the Bay Area are Googlers that married each other. That is some good income. Enough for a shed in someone's backyard anyway!
There are thousands of employees at each of Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and Google making more (some significantly more) than that. And although they generally pay best, they also are a fraction of overall tech employment in the Bay Area. Poke around in https://www.levels.fyi if you're curious.
Very few companies will ever pay engineers that money. And those companies have campuses all over the USA. So, they don't need this... The ones who could be interested in what this company offers are those that are much more financially constrained. Thus, offering more than $10k for a sign on bonus is probably not plausible for them either. I'd be surprised if anyone who gets hired through this company would have a TC past $200k. (ignoring silly valuations of startup stock)
The main reason why we remain in a high cost area (North-central NJ) is opportunities. Yeah I work remotely now and have for awhile, and I doubt I will leave my current company any time soon... but things change, and I would hate to relocate to an idyllic rural paradise (I grew up in very small towns), lose this job and be unable to find another remote gig. At least in the NYC area I know there is going to be _something_ available within commute distance if I have to do that again.
I just hope that if you're thinking about a move, read comments from folks that either grew up in the area being considered and/or those that moved back from.
There are very real reasons why people move into the Bay Area - and put up with all the "problems". This is coming from a person that grew up in the South and would rather not move back.
There are very real reasons why people move into the Bay Area - and put up with all the "problems". This is coming from a person that grew up in the South and would rather not move back.
I'm glad to see innovation in this space. I work remotely as an ML engineer in a "Main Street"-ish city (not really, but it's a middle-class city with a reasonably affordable COL that's part of a large MSA).
Remote work has generally delivered on all its promised benefits for me. I make much more money than I would if I got a job in the city where I live, and my apartment is much nicer than what I could afford if I still lived in the Bay area. I had hoped to move somewhere with great access to the outdoors (this is what initially made me interested in remote work), but ultimately ended up moving for relationship reasons and had to give up the outdoor mecca dream for the time being.
Now, I'm thinking of going back to office life. Since taking the remote plunge I've struggled with loneliness and anxiety about career stasis, and haven't been able to find a critical mass of educated, ambitious, like-minded friends where I now live.
There's a tremendous opportunity for whoever can make it easier to build and find in-person communities of ambitious remote/satellite workers. Offices and cities are blunt instruments for matching people on ambition and education/intelligence. If it were easier to find and integrate into smaller (but equally ambitious) hubs, it would make remote work a more attractive option for many more people.
Feel free to get in touch if you'd like to speak more on this subject.
Remote work has generally delivered on all its promised benefits for me. I make much more money than I would if I got a job in the city where I live, and my apartment is much nicer than what I could afford if I still lived in the Bay area. I had hoped to move somewhere with great access to the outdoors (this is what initially made me interested in remote work), but ultimately ended up moving for relationship reasons and had to give up the outdoor mecca dream for the time being.
Now, I'm thinking of going back to office life. Since taking the remote plunge I've struggled with loneliness and anxiety about career stasis, and haven't been able to find a critical mass of educated, ambitious, like-minded friends where I now live.
There's a tremendous opportunity for whoever can make it easier to build and find in-person communities of ambitious remote/satellite workers. Offices and cities are blunt instruments for matching people on ambition and education/intelligence. If it were easier to find and integrate into smaller (but equally ambitious) hubs, it would make remote work a more attractive option for many more people.
Feel free to get in touch if you'd like to speak more on this subject.
(https://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/what-are-eichler-homes/)
Eichlers are very common in Palo Alto, but not so common throughout the rest of the US.
(Edit: And yes, I left the Bay Area, and bought what most people living in the Bay Area would consider a mansion, in a high-cost-of-living state. I paid less then my Bay Area rent for a 1-bedroom with a loft.)