Hacker News Reader

Comment by humanrebar | Hacker News Reader

> It's impossible to keep people there...

Seems like that's a problem that could be solved with a big enough compensation package, right?

It's not, the issue is that the market is so small, that even if you are paying really well, no one else is. So if things go south, you're going to have to move.

...so you put another $20k in your emergency fund from your much-above-market-rate salary, right? I have a hard time seeing a developer making $200k in Buffalo getting excited about many NYC or SF offers.

On the one hand the stereotypical 20-something urbanite without local roots doesn't want to live in Buffalo (or Kansas City or wherever) even if it's an economically rational choice if they have options. On the other hand, if they have a family, it's not as simple as hopping on a plane and going somewhere else.

[Edit: I'd also argue that, if you can't imagine having a future in a particular locale, it may not make sense to take a job there unless it's with the explicit intent of having it be a limited time thing even if the pay is good. The networking associated with being physically in an area where job opportunities are good shouldn't be overlooked.]

There are exceptions. There are successful tech companies outside of the usual places. And certainly outside of Silicon Valley and NYC. But attracting talent for non-remote positions can be challenging.

That 20-something is very stereotypical. I'm sure some cities are more attractive than others, but there are many that would not be interested in NYC of SF. Many more young people happily live outside of NYC and SF than inside those cities.

As for families, NYC and SF are unattractive because of their extremely high cost of living, especially if home ownership is important. If long-term zip-code stability is important, the competition for Buffalo wouldn't be NYC or SF. Texas or North Carolina, maybe.

Oh, I agree with you. For tech, Raleigh and Austin have a lot of activity. Massachusetts of course--Boston/Cambridge housing costs are expensive but suburbs/exurbs are a lot cheaper than the Valley. Colorado.

There is a stereotype on HN that 20-somethings are all moving into a city without cars. There is a slight increase in college-educated millennials living in a handful of particularly dense urban areas but the overall trend is much exaggerated.

So I can speak from experience here, on both ends. I was recruited back to upstate NY after moving away for about 200k to run an engineering team, I make a bit north of that on the west coast. I turned it down without even thinking about it too much, one I would have to uproot my family, and if that company went sour, I wouldn't be able to provide for them the same way and we'd have to move again. I also couldn't take the winters anymore.

If you are recruiting top end college grads, forget it, they'll get snapped up by the bigger companies, even if you are offering them the same, it's about the name and moving out west. If you are recruiting senior engineers, none of them will move from the bigger cities, and there aren't really that many local if at all that can solve certain problems, they all move away.

I'm still not buying it. That may be true for you, but it certainly isn't true for me, at least not yet.

Plus, there are many people interested in Mr. Money Mustache (who espouses financial independence through low cost-of-living), rural activities (rock climbing, hunting, etc.), or any number of other things you can't find in NYC or SF.

Fair enough, I won't try and convince you, FWIW I hope you are right, it's my home city and I want it to be a great place again.

That's great until you have a family. People don't like having to uproot their kids if things go south.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com