Hacker News Reader

Comment by sideband | Hacker News Reader

There's some sort of Stockholm syndrome prevalent among too many Bay Area residents that compels them to accept the lower quality of life. I lived there for several years until recently, and it was a surreal experience to hear others discuss the sacrifices they were making just to have a roof over their family's head, to provide a half-decent education for their children. And these were well-payed folks at the brand-name companies! Those that took a tech job straight out of college and had never lived anywhere else seemed the worst affected. Not enough realized that they deserved more then they were getting back from the Bay Area.

View on HN

Having lived in Long Island, NY and Boca Raton, FL I gotta say... I don't think I could leave the Bay Area.

The weather, the geological features, the schools, the meetups, the job opportunities... all factors.

But the biggest is that the people are truly interested in intellectual matters in a way that was not extant in the other places I've lived. My son is a programmer and nobody had a clue what he was talking about--which is fine--but they also couldn't care less to even try to understand.

And also, there is a lot of prejudice that I am glad my kids will not grow up in the milieu of.

>But the biggest is that the people are truly interested in intellectual matters in a way that was not extant in the other places I've lived.

This is the way I feel in Boston. The cost of living (mainly housing prices) gets more ridiculous every year, but the intellectual and cultural environment make me want to stay. Most of my friends back home (deep South) are easily able to afford to buy decent homes, while I'm stuck renting a tiny apt. Still, this feels like a worthwhile material sacrifice given the culture of this city. Then again, if I had kids, I might feel differently ...

Boston is an amazing city in terms of intellectual capital, no doubt due to its rich history and many universities in the area. The brutal winter and steep cost of living are what make it difficult for me to see myself living there long term; unlike NYC or SF where tech salaries tend to be at least somewhat adjusted for the cost of living, I noticed Boston tech salaries were only marginally higher than Atlanta's, while Boston has the third highest CoL after SF and NYC.

I have a child on the way, live in Frankfurt Germany and feel exactly this lack of cultural environment, as most topics in intellectual circles here can be either categorized into "how to make more money/keep up with the joneses?" or "how to be really politically and environmentally friendly while having a good quality of life?"

I'm really unsure if this environment is so great for children as i'd rather be able to get them in an environment where big ideas are discussed. I've been doing my best for the past few years by organizing meetups/events or supporting others who do likewise, but at this point I question if that is enough compared to just moving to a place where these things are just the norm.

Agreed - I like where I am, but I'm paying for it.

Then again, in another year or so I should be able to buy a place near a T stop.

Long Island and Boca Raton aren't exactly stiff competition in the "life of the mind" department. Also I disagree, IT is huge out there but other disciplines get short shrift.

LOL for sure.

And I agree about other industries but I happen to be in tech.

IT != software development

> But the biggest is that the people are truly interested in intellectual matters in a way that was not extant in the other places I've lived.

That seems like it used to be true more than it is now. I live in Austin, and you can't go to a downtown coffee shop without hearing a spirited discussion about programming languages, frameworks or even conversion rates (I heard that last one standing in line at a taco place the other day.)

It's partially, I think, because programming and computers are more ingrained in the culture at large, and mostly because SF got too expensive and so places like Austin, Seattle, and Portland have a significant number of tech startups now.

The conversations are on a different level though. In a secondary tech market you'll hear CoffeeScript vs. JavaScript, Laravel vs Rails or whatever. In the Bay Area, and also in Cambridge, the discussion might be about compiler architecture or reverse engineering.

That's some serious next level snobbery. Let me guess where you live.

In neither of those places. It's something I've observed living and working in both, however, and it's one of the main things I miss.

I would place those three or four conversations on the same level, to be frank. Also, living somewhere that isn't a tech capital, I'm actually annoyed to hear programming language discussion on the bus in the city, but maybe that's because I'm trying to get home from my job, not stay at my desk.

You're absolutely right. A better example of the former would be somebody building a basic CRUD app but describing it in brutal detail, throwing around as many words that buzz to the speaker as possible (REST, API, Bootstrap, etc.). Of course there's nothing wrong with that but it's boring as hell to overhear. A better description would be that in primary tech markets, the conversations tend to go much deeper and into areas that others would consider esoteric.

Jobs and day trips yes. Schools, no. Public schools are among the worst funded and least achieving. Good schools, go to Mass (with also good day trips, but harsh winters).

South FL has some truly awful schools; that was my comparison.

This is mid-Fla, but when we moved from a good school system in a Dallas suburb to Brevard County, my daughter went from top 20% of her class to top 5%. This was unplanned but it set the table for her to have a full ride undergrad scholarship leading to a graduate program with also an assistantship.

After leaving school ( she stopped at a Master's ) she left anything related to academia behind but she's still roughly able to exploit the degree as a credential .

But South Fl is a completely different thing. I once declined a job offer there simply because more than half of the rental property on offer appeared to be phone-drop scams.

But South FL also has some truly great schools. I graduated High School from one of them. Many of my classmates ended up in ivy league schools. Everywhere, in my experience, has some good and bad schools.

You can do magnet programs there though. I went to school in Tampa. In general the public schools were awesome, but the magnet programs were absolutely incredible.

I just moved back here. I can confirm. Now looking for an exit strategy.

Looking to get out as well, Broward/Miami area is overcrowded and pricey, not to mention poorly educated. Lucky enough to work for a company that will allow me to go remote - can anyone recommend a place on the east coast? (preferably warm climate)

Lots of my friends are moving to the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill in North Carolina. They seem to like it a lot. I visit the area about 3-4 times a year and love it.

Isn't the CoL already rocketing up in that area of NC?

I'm sure it's gone up, but I think it's still pretty decent. Drinks/food are pretty reasonable. You don't need to live downtown since it's pretty car centric out there. Chapel Hill has that upbeat college feel I love.

Northern VA, DC area. Some of the best schools in the country.

Blacksburg Virginia?

I loved Blacksburg. But due to my rebellious, student nature I told the Montgomery county sheriff I'd never come back to that place. I'd hate to have to break a promise.

Go just a bit north. The line you must cross is between Pompano Beach and Deerfield Beach. Stay south of Cocoa Beach.

Ideally you'd be near Melbourne, preferably closer to the beach. Suitable towns: Melbourne Beach, Indialantic, Satellite Beach

What geological features of the Bay Area do you regard as a plus point?

NB Not being snarky - I live in Edinburgh which is overflowing with geological features [hence arguably being the birthplace of geology as a science] and I love that factor but the main geological feature of the Bay Area would appear to be a major disadvantage rather than a feature?

> What geological features of the Bay Area do you regard as a plus point?

I believe they may be talking about the Sierra Nevada range, with mountaineering matched only by places in the Andes, Himalayas or Alps. Yosemite is the climbing capital of the world and the birthplace of modern rock climbing. Sure, it's not right in the Bay area, but you can easily drive to a trail head within a half day or less.

Little known secret: the East side of the Sierras is where all the best action is at and the real estate is cheaper (although still overpriced). The downside is the tech jobs are few and far between and if you like urban environments, there aren't really any.

Half a days drive is a lot. In Edinburgh there are decent outdoor sports half an hour away.

Which is exactly why I said "or less". Depending where you live in California, Bouldering or sport climbing could be 20 minutes away,plus it's available year round. You can't beat that.

I assume you're thinking about the earthquake risk. We haven't had a major quake here in a generation, and people have short memories. The San Andreas fault exists day-to-day as a pretty chain of lakes.

I'd also count being in a place where the mountains meet the ocean as a plus, as well as the golden gate (the waterway, not the bridge, though the bridge ain't half bad, either). And a few hours away you've got Big Sur and Yosemite.

You should move to Portland. We have all of that and more. No wait, the Californians are already ruining Portland. Please, do not move here.

You can keep Portland: no fourteeners and too much bloody rain. I'll take my SoCal where I can climb 365 days of the year.

I guess parent meant geographical. Ocean, bay, mountains, forests, near-deserts, all in close proximity.

Seattle has much the same, with the plus of waterskiing in the middle of the city on Lake Washington. Of course, the boom in prices is affecting Seattle, too.

Yeah, I lived over half my life up there. West coast geography is just what I consider "normal". I don't think I could live in other regions of the country as happily.

I didn't find housing costs to be that far out of whack with the increased salary when I moved to the Bay Area, though.

And I found the soul crushingly bad traffic at the time to be worse in Seattle than in the Bay. My #1 reason was the weather, though. I just couldn't take the lack of sunshine. My mood changed so much when I moved down here. I'm sure it doesn't bother some people, and more power to them. I really miss the northwest when I visit. It reminds me of what I've missed out on, things have changed so much. Then again, I would have missed out on things that happened down here. And I've missed out on everything that happened in Omaha and Denver and...

I like the rain in Seattle. It makes things peaceful, and the wet air smells good. (I grew up in Arizona, where 367 days of clear blue sky gets a bit boring <g>.)

After about 10 years here in CA, I started liking the rain too. Now I love it when it rains. I just hated the way unpredictable weather (==rain) meant you could never plan an outdoor activity in the PNW without the decent possibility of it getting rained on. It limited my enjoyment of the "great outdoors". But in a larger sense, my (mood-related) gripe was with the grey, not the rain itself.

I do miss the Arizona sunsets, though. And the electric storms in Kansas - what a show!

bingo

Perhaps it's a character defect, but I consider "the life of the mind" to be more about books than something involving other people directly, face to face.

The philosopher kings of SiVa are as much the Medici as they are intellectuals.

"All mankind's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room." - Blaise Pascal.

There's value in face-to-face interactions and conversations like meetups and hacker spaces or math circles for kids.

Absolutely, but it all really comes down to homework.

Guidance can help, tools can help, but it's not like those will replace just doing the work.

It's not just SF. It's big cities around the world. They are drawing in more people than ever. Most have housing/transport issues that present as high cost of living. People still keep pouring in and successful cities stand out in terms of household income.

Even as the internet makes geography less relevant, the competition for living in cities keeps growing.

I've seen the "alpha cities" phenomenon explode since 2000. Where you live has become a proxy for your competence, importance, etc.

I'm not convinced it's not the Internet. Google "FOMO" for a possible mechanism. The Internet makes it easy for large cities, by sheer social mass, to send out a louder cultural signal and convince everyone else they are missing something by not being there. Talk to a young midwesterner and you will hear many whose ambition is to "get to NY," with this vague sense that magic will happen when they do. This draws more young ambitious people, which amplifies the effect. Eventually if you are not in SF or NYC you are nobody.

This isn't new, but I do wonder if the net is amplifying it.

I also wonder if wealth stratification is playing a role. Opportunity clusters in cities where there is capital available, and those tend to be the big cities where the most rich people live.

"Opportunity clusters in cities where there is capital available, and those tend to be the big cities where the most rich people live."

Which, in 2016, is kinda crazy. One would think with the internet being geographically close to capital wouldn't matter as much. Now it matters more than ever before it seems.

It's sad that the young midwesterner (hey that was me once!) has to try to "get to NYC" for the best opportunities instead of modern communications making those opportunities available in places like Chicago, or Indy, or that person's small hometown. That person shouldn't have to choose between sharing a one bedroom apartment in Bushwick with 4 other people or remain jobless/stuck at one job in whatever middle of the country place that person resides in.

I work out of Chicago about a week a month. Most of my college friends live in Chicago and have very good jobs in the technology and financial industry. Couple that with being able to live in awesome parts of town without even thinking about the cost, drinks/food that are much cheaper than NYC at the high end, etc. I think it's a great place with awesome people.

I currently work remote (kind of), and have worked remote in the past.

My perception is that it's much harder to get trusted and valued as a remote worker, unless you have the luck to be in a very meritocratic company (and I don't think it's possible to be 100% meritocratic).

Social interactions are key for all but the most technical of positions (and even then, there's social dynamics at work, only through papers or mailing lists or whatever).

Ironically, a recent contact told me of people who work there remotely, but from California.

We're doing it wrong :)

> Talk to a young midwesterner and you will hear many whose ambition is to "get to NY," with this vague sense that magic will happen when they do. Eventually if you are not in SF or NYC you are nobody.

Speaking as a late-20's midwesterner, I don't think it's about success or "FOMO" as much as it is about lifestyle.

The Midwest doesn't have real cities (except for Chicago). You really can't have an urban lifestyle in the Midwest. The cities here simply aren't developed enough to support it, and likely never will be.

Someone from Indianapolis / Cincinnati / Milwaukee / etc might respond to try to argue that you can, or that they do. But realistically, they're kidding and everyone knows it -- it's doesn't even remotely compare to somewhere like Boston or NYC or DC or Philadelphia or San Francisco or Seattle.

That doesn't make those places bad, it's not a slight against people who want suburban or rural lifestyles. But if your the kind of person who wants an urban lifestyle, you probably won't be satisfied by anything Midwestern (sans Chicago) because that type of lifestyle simply doesn't exist here.

This is where the "get to NYC" ambition comes from, far more than any idea of success or "FOMO", in my opinion.

it's doesn't even remotely compare to somewhere like Boston or NYC or DC or Philadelphia or San Francisco or Seattle.

The benefits fall off pretty quickly after NYC, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco. As a Midwesterner who has long considered a move for exactly the reasons you mentioned, my reaction to a move to Philadelphia or Seattle or Austin (or whatever) is basically, "why bother?" I can live an "urban enough by comparison" lifestyle right here.

But, that's not true of the Big Four.

For city life, Boston clearly beats San Francisco. In the USA, probably only New York can beat Boston.

Prime example: two decades ago, Boston's MBTA T (subway/tram/light rail stuff) had technology that San Francisco's MUNI still can't manage.

LA is a sprawl. Chicago is a war zone. Well, LA is that too. This may be city life, but it doesn't count if we're considering positive attributes!

"This isn't new, but I do wonder if the net is amplifying it."

I don't know about amplifying it, but it's certainly revealing that there are much better opportunities out there. Working in the midwest and reading about the coasts is depressing as hell.

As an Old Guy the coasts are depressing as hell.

I had a feller from HP trying to get me to relocate to SiVa in the 1980s. I dunno. I calculated that land price made Texas better, and it was for quite a while.

"If you aren't in SF or NYC you are nobody..." Whew. Okay then.

"Wealth stratification" is, IMO, largely an artifact of 1) increasingly abstract wealth and 2) low interest rates. This is oh so very much because of the tax code and because of Fed policy.

I think you're right about FOMO and the internet. Stuff like Meetup, Tinder or flash mob facebook groups only really work in cities, the bigger the better. OTOH, you are not totally isolated from stuff with the internet playing such a big part of culture. It's hard to argue with the economics, I guess. Cities have been drawing people in for a while now they haven't lost their pull.

I suspect you have to examine the premise that the internet makes geography less relevant. That's okay; I live in the middle of the country (something about which I am quite stubborn ) and a significant fraction of my recent job opportunities were based on somebody moving to Cali. Follow that yellow brick road.

As a California resident, I have the impression I live in the technology center of the world, that I am part of the 6th largest economy in the world, and that California is a beautiful place to live - and more importantly, that once you move out of California you will not be able to move back.

Also we have Feinstein so that's... that's a joy.

PS: I love it how there's a desperate need for cheap housing, and developments are approved - but always priced for big-earners.

That's because nowhere near enough is approved. The US population growth rate is around 1%. If San Francisco were growing no faster than the country at large it would need to build housing for about 8500 people per year. San Francisco is currently building around 3500 homes per year.

And that's not even accounting for the massive economic boom going on here, or the surrounding municipalities which are largely doing worse on construction (cough cough Palo Alto).

It's extremely unlikely that you are the keeper of the emotional state of millions of people who aren't you. There is tremendous arrogance in asserting that people who don't outwardly share your opinion are pathological, when your source is at best a few 10s of acquaintances.

>some sort of ... among too many

I don't see him asserting that millions of people are that way.. Simply that he witnessed several instances of this or that it may have been common for him to see this.

Sounds like they aren't paying enough. If people demanded what they needed to live a decent life, they would either have to get it or the companies would wake up and relocate more quality jobs to lower COL locations.

Problem is, soon as everyone starts demanding more, then the cost of everything else goes up. There is limited space, and those people making the most, will pay the most regardless. Just a never ending cycle.

Yep, supply and demand can't be overcome. I suspect raising minimum wage must have the same effect over time as well.

My point was that more good jobs would be relocated and distributed across the country to cheaper cities

A lot of folks are also immigrants, who need to wait close to a decade to become citizens to be able to demand anything.

It's interesting to hear these experiences from people that live there. Because there is certainly a romanticized version of it we see on the East Coast. Living in upstate New York, we have tons of wilderness areas, and relatively cheap living conditions. The grind out in California, just to say you live there, sounds scary.

But it's not just the grind to say you live there, it's the grind to work at (in many cases) the top tech companies in the world. The big question has to be: Is having the top tech company's name on your resume, or working on the kinds of projects that these companies are working on worth the grind of living in that area? In some cases, the answer will be yes; in others, I've gotta say I'd be hard pushed to agree - though for many people, the reasons to stay outrank the reasons to leave and that will be different for everyone.

Of course, I just moved to a farm in the country so I wouldn't have to deal with all that nonsense :P

Love that you're from upstate NY and your name is "overcast."

I'm making do in Ithaca just fine. More restaurants per person than New York City, a rush hour that only lasts 10 minutes on 5 roads, and a bunch of really nice people for a place this cold and gray make Ithaca the most good enough place in the world for me.

As far as big cities go, you take the great with the terrible.

Ithaca area is beautiful, I'm frequently in the Finger Lakes for hikes. Just did fifteen miles a few weekends ago at Treman and Watkins Glen. It's only a bit more than an hour from Rochester where I am, which has similar traffic, albeit the rush hour lasts a bit longer. But the food and drink scene here in the last five years here has exploded. There's been more than a few places open from ex-NYC restaurateurs.

Sounds like you did the right thing by moving somewhere that suits what you were looking for.

Similarly, I did the right thing by moving out of the Northwest to the Bay Area where my quality of life is vastly better.

eh, it just depends on what you want. Some people's priorities are different, and their tipping points are different. I live in an "overpriced" city, but I love it here. I've also lived in CA, TN, MO, so I've seen a pretty large range of high to low cost living. I'd much rather be in a large, expensive city than a small, cheap one.

Your options aren't limited to "large, expensive" and "small, cheap". There are two other options.

Large, cheap: Detroit, Houston, Atlanta

Small, expensive: Key West, Honolulu

Depending on how you count "small", add in any of: Palo Alto, Malibu, Summerville

Reply on news.ycombinator.com