Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlund-molfese | Hacker News Reader

While the digital nomad lifestyle is attractive, I'm always bemused by people on HN who are concerned about burnout, but also don't even seem to consider the non-coastal US. It's a less drastic option than leaving the country entirely.

A lot of the annoyances with SF companies just go away (of course, there are new problems too). Nobody will ask you to implement a red-black tree from memory, you can consistently work under 40 hours a week, and interviews are more focused on behavioral questions and project experience. If you're ok with a salary in the low 6 figures, it's really not bad.

View on HN

A lot of the jobs (barring remote) in non-coastal US are for non-tech companies. There's a definite cultural difference between a company whose product is software, and a company whose product is -something else-. The article's comment about tech being the new factory workers rings true, but more true for that latter case, where devs are a particular kind of cog (a notably expensive one to boot), rather than a valuable asset.

Though that's probably less of an issue if consulting.

Just want to throw it out there. Sure, you have a sub-six-figure salary in different parts of the country, but your rent/mortgage for a similar sized home is a third. Compared to Cali, your taxes are less too in most states.

While your absolute salary is less, your purchasing power is far greater compared to SV, SF and LA. I know someone is going to pick some outliers like NYC, Seattle and so forth. There's still more places to live than that.

Historically your stock incentives have done a lot worse outside of those areas though.

People have also gotten rich off the lottery. Doesn't mean that's something you should always bank on. People have different lifestyle desires with various degrees of risk tolerance. There are different locales that benefit to different lifestyles. Understanding that difference allows people to live happier lives. Everyone catering to one lifestyle because a handful of people like it is not exactly ideal for any society.

Or less, but agreed -- the quality of life is so much higher. Can you imagine a world where you don't have to fight traffic or step around human feces or discarded needles that were helpfully provided by the city?

Sure, you might end up moving in a year or two when the job plays out, but you can just move to another non-coastal town. Be flexible and follow the jobs, and you'll see more disparate types of environments (and learn more about how different people think) than you ever could. You can learn pretty much everything there is to learn from a given team in less than six months, so looking at it as a consulting or training gig (even if it's a full-time job) can give you a much stronger resume. (Bonus, you learn people skills from dealing with people from many different regions and backgrounds.)

A lot of US coastal people grew up in the non-coastal US. The cost savings are there (to some extent) but we left there for a reason.

Leaving the country isn't "drastic": 96% of humans live outside of America.

Did those 96% of humans leave their home country or previously live inside America?

> 96% of humans live outside of America.

Do 96% of English speakers live outside of America tho?

About 75% of English speakers live outside of the USA.

My google card shows closers to 62%. but regardless ESL technically broke the point I WAS going to make.

Not leaving the country is "less drastic" (OP's words) than staying, especially for USers.

> we left there for a reason.

Yups. So did immigrants who came from outside the US now living in the big coastals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com