I used to live in Nowhere, Florida, and would move back in a heartbeat, but from an employment standpoint it became too risky. Most places outside of The Usual Tech Hubs are one-horse towns when it comes to tech employment, major opportunity risk.
If you're a software engineer and live in the Bay Area and suddenly lose your job, depending on the economy you're probably in for a 1-6 month job search at local companies where you can show up for an interview at any moment's notice. If you're a software engineer and live in flyover country and suddenly lose your job, you better plan on moving somewhere else. Interviewing involves 2-5 hour plane trips all over the country, and then when you finally find something, you need to negotiate relocation costs or fork over $5-10K to move. The prospect of repeating that cycle is pretty unpleasant.
So we put up with 2 hour commutes, tiny homes, and sky-high cost of living, because that's where the companies are.
I don't think the article is aimed at you or me. It's aimed at young people that want to be artists, musicians, writers, and so on. They don't need to be near tech hubs. He argues it is better for them to create their own new bohemian art communities than fight the high cost of living in NYC and SF.
That said, I think there's a case to be made for e.g. the Bronx that he ignores in favor of something like Poughkeepsie.
The "bohemian art communities" always rely on some sort of cash influx, or they collapse relatively quickly. The trick is to be near the money source, not in it.
NYC in the sixties had old money. Big Sur in the sixties had Hollywood. Seattle in the 90s had MS money (in Redmond).
You also can't move to the middle of nowhere, because art requires a community - both of collaborators, and of spectators. And it doesn't hurt if there's an existing art scene.
And you do want to be in a place that's at least somewhat liberal. Art usually pushes the boundaries of what society considers acceptable, and a liberal place allows you to push just a bit further.
And so, you can't just "create" a place. There are a lot of preconditions. (Compare to the many cities that want to "create" a second Silicon Valley)
If I should venture a bet, Detroit might work - although there are too many real estate speculators getting into the game. Possibly Grand Rapids. And their ArtPrize thing indicates they might be encouraging that.
> That said, I think there's a case to be made for e.g. the Bronx that he ignores in favor of something like Poughkeepsie.
Housing isn't the only cost that drives people out of NYC. For many, if not most, it's actually the school systems that make people move.
Yes, you can get an excellent education in NYC public schools, but it requires you to work the system (applications at every step of the way), and there is considerable risk of not getting into a great school. Even assuming your child does get into one of the great high schools, they might have a ridiculous commute every day getting to/from work.
This explains why when you cross the city line from the Bronx into Westchester County, home prices shoot up. Anywhere with good schools within a reasonable commute of NYC is going to cost you $$$$.
That's why I'd be fairly pessimistic about the case for the Bronx - it might be a pretty solid option for unattached twentysomethings, but the cost of living for a typical middle-aged engineer is going to be no cheaper than it would be for a company in Manhattan (although they may have an easier commute to the Bronx).
> it might be a pretty solid option for unattached twentysomethings, but the cost of living for a typical middle-aged engineer
Again, I think the article is aimed at twenty-something would-be artists, writers, musicians and so on. Not middle-aged engineers (like me).
I get that it was posted on hacker news and people are going to try to apply it to their own lives, but in this case it really doesn't translate all that well.
Exactly. I came to live in Boston because there is shit-all for tech companies in Jacksonville, FL. I wasn't about to start one for myself, and I wanted to both make a good salary and get lots of experience. If you want to work a job, you go where the jobs are - and those are in places like the Bay area.
Of course, none of this would be an issue if we would all just work remotely, but that's not going to happen for a while.
If you're a software engineer and live in the Bay Area and suddenly lose your job, depending on the economy you're probably in for a 1-6 month job search at local companies
That long? Funny that we're always hearing about how difficult it is for tech companies to find software engineers.
In any case, OP is expressly not talking about getting a job at a tech company -- he's talking about doing something interesting with your life. I presume this means getting a 9-5 at a laundromat in Ohio and working on open source projects in your spare time.
>I presume this means getting a 9-5 at a laundromat in Ohio and working on open source projects in your spare time.
This doesn't sound like it'd be any more conducive to productivity on side-projects than a 9-5 at a tech job. Consuming 8 hours of the work day is bad for productivity no matter what.
Also, nthing the sentiment that tech hiring is screwed up. I highly doubt that companies are having a hard time finding engineers at all.
I had a friend in grad school who got a pile of good math research done while working the overnight shift at a hotel. There's a handful of these jobs where you just need a body present, and the mind is free to go as far as it wants...
> This doesn't sound like it'd be any more conducive to productivity on side-projects than a 9-5 at a tech job. Consuming 8 hours of the work day is bad for productivity no matter what.
Most places outside of The Usual Tech Hubs are one-horse towns when it comes to tech employment, major opportunity risk.
I've heard that a lack of other major employers competing for the same employees is a significant consideration for large companies looking to change cities.
They can hire people from wherever and pay relocation, then not worry about them jumping ship over mildly lousy raises.
(Source: recruiters in town a while ago for a bank setting up a new IT office half way across the state; about half is me reading between the lines.)
The flip side of that argument is that people aren't stupid. They think of just that problem: "if I lose/don't like my job, where else can I find work?"
If the answer is "two hours east," then most applicants will pass on the "opportunity."
If you're a software engineer and live in the Bay Area and suddenly lose your job, depending on the economy you're probably in for a 1-6 month job search at local companies where you can show up for an interview at any moment's notice. If you're a software engineer and live in flyover country and suddenly lose your job, you better plan on moving somewhere else. Interviewing involves 2-5 hour plane trips all over the country, and then when you finally find something, you need to negotiate relocation costs or fork over $5-10K to move. The prospect of repeating that cycle is pretty unpleasant.
So we put up with 2 hour commutes, tiny homes, and sky-high cost of living, because that's where the companies are.