Cool stuff here. I'm getting to the point in my career and life where I'd like to remain working in tech, but I've realized the major cities of the world just aren't any place for someone like me. My priorities revolve around starting a family in a reasonable COL place, and I feel like FT remote is almost certainly my future - perhaps indefinitely. I live in isolated Eastern WA right now and would like to continue living in places like this.
I was thinking of Central WA but the prices were still high. I haven't looked too much into Eastern WA. How are things there? Sounds like you are enjoying life, but it sounds like you might move to a cheaper COL? Is the COL in Eastern WA still high?
I live in Pullman WA. It is certainly very nice here but there is not a lot to do, and it is very much in the middle of nowhere. We rent a 3BR, 3BA house with a massive yard for $1400/mo. You couldn't put a price on the peace of mind I have living in a place as safe as this. If you aren't going out starting problems with frat dudes (this is a pure college town), you are essentially never at risk for crime. We leave our doors unlocked all of the time.
The bad: we are seriously isolated. Pullman has a small airport that has 3-4 flights a day, all going to Seattle which is a 5 hour drive. So unless you're going to Seattle there is no such thing as a direct flight, and flights to almost anywhere are very expensive. The nearest "big" city (pop. 200k so really not even very big) is 1.5 hours north in Spokane. We have Moscow, Idaho 20 minutes east (which is another college town with almost the exact same population, so it's almost like someone just copy and pasted), Clarkston WA and Lewiston ID 40 minutes south, and that. is. it. None of these cities exceed 30-40k in population.
All in all I wouldn't change much. This is a beautiful little town with just enough places to eat and drink to satisfy me, and plenty of outdoor activities. Hell of a place to raise children with some of the top schools in WA. I have family spread out all over the country and so not being able to see them frankly sucks. I miss some chain stuff we don't get out here like Five Guys and Chipotle but I probably shouldn't be eating that crap anyway.
Anything else you'd like to know about Eastern WA/Northern Idaho let me know.
HN loves remote working - so think of this as 'contrarian' to test out the limits:
>They’ve successfully worked remotely before, or they’ve run their own business (do they have what it takes to motivate themselves to work solo?)
I believe this is a true. I've seen some people excel at distributed work, and some absolutely suck. It takes maturity, it's very suited to some roles and some people.
But, as it's suited to experienced employees it limits the opportunity for inexperienced ones. Consequently, diversity is limited and it's not good for growing new professionals. This leaves teams over-balanced with senior people and creates a problem for developing people, particularly when an organisation is larger than a handful of hackers.
It can be done, but it's tougher than the buzz suggests and there are real trade-offs!
Yet most of the remote jobs pay very little compared to non-remote jobs in the US, or either try to cheat you on benefits, or hours, or require you to relocate after a few months.
I've tried to find a decent remote job for about 8 months and the whole search has completely turned me off the idea. I used to believe that remote would be the future, but it seems like remote jobs are what mediocre startups with insufficient funding try to use as an excuse to underpay you. I've pretty much seen it all: jobs that are listed as remote, but when you interview, the first question is "When can you relocate?"; jobs that pay $60,000 per year (without taxes or benefits) for a Software Architect role; and the last straw--jobs offering a decent rate but saying they can only pay you for 25 hours a week (hmm, how does a Sw Eng switch their mind off at the 5th hour every day as opposed to at the 8th?)
Of course, everybody requires rock stars (at least Google-level engineers, preferably with CS degrees from Stanford or MIT) and who have experience with remote work, and can manage teams, overcommunicate, are a culture fit, and most importantly are willing to work for $60,000 a year with no benefits and no vacation.
Yeah, when I hear this, ninja, jedi, or anything like that, I've learned to stay away. They say that because they want to convince you that if you work with them you'll become something great. Instead, they have a crappy situation and you will be the king/queen of crap.
I'm an introvert. I have absolutely loved working from home on my own when I've done it in the past. But, when I was interacting with a manager or someone whom I had never worked in-person with and didn't interfact with much online, I always felt insecure and vulnerable. Then there are the awkward "everyone needs to fly to headquarters and meet everyone else for team-building" moments; the anticipation of those get-togethers always made me feel uncomfortable.
I identify so much with this statement. Working from home has made my "daily grind" feel sustainable. The downside to all my remote roles is that I've struggled with insecurity with respect to my stance in the team/org. That, combined with social anxiety, leads to a bit of fear for the "fly to HQ" moments. Fortunately, I currently work with really nice/good/hardworking/respectable folks who (unknowingly) help allay that fear a bit.
One of the. Eat distinctions in this article is the difference between a great worker and a great remote worker. I've worked with many people who were brilliant, but couldn't get the remote part to work with their lifestyle.
Also, as an aside, their option box is a word-for-word copy of Neil patel's. "from aha to oh shi*t..."
