> Every large city (>1M people) will almost certainly have communities of people who share your culture or at least tolerate and support it.
That is not enough. There need to be companies willing to hire. Those companies spring around where there is more talent so they don't have to relocate everyone. Where is more talent? Around more companies. It is a feedback loop. Network effect is probably the correct phrase here.
Unless large tech companies perhaps move their main offices or open large offices around these Midwest or Southern cities the situation will not change. But do we see Google, Facebook, Apple moving their HQ to Cleveland, or Memphis?
It's worth mentioning that there are plenty of technology positions that aren't for a technology giant... For example in the Phoenix area we have Paypal, Wells Fargo, American Express, GoDaddy, Intel, Motorolla and a number of other very large companies. Many large companies have a presence in multiple cities, not just the tech hubs, and there and many teams have to operate effectively remote (from other members) anyway.
Phoenix has 80-90% the pay, with significantly less cost of living... other areas can say the same. There is something to be said for being in the Silicon Valley area, but just the same, it's not necessarily better for any given company to be there than any major city with an international airport terminal.
Companies that hire programmers live everywhere. Given the disparate perception of a person working at Paypal, etc., compared to a Bay Area startup, even given the difference in purchasing power... Might'n't (?) we conclude that people choose the Bay Area for other reasons than salary and hiring?
Why is the default to believe people in the B.A. are irrational? I say this as someone with no dog in the fight, but have observed each side arguing to defend their bias.
> Companies that hire programmers live everywhere.
They don't though, that's the thing. Some towns don't have that many programming jobs. If you are already in a tech hub it seems just apply to 10 companies and you'd get 3 offers in 2 weeks time is not unusual.
Another thing happens is the programmers already there are standing in line applying for the fews jobs available. And sometimes requirements and salaries become too low.
Not all programmers are young college grads wanting to work for cool startups. There are lot of them with homes, families, kids, aging parents, a larger social network etc.
> Might'n't (?) we conclude that people choose the Bay Area for other reasons than salary and hiring?
It depends. I, for example, started looking around the area where I was living already for a job. Didn't find anything there so after that applied to companies all over the country. I had offers in completely different parts of the county and just picked one. Availability of other future jobs was an important factor. But I didn't have 10 placest to pick from. It was just a few. If all were in BA I would have been in BA. If they were in Montana, I would have been in Montana probably. In other words, I didn't first pick the geographic area then applied to work there, I applied to companies, and then ended up in a geographic area.
I imagine if you are exceptionally good, it doesn't matter. Could probably throw a dart at the map, and then find a job there.
1 MILLION people aren't enough to see network effects??
Is 3M [1] closer to the magic number? I moved from Boston(4M) to Cleveland(1.7M) and although the lifestyle is different, there is still way more opportunities, culture, entertainment, etc..., than anyone could absorb in a single lifetime in either place.
I visit my friends in SF every year and although they make more than double my salary, they can't even come close to matching my apartment situation. There is an infinite number of things to do in any city, and I can already afford things (like a house, or an acre of land even!) that aren't even fathomable to them. I won't stay in Cleveland forever, simply because I'd like to experience other cities, but I can't say SF is even in my top three. SF is a great place, but I'd like to find one of the still relatively "undiscovered" great places that isn't completely saturated.
I was going to add a comment at the end about how I fear that I may be fighting a losing battle against socioeconomic feedback loops.
That's profoundly sad to me though. Concentrating all of the technological revolution's talent and wealth in a few cities will have bad effects on the rest of the country.
Wonder if more acceptance of remote work will change this. Image a thousand or ten thousand remote engineers, getting Google salaries. That is a lot of income, a lot taxes, a lot of spending power.
There are smaller cities that are called one-company towns. One university, one army base, one large manufacturing plant. That is the largest and most prominent employer in the region. If that one thing goes away, the town will suffer. Remote workers are different because they can hedge that risk. So with more remote work, eventually, perhaps we'll start seeing new patterns emerge, it could revitalize some areas. If there is more talent gathering, a positive feedback loop might start...
Edit: To add, tax incentive structure can be important. Some states do a lot better in that regard. There are even special deals arranged like "If you move your headquarters here, you'll pay lower taxes" or something similar.
I work remote from a small city in the Midwest and easily bring in > 200k servicing select clients from throughout the country. It could be a lot greater if I had any interest in subcontracting/hiring or growing.
While I occasionally visit SF I always get a good chuckle when my friend that lives there talks about how expensive things are and the pains of living there.
The trouble comes when companies pay remote employees less if their cost of living is lower, or when they move to another place so they can pay people less. HP did that when they moved to Boise, ID.
In most cases, companies aren't actually able to adjust point-for-point for CoL.. it just isn't possible in any market with local opportunity. If remote markets ever see dramatic expansion/acceptance, CoL won't even be a mentionable factor.
CoL might be N-300% higher in SF but salaries (thank wage-fixing companies) are not. Salaries are (necessarily higher) but it's easy to dwarf the spread in normal, requisite expenditures.
CA has a high state income tax, relatively higher sales tax (than most midwest areas), and in the case of SF, the oh-so-obvious (self-inflicted) real estate problem.
I would more call it a gravitational effect. The SFBA has more +$30mm net worth families than all of CANADA alone for example. I call it the black hole of money.
Epic Systems (digital healthcare records) employs 5,000 people just outside Madison, WI. Soon to be 10,000 according to their roadmap. I wouldn't be surprised if other corporations looking to hire gobs of college grads start popping up (or already have popped up) near other small midwest cities.
That is not enough. There need to be companies willing to hire. Those companies spring around where there is more talent so they don't have to relocate everyone. Where is more talent? Around more companies. It is a feedback loop. Network effect is probably the correct phrase here.
Unless large tech companies perhaps move their main offices or open large offices around these Midwest or Southern cities the situation will not change. But do we see Google, Facebook, Apple moving their HQ to Cleveland, or Memphis?