Well that's where you live now. Average worker changes jobs 12 times in a career. Is your plan to just move 12 times (and pay the costs associated with that)? Or work at the same job for much longer (and pay the costs associated with that)?

One of the benefits of living in a large metro area is the amount of job opportunities, but it you put an 8 minute circle around your residence and only look for jobs within that, that negates those benefits.

Not really. I'm not stating a hard and fast rule, but a tendency. People with more options are far more likely to take action to avoid a major disruption to their lives, and people with fewer options are more likely put up with shit.

I know if my employer decided to pack up and move to a new city, I'd almost certainly prefer to take another job locally than uproot nearly everything to move with them for little to no benefit to me.

You shouldn't. If you have a good job in such a location and are happy with the opportunities available, enjoy!

The problem is that markets naturally congregate in distinct locations so anyone who is looking to advance their career needs to make their way to a hub.

This is not a good thing.

I'd be very very very hesitant to move to such a town for work. Granted, when you are unemployed you may not have a choice, but I'd definitely settle for a much worse job/worse pay in a non-mono-industry town.

Just one person’s view: My Bay Area commute is about 2 to 2.5 hours each way, depending on traffic. I make pretty decent Bay Area money but not even close to enough to live in an equivalent house near work. Not by a long shot. Changing jobs means starting back at the bottom. Re-build relationships, re-learn new company’s tribal knowledge, start at zero in the promotion treadmill. I’m too old for that shit. And at my age, (45+) you’re not getting a +10% raise when changing jobs, like what was do-able in your 30s.

So changing jobs is mostly downside and moving closer to work is not financially do-able. Stuck!

IF

The problem is that most people in tech understand that your job in gone in 5 years, 10 years at the outside. Given that I need 4 jobs over my lifetime (at least), I'm going to stay where I can get my next job even if that area is expensive.

If I find a good job in St. Louis, Cincinnati, or Pittsburgh, what happens when that job goes away? Now I have to move to San Jose, Austin, Boston anyway AND I'm going to have a difficult time because my family is used to that big house and yard in the suburbs, but I didn't put enough money away fast enough to make the jump to the more expensive area because my salary was 30% less.

That's a terrible assumption to make. People often live where they do due to obligation to others (family usually). I would never work for a company that would consider cutting salary because they moved to a lower cost area. I also know several people that have quit a job rather than relocate to a lower cost part of the country with an employer as the relocation also included a cut in pay.

You should move to these other employers, as this is the only way your current stingy employer will learn.

Because commuting is unpleasant.

> I don't want to move every time I switch to a job in a different part of town.

Then don't! It should be a free choice. You shouldn't get special tax treatment for moving, you shouldn't get special tax treatment for staying still.

Correct.

There's no networking without working your arse off in those locales.

And if there are only 3-4 employers in town, you better believe that you don't want to lose your job, ever.

I can not recommend, in today's economy, a software engineer ever moving to a place without knowing there is an existing job creation engine running. It's too risky.

On the other hand, I'd move to Detroit if the employer was willing to 100% financially derisk the move (full relo, golden parachute on departure for any reason, massive funding of retirement, massive pay). :)

Honest question: at that point why not move closer to work? Or get a job at any number of companies closer to home that are desperate for talent?

The whole point of enduring SFBA rent is that there’s dozens of tech jobs at every corner.

So, in that example, anywhere outside of SF in the South Bay isn't an option. Beyond highly concentrated cities like Manhattan where there's a huge confluence of jobs in a particular industry, job mobility causes issues in any case (especially once the jobs of partners and kids' schools are involved) in any case. It's rare industries and location where you can generally change jobs without commute being a factor.

If you live in a major city, yes.

Mid size cities and smaller, this is much more difficult.

Sure, everyone happens to live right next to several good potential employers in their field, but instead choses to take a job further away because money.

The example isn't exaggerated at all. Unless you happen to live on a straight bus line to work, it's going to add many hours to take a bus downtown and then out to the office.

Office locations come and go, a house is for the long haul. You're not going to sell and move houses every time you chance jobs.

A business chooses their office location based on business needs. The business isn't worried about the myriad reasons people choose to live in a particular place.

So businesses are rarely right next door to every employee's house. Traffic in cities will easily make a short distance into a long duration commute. Living in more affordable suburbs makes for longer distance commutes.

There's no requirement that you stay in the same place which made your career.

My personal plan is to work in NYC for the next ten years and then take the accumulated savings to buy a house outright in a nice town.

Moving doesn't have to be a financial hit. If you move to an area with higher wages it may earn you money.