> Everything is outrageously expensive
> Middle class gets crushed
I moved out of New York City in 2020. The overriding reason was not this, it was just a fluke that I got a very compelling out of state job offer in 2019, and they requested I move in 2020.
However, I am making about about $150-$160k as an SWE, and it goes a lot further here (although having to spend $700-$800 a month for a car, which I did not have to do in NYC, bites into that a little). I have a new, big, apartment with a front door to a tree-lined street in a nice walkable neighborhood near my workplace for less than $2000 a month. In New York I would have an older, smaller apartment on a higher floor in not as nice of a neighborhood for more a month.
I know people say to move to the Bay area because that's where the action is for tech jobs and where you make connections etc., but I don't see why not take a step on a way for a decent paying job in a cheap city where you can accumulate savings while your skillset is increasing.
The juniors/associates I work with making <$100k a year say they can barely afford their expenses now here. I don't know what they'd be doing in the Bay Area or New York. They have roommates too.
I saved up a ton of money down here, and gained experience as well. If I move back to New York (or to the Bay Area), I do so on surer footing - I have a lot of money saved up for a rainy day now.
It also makes for a situation where those with lower income - even associate/junior SWEs at Fortune 100 companies - can't afford to live in cities like NYC, San Francisco etc.
> Most people do not live in the bay area for various reasons and salaries like that are extremely uncommon outside of there and the upper echelons of the NY finance market.
As someone who has actual experience with this, it's easier to get a high paying job in those areas because that's where the hard problems are being solved.
Hard problems are usually solved in high cost of living areas because you need to pay your employees a lot of money and those employees usually prefer to live in high cost of living areas. I actually have personal experience with this.
Yes, the cost of living argument applies if your salary is at the low end of the scale.
If you're solving hard problems at a company that values that kind of stuff, then you can makes just as much anywhere else. I actually have personal experience with this too.
No, the cost of living argument does not apply at the high end of the scale. Cost of living starts to become irrelevant as you make more money.
Sure, rent in NY is $60k per year vs $24k per year in Oklahoma, but it's just not that important if you're making $1m+ year.
> SV is too expensive a place to be, even at GoogleMicroUberAmazon pay rates.
Sample size of one, but this is true for me. I'd really like to come back to CA, but I make 6 figures already, and a 3600 sq ft house is only like $400k here. I don't see what SV has to offer except a larger market for opportunities, but I'm in my mid-30's, so I'm worried that I'm not really a target demographic for SV employers.
> who are getting absolutely crushed by the cost of living in the Bay Area
Outside the bubble, New York has always been like this, and it's not because of the tech industry.
Like the Bay Area, New York appeals to a lot of people, and with the appeal comes competition for housing. The Bay Area is a desirable place to live -- the weather is always excellent, there's plenty of stuff to do (try finding a mountain to ride your bike up in New York City), etc. People pay it because they like it. I don't think it's because tech is there.
> As an example, at the top of that list would be relocating to a lower cost area. Residing in NYC/SF/BOS/TOK/LON is a choice that forces one onto the hamster wheel.
This cannot be emphasized enough. There are lots of good jobs and good areas to live that will not force you to spend absurd amounts on small rental properties, let alone half-million dollar or more homes. A lot of middle America is actually pretty nice to live in, and near the big cities that have the culture people might want, while costing a fraction of what NYC or SF cost. And the salaries aren't that much lower. You may have a hard time getting to six-figures in some of these places, but your $80k a year salary will go a lot further than $150k in SF.
And the jobs offer a great deal for having a lifestyle that isn't centered on work, in my experience. Leaving at 4 is not frowned upon, by most, and you get essentially a second day to spend doing what you want, or with the family.
> There might be jobs in these areas, but they won't pay NYC- or SF-level salaries.
You're absolutely right.
Those cities actually pay better than NYC when you adjust for cost of living[1][2][3]. In every ranking, there are few major cities worse to be a software engineer than NYC.
And OP isn't even close to making median or average salary for NYC. S/he's close to entry-level.
The cost of living in NYC is unjustifiable, which is probably why people are leaving[4] in droves.
> For an entry level, 0-2 year experience programmer at a C level startup, you're easily looking at 100k+ salary.
Everyone says this but I don't always see people mentioning that there are companies paying new grads this salary in lower cost of living cities as well. I love the idea of moving to NYC, and it certainly would result in a pay increase, but after considering the cost of living adjustment I would be worse off. This is a worthwhile trade for many people but for people who have never been to NYC it can be hard to quantity I'm sure.
> I also live in Ohio, with the exception of one year I spent in SF. I imagine I could double my current salary moving back to SF or over to NYC, but I'm happier here.
I once joked to a recruiter in SF that California dollars aren't worth much. He understood.
Have you tried/considered charging SF/NYC rates to companies that are based there?
> If you could, why would you not want to live in an excellent climate by many of the US tech companies and make 3-8+x what you'd get elsewhere?
Because California, number one, and because everything costs 3-10X what it does elsewhere. I could easily double my salary if I moved to SV, but I'd have to live in a van in the parking lot like a hobo, instead of being able to afford a decent house and have a goodly amount of disposable income.
> I don't know about NYC, but I'm from the bay and $200k can definitely go pretty far with decent money management skills.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they'd be scrimping. On $200k you can certainly live a comfortable lifestyle in NY or SF, but it's not nearly as luxurious as some of my rural friends assume it would be. $200k is comfortable in NY/SF, but it's not rich.
> The cost of living in a lot of parts of Cali in generally are ridiculous and some of the most expensive in the country.
A lot of these arguments could be made about New York, specifically Manhattan. There are people there that can genuinely afford it, and there are people that struggle financially because they want to be there (for whatever reason).
There are obviously lots of people in the Bay Area struggling to make ends meet, including some software engineers. But the reality is most talented people here are so well-paid it's not an issue. You're talking about $120k salaries, I'm talking about $100k signing bonuses. Of course the average engineer here isn't swimming in money, but there are plenty of people who make so much more money here that it's a wise financial decision to stay. Personally I ran the numbers and I put more money in my savings every year here than I would anywhere else.
I completely agree with the general sentiment that software engineers in particular suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect and I regularly have to explain to engineers that the world outside of software is not so neatly contained. But the notion that most software engineers here are not smart because they choose to live somewhere expensive is irrelevant if you aren't also talking about how much more money they make to live here.
> SF is popular because the weather is incredible.
You mean hazy and dry?
> The bay area has cultural diversity beyond what most cities aside from New York can offer.
But then...
> Frankly, I wouldn't stay here if I didn't make what I make but I also know you won't make the same in most tech companies. I'd leave if compensation was sub $200k.
How much cultural diversity is there really if daily existence is a constant struggle for anyone making less than $200k?
> but with that kind of location based salary that pushes people to try and game the system. Get hired while saying you live in an expensive area and finally move somewhere cheap.
Doesn't this somewhat conflict with the idea that companies who pay local rates are going to discriminate against people who live in higher cost-of-living areas? Because if that's true, then yeah you could try to game the system by asking for a SF based salary, but the trade-off is that now you're less competitive. You'd have to be pretty confident that your skills were top-tier enough to offset that I guess.
> you would be unlikely to save any money at all living in SF on 150k
This statement is farcical. You do realize that the median wage in SF is less than $100k. How do you think those people are living?
Have you actually lived in SF or NYC? You're totally out of touch with the actual costs.
Yes, housing is expensive. But you can still easily get a solid apartment for $3k/m. Add in another $2k/m for food (high!) and that's still only $60k a year. You're still left with $10k more than the KC developer even started with.
Unlike you, I'm actually using real numbers and the reality on the ground. I made $150k/year in NYC and managed to save almost $100k/year.
> "$150k sounds great here until you look at that as a fraction of your housing cost and compare to anywhere else in the country, including manhattan (because unlike here, nyc isn't run by morons so they have functioning transportation systems)"
This really is it. I think employers are between a rock and a hard place. Engineering salaries are rising rapidly, but the engineers aren't really seeing the benefits of it - every raise is just as quickly swallowed by the ludicrous housing situation in the Bay Area. Nobody's getting rich except landlords.
And anecdotally as someone who moved from SF to NYC, $150K goes way further here than it does in San Francisco. SF housing is (nearly) just as expensive, and the lack of basic infrastructure means there are tons of little things bleeding you dry at every corner. Buses don't run where you need to go? Call for a Lyft or Uber - individually not very expensive, but it adds up. Death by a thousand paper cuts.
> in 2019 the amount I was able to put away into 401k, IRAs, and other tax advantaged savings accounts exceeded my entire Florida gross salary in 2009
Note that I specified 80% of a Bay area salary, not an arbitrary salary difference. You're implying that you got a 25% raise to move to SF and were able to life off of only 20% of your new salary?
I'm not comparing average middle of nowhere salary to SF, I'm saying that for remote workers you typically get something like 80% of an SF salary, typically dramatically higher than most locals get for similar work. Were I lived I was still easily making double what most other tech people in the area were paid.
Getting double or triple your old salary will of course make the move to SF worth it. But if you can work in the FL pan handle for just 20% less than you make know, you'll live amazingly.
Curious, why? I am having no problem being hireable right now at all (literally just joined a FAANG recently).
As far as I know, it would be impossible to get the same pay I'm getting now anywhere else. Even after considering the high cost of living, the spread between income and cost of living is very high, and allows me to stash away a significant amount of savings every year, to pay for my future freedom. I really doubt I'd be able to save that much if I were working anywhere else.
> Most of the start-up crowd seems to think that it's worth paying several times more rent to be physically near the big money in SanFran.
It's not an unfounded belief, imo. I've been trying to convince several of my friends to move to San Francisco, and the "it's too expensive" refrain is something I'm getting a little tired of hearing. Yes, it's expensive, but in general, the salary and other income opportunities make it worth it for a decent software engineer.
I don't know how much the cost of living is in Montana, but I'm from Alabama, and I assume it's relatively comparable, and I had a 40K/year job there. My rent was $500/mo. I'd say my monthly expenses were a little less than $1600/mo, which puts my annual expenses at around 20K. Over the last five years in SF, my annual expenses approached 60K, mostly toward rent (like you said, rent is high). Whoa. That's crazy, right? But let's stop and do the math.
Let's throw out a nice round number and say my average income over those first few years in SF was ~120K and say 30% tax rate, to keep things simple. In San Francisco, 120K (income) - 60K (expenses) - 36K taxes = 24K savings. In Alabama, 40K (income) - 20K (expenses) - 12K (taxes) = 8K savings.
My expenses in Alabama were 1/3 that of SF -- the rent was almost 6 times cheaper in Alabama than my rent in SF is! But in San Francisco, my increased salary means that I'm saving three times as much in San Francisco versus Alabama. My cost of living in SF is 3x higher than my cost of living in San Francisco -- but my income is also 3x higher! And I'm not even included income from stock or freelance work. (Granted, I could get stock and freelance work elsewhere, but again, like you said, "the big money" is in SF, so roughly the same math would apply.)
All this is to say that, assuming you enjoy living in an urban environment and are responsible with your money, it IS worth paying several times more rent to be physically near the big money in SF. A dollar is a dollar anywhere in the United States. Saving 24K per year for 5 years gets you awfully close to 125K, well on your way to a nice house pretty much anywhere else in the country - Montana included. It would take you over twice that long to get to even 100K if you lived in Alabama.
Is it worth paying a high rent to enjoy the benefits of living in SF? I think so. I love SF -- the city, the culture, the weather, the working environment, and yes, the money. There are times when I wish I had a bigger house, but by and large, I'm extremely happy here.
But more to OP's point: Would I move to Montana? I agree with you. There would have to be really, really attractive incentives aside from money. Great schools, great entertainment, friends, family, and plenty of job opportunities. Solid infrastructure is a must, but my day job isn't my identity -- there are another 12-18 hours in a day that command my time and energy as well, and those needs must be met!
> Listen to what these post graduate students want - for those who are moving a city like NYC or Boston
I totally agree with everything you’re saying and listed but let’s not pretend the biggest item is anything but “higher salary” for most. We all know that some of these major metros have companies that pay 5-10x what you’d get in a small midwestern town.
Anecdotally, I did an internship in Cleveland followed by an internship in Santa Clara (Silicon Valley). I got job offers from both and chose California. The Cleveland company was a major donor to me school, so I got hounded by the schools career development office about why I chose to go to Santa Clara instead. They asked what the company could do to be more attractive to me - they mentioned intern ice cream parties, and Friday hours worked, and mentor programs, etc. The intern pay was $18/hr vs $80/hr, and when I brought it up, that was not a good answer - they wanted something cheaper easier and more superficial to change.
My point is that NYC and Boston have nothing to worry about, and nothing will change.
> You want to move to the Midwest and work remotely, or apply for a transfer to a different regional office? Happy to let you do it, but know that the market rate for your skills there is X, which means an adjustment in salary for a voluntary move.
It seems like nobody wins in this situation. If my goal is to maximize savings, I'd move to the Bay Area to get the maximum salary from you and find the cheapest housing in the area. I'd be miserable because I'm living in a place I don't like in a shitty apartment. On the other hand, if you offered to pay the same amount while I live in the midwest, I'd be happier with my living situation and be pocketing more cash. This would make me more productive and make me stay at the company longer, with no additional cost to you.
I moved out of New York City in 2020. The overriding reason was not this, it was just a fluke that I got a very compelling out of state job offer in 2019, and they requested I move in 2020.
However, I am making about about $150-$160k as an SWE, and it goes a lot further here (although having to spend $700-$800 a month for a car, which I did not have to do in NYC, bites into that a little). I have a new, big, apartment with a front door to a tree-lined street in a nice walkable neighborhood near my workplace for less than $2000 a month. In New York I would have an older, smaller apartment on a higher floor in not as nice of a neighborhood for more a month.
I know people say to move to the Bay area because that's where the action is for tech jobs and where you make connections etc., but I don't see why not take a step on a way for a decent paying job in a cheap city where you can accumulate savings while your skillset is increasing.
The juniors/associates I work with making <$100k a year say they can barely afford their expenses now here. I don't know what they'd be doing in the Bay Area or New York. They have roommates too.
I saved up a ton of money down here, and gained experience as well. If I move back to New York (or to the Bay Area), I do so on surer footing - I have a lot of money saved up for a rainy day now.
It also makes for a situation where those with lower income - even associate/junior SWEs at Fortune 100 companies - can't afford to live in cities like NYC, San Francisco etc.
reply