Meh - Where I'm employed, in my "flyover state", I get to use the technologies that I like, some of which aren't very mainstream, and also I really like the developers I work with.
Not arguing the money aspect, but there are other priorities as well, and I'm a bit tired of the assumption that money trumps all, always. So go ahead and think your smarter based on where you move, and I'll just keep enjoying where I'm at...
I think you just argued against a straw man. The article didn't even really talk about salaries. This is about where people are moving from and to.
This is about tracking "business formation as well as employment and education in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics"
There was no call to move there, or statement that they are better places. But surely there is something interesting and possibly something to learn about by looking at migrations of people, especially STEM companies and employees.
Good! Part of the beauty of our chosen career is that we can work from pretty much anywhere in the world with an Internet connection. If you're happy where you're at, you're doing it right.
Personally, as a software engineer in Colorado, I wouldn't trade locations either. But that's because of the things CO has to offer - incredible outdoor recreation, 300 days of sunshine, mild winters, decently competitive salaries, affordable cost of living (on an engineer salary at least), and a culture where people prioritize being well-rounded as individuals instead of allowing work to dominate their lives.
Now, the article's headline "The Smartest Americans Are Heading West" is definitely a generalization, but the migration patterns of people shouldn't be dismissed as simple "money-seeking" - one reason trumping all the others fails to address the complexity innate to big personal decisions like choosing where to live.
What we should be asking is WHY people who fit the "smartness" criteria described in the article are deciding to move West - and then using that information to make informed policy decisions elsewhere.
Most people don't realize that Boulder is as small as it is. It has a population of 100k that is growing at 1% per year. 60k people commute into Boulder everyday (many from other cities in the county) and this number is growing much more rapidly.
Yeah - They really need to get that rail built along 36. I hate to say it but I hope CO isn't making the same short sighted mistake that CA made. The traffic hell and housing hell is on the horizon :(
This was my first thought, too. The article starts out with, "Three cities in Colorado...," but goes on to discuss Metro Areas, which I think means "Boulder County."
Boulder County includes almost all of Longmont (a city of ~90k in which I reside) as well as another 100k+ in smaller towns and unincorporated areas; that's all Boulder County, but the majority of that is not considered part of Boulder the city.
I lived there for 10 years - its one of my favorite places to live, but there are a few things that can be perceived as negatives:
- snow/cold (however its the mildest you will find for a place that gets snow). But snow is snow if you don't like it
-if you are from the coasts (say CA) you may not dig the politics - mainly b/c its not a one sided echo chamber like I find CA to be. I found it to be a decent mix of both major parties. Some may not like this, but personally I found it refreshing.
- no oceans - land locked
- fairly isolated... besides Denver there are not a lot of large cities around to easily travel to. But the counterpoint to this is that DIA is a major airport with lots of flight options.
- public transportation is not really great - you will need a car, especially in the winter. But it is better than many major US cities (US public transportation is pretty awful in general anyway). This is one area I really wish CO would do a bit of forward thinking on building this out quickly now before it becomes CA bay area/LA. It is disconcerting considering that it would be fairly easy to accomplish since most of the populous cities in CO are located in a straight line North/South along the mountain range. Ideal for a high speed train with east/west light rail into the city cores. But, I digress... :)
- depending on the city/area you decide to settle in, pay is not quite where it needs to be to support the quickly rising housing costs. I visit probably 1-2x per year and it is amazing the amount of growth and population surge that has occurred in the past few years. Denver is experiencing a huge boom right now and housing is not keeping up. Outside of Denver or Boulder proper I found salaries to be pretty low compared to cost of living. For instance, I lived in one of the cities mentioned in the article (Fort Collins). Although IMO a great city to live, the IT job market is horrible. It may have a high concentration of intelligent people, but many of those are stuck working at coffee shops just to live in FC. But I guess that says a lot about FC and CO , people are willing to do that to live there...
These are just a few negatives that honestly may not really be negatives to many people. Of course there is no perfect place to live - you can spend your whole life searching for that. I'd list out the positives too, but this post would get really unruly :)
Never been to CO personally, but friends say if you aren't into outdoor activities/slow lifestyle, it can be dull. A lot of social groups are centered around what you do outside.
Median house value in Boulder proper is like $900k or something insane. You can still find cheap housing but it likely won't last due to high population growth. If you want to rent, bring a check for the deposit when touring so you can lock it down right away, otherwise you'll lose it.
Other than that, I'm not sure. Everywhere except Colorado Springs is pretty liberal, which not everyone loves. We've also gotten a lot more homeless people since weed was legalized.
Coming from a small town in northeast I found lots of 'keeping up with the joneses' experiences. Important to display your wealth/fitness but in a way that youre not trying to display it. I found the subtleties exhausting. It was refreshing to return to a small town. Your experience may vary.
Your setup premise is false. The pay increase is far beyond 20%.
1) The median household income in Denver CO is $64,000. That's around 77% higher than in Altoona PA. Two locations specifically referenced in the article.
2) The opportunities that pay a lot more than that gap, do not exist to begin with in Altoona. Software, Internet, misc engineer jobs - the locations that people are fleeing from are death zones economically. Denver and Boulder are quasi boom cities; the Altoona's are the exact opposite; that means, over the next ten years your income will very likely expand nicely in those CO locations, whereas you're very unlikely to see meaningful improvement in Altoona.
3) Lifestyle is important for most people and likely that much more so for people willing to move across the country for better opportunities. Boulder and Denver are both incredible by comparison to Altoona PA, when it comes to lifestyle upgrade.
To answer your question, the people desperately fleeing from all those dying economic zones, seeking a vastly superior future, are extremely smart indeed.
This comment breaks the HN guideline which asks you to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of a point, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize (please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow them).
The model in which masses of migrating people are too dumb to consider their own interest is less plausible than one in which a snarky internet dismissal might be failing to consider everything.
I am basing this on my own thought experiments while browsing jobs in various over-heated markets: Seattle, San Francisco, Denver, Boston etc. Actually, the 100% increase is understated, the true figure is probably higher depending on the inputs.
Let's say you're living in Topeka, making $75,000, you happen to own an average home with a market value of $150,000. Amazon Seattle offers you a job for $130,000. Is taking the job a better deal when the average home in Seattle is $700,000? Your $1,000 Topeka mortgage payment will quadruple consuming 50%+ of your take home pay.
Cost of living is higher and the increase pay doesn't always make up for it...but also keep in mind the non-tangibles. If you move to one of those areas, you're going to surround by some of the top tech talent in the country. That means you're learning, collaborating, competing, and socializing with some of the best peers you could have anywhere. That has a lot of career advantages...mobility, huge potential for upside, exchange of ideas, etc. It also boosts the standards of local universities, schools, etc.
Unfortunately the nature of specialization means that jobs you are qualified for and will be paid well for are more likely to be located in dense urban areas. My wife and I, who are both engineers but with different specialties, had to face this recently when we relocated to her home state.
[+] [-] sixbrx|8 years ago|reply
Not arguing the money aspect, but there are other priorities as well, and I'm a bit tired of the assumption that money trumps all, always. So go ahead and think your smarter based on where you move, and I'll just keep enjoying where I'm at...
[+] [-] hn_user2|8 years ago|reply
This is about tracking "business formation as well as employment and education in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics"
There was no call to move there, or statement that they are better places. But surely there is something interesting and possibly something to learn about by looking at migrations of people, especially STEM companies and employees.
[+] [-] DylanBohlender|8 years ago|reply
Personally, as a software engineer in Colorado, I wouldn't trade locations either. But that's because of the things CO has to offer - incredible outdoor recreation, 300 days of sunshine, mild winters, decently competitive salaries, affordable cost of living (on an engineer salary at least), and a culture where people prioritize being well-rounded as individuals instead of allowing work to dominate their lives.
Now, the article's headline "The Smartest Americans Are Heading West" is definitely a generalization, but the migration patterns of people shouldn't be dismissed as simple "money-seeking" - one reason trumping all the others fails to address the complexity innate to big personal decisions like choosing where to live.
What we should be asking is WHY people who fit the "smartness" criteria described in the article are deciding to move West - and then using that information to make informed policy decisions elsewhere.
[+] [-] freyir|8 years ago|reply
So in other states, people have to use technologies they dislike, and work with people they dislike? Sounds dreadful.
[+] [-] _m8fo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blackguardx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bproven|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dantillberg|8 years ago|reply
Boulder County includes almost all of Longmont (a city of ~90k in which I reside) as well as another 100k+ in smaller towns and unincorporated areas; that's all Boulder County, but the majority of that is not considered part of Boulder the city.
[+] [-] oh_sigh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geoffreyhale|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _m8fo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] driverdan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bproven|8 years ago|reply
- snow/cold (however its the mildest you will find for a place that gets snow). But snow is snow if you don't like it
-if you are from the coasts (say CA) you may not dig the politics - mainly b/c its not a one sided echo chamber like I find CA to be. I found it to be a decent mix of both major parties. Some may not like this, but personally I found it refreshing.
- no oceans - land locked
- fairly isolated... besides Denver there are not a lot of large cities around to easily travel to. But the counterpoint to this is that DIA is a major airport with lots of flight options.
- public transportation is not really great - you will need a car, especially in the winter. But it is better than many major US cities (US public transportation is pretty awful in general anyway). This is one area I really wish CO would do a bit of forward thinking on building this out quickly now before it becomes CA bay area/LA. It is disconcerting considering that it would be fairly easy to accomplish since most of the populous cities in CO are located in a straight line North/South along the mountain range. Ideal for a high speed train with east/west light rail into the city cores. But, I digress... :)
- depending on the city/area you decide to settle in, pay is not quite where it needs to be to support the quickly rising housing costs. I visit probably 1-2x per year and it is amazing the amount of growth and population surge that has occurred in the past few years. Denver is experiencing a huge boom right now and housing is not keeping up. Outside of Denver or Boulder proper I found salaries to be pretty low compared to cost of living. For instance, I lived in one of the cities mentioned in the article (Fort Collins). Although IMO a great city to live, the IT job market is horrible. It may have a high concentration of intelligent people, but many of those are stuck working at coffee shops just to live in FC. But I guess that says a lot about FC and CO , people are willing to do that to live there...
These are just a few negatives that honestly may not really be negatives to many people. Of course there is no perfect place to live - you can spend your whole life searching for that. I'd list out the positives too, but this post would get really unruly :)
[+] [-] no_one_ever|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soared|8 years ago|reply
Other than that, I'm not sure. Everywhere except Colorado Springs is pretty liberal, which not everyone loves. We've also gotten a lot more homeless people since weed was legalized.
[+] [-] tspike|8 years ago|reply
- Not much diversity aside from a large Hispanic population
- Sprawl. Endless repetitive suburbs
- I've heard people from large cities complain about it being boring
- Increasingly crowded
- Hard to make long term friends. Most people seem to stay 3-5 years and then go home or elsewhere
- Food is getting better but not great
- I-70 is a shitshow. Don't be surprised when at some point it takes you 8 hours to get back from skiing on a weekend
- Lack of water, closest ocean is 1000 miles away. No big lakes
[+] [-] pweissbrod|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] oh_sigh|8 years ago|reply
Go up into the mountains 15 minutes away and that is another story...
[+] [-] brandmeyer|8 years ago|reply
Wildfires in the foothills, but not as points near the west coast.
[+] [-] ikeyany|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crazy1van|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nanistheonlyist|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] SQL2219|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|8 years ago|reply
1) The median household income in Denver CO is $64,000. That's around 77% higher than in Altoona PA. Two locations specifically referenced in the article.
2) The opportunities that pay a lot more than that gap, do not exist to begin with in Altoona. Software, Internet, misc engineer jobs - the locations that people are fleeing from are death zones economically. Denver and Boulder are quasi boom cities; the Altoona's are the exact opposite; that means, over the next ten years your income will very likely expand nicely in those CO locations, whereas you're very unlikely to see meaningful improvement in Altoona.
3) Lifestyle is important for most people and likely that much more so for people willing to move across the country for better opportunities. Boulder and Denver are both incredible by comparison to Altoona PA, when it comes to lifestyle upgrade.
To answer your question, the people desperately fleeing from all those dying economic zones, seeking a vastly superior future, are extremely smart indeed.
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
The model in which masses of migrating people are too dumb to consider their own interest is less plausible than one in which a snarky internet dismissal might be failing to consider everything.
[+] [-] SQL2219|8 years ago|reply
Let's say you're living in Topeka, making $75,000, you happen to own an average home with a market value of $150,000. Amazon Seattle offers you a job for $130,000. Is taking the job a better deal when the average home in Seattle is $700,000? Your $1,000 Topeka mortgage payment will quadruple consuming 50%+ of your take home pay.
[+] [-] analogwzrd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndrewGaspar|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bathwa80|8 years ago|reply