Hacker News Reader

Comment by shostack | Hacker News Reader

The prosperity bit is key. Prosperity being jobs in this case.

When the risk of unemployment or underemployment is higher, why live somewhere that limits your opportunities? An expensive house or a cheap house is irrelevant if you are unemployed for a significant stretch of time and can't afford a mortgage period.

When I moved to the Bay Area, I justified the increased cost of living as the sunshine tax as well as the cost of reducing the risk of unemployment in a down economy. Even in the event of another crash specific to the tech industry, I guarantee I'd have an easier time getting another job out here compared to flyover country.

View on HN

> When I moved to the Bay Area, I justified the increased cost of living as the sunshine tax as well as the cost of reducing the risk of unemployment in a down economy. Even in the event of another crash specific to the tech industry, I guarantee I'd have an easier time getting another job out here compared to flyover country.

This is the specific reason why I have self-limited my living situation to one of the major tech centers in the US. The downside is nearly unlimited if you're in a rural area: particularly if you have a house. You must be able to get a job if your company collapses, and most companies get shirty about remote work for people they don't know. So you're stuck trying to move in a hurry, to a place where you have no network. Hopefully it's not a down economy and lots of people are looking... then things are even dicier.

Move to the city, young man (or woman). There be jobs there.

Remote work isn't hard to find if you have a technical skill set that people are looking for. If you're concerned about networking opportunities, you're better off at a conference than your local coffee shop anyway.

> You must be able to get a job if your company collapses

On the bright side, with lower cost of housing the mortgage will cost you less and will be easier to pay off. I'm in my early 40s, have three kids, and we actually own our house. If we had lived in a similar house in a larger city we'd still be grinding through the mortgage.

I guess what I'm tring to say is that there plenty of middle ground between living in San Francisco and living the Unabomber dream in the Montana forests. There are a lot of places on the face of the earth where there are not hundreds of nerby companies hiring, but maybe five or ten within driving distance. And where you can actually afford to buy a house.

> When I moved to the Bay Area, I justified the increased cost of living as the sunshine tax as well as the cost of reducing the risk of unemployment in a down economy.

Texas offers more sun and a solid stable economy as well as much lower costs. Something to consider?

Not to mention that there's tons of techy jobs in Austin, bunches in Dallas, and plenty in Houston.

And all of these cities are downright cheap compared to pretty much anywhere on either of the coasts.

> Even in the event of another crash specific to the tech industry, I guarantee I'd have an easier time getting another job out here compared to flyover country.

In the event of a tech crash you're better if in nearly any major city outside of SV where even tech companies are based around more "blue chip" industries.

>Even in the event of another crash specific to the tech industry, I guarantee I'd have an easier time getting another job out here compared to flyover country.

In "flyover country" many (possibly most) tech jobs are created by other industries and would be insulated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com