From a logistical standpoint, does Boise have a glut of available jobs for these migrants, or are they taking their jobs with them?
That's the first thing I think about when considering a move; can I work there?
That's the first thing I think about when considering a move; can I work there?
Yes, the cost of living went up a bit, but it's utterly dwarfed by the salary gains. I'd have to somehow achieve a significantly negative cost of living for it to be worth moving to somewhere like Boise, where cracking six figures for a software job is significant.
As long as you're good enough to be employed, it makes sense to go to one of the tech hubs, where the salaries are the highest. I made the mistake of not doing that for the first seven years of my career and definitely regret it.
I guess what I wonder is that even after getting all the benefits of working in the bay, whether everyone can reach the productivity/skill level that commands compensation that makes up for living in a high CoL Metro area. I do not believe that is the case, but I may be wrong.
No, it generally doesn't. It depends on the specific numbers of course (how much of a salary cut, how much cheaper is the housing costs), but a lot of people make that blanket statement because of a mathematical fallacy: The fallacy is if I make half as much, but my expenses are half as much, then I'm just as well off. That statement is mathematically false.
Here's a made up example: San Francisco salary is $140K (or $84K after 40% taxes deducted) and rent or mortgage is $3000/month ($36K/year). Boise salary is half as much at $70K (or $42K after 40% taxes deducted) and rent or mortgage are also half as much at $1500/month ($18K/year). Now calculate disposable income after taxes and housing costs: In San Francisco it's $48K (i.e., $84K - $36K) and in Boise it would be $24K (i.e., $42K - $18K). Clearly, in this example, you'd still be $24K better off in San Francisco.
I know that I made many assumptions above. I'm just illustrating the fallacy that people often make. Halving your income and halving your expenses is not neutral -- it is worse.
Not to mention taxes are significantly higher as you earn more (progressive) and there are tons of things that nickel and dime you every day.
For example, a bottle of 200 ibuprofen in SF runs about $12-14. I buy it for $3-4. It was so surprising I started filling a bag full of non perishable items every time I'd visit family in the midwest. You add this across hundreds of things you use and it adds up quickly.
And that's nothing compared to the rent.
This way, the answer begins to change as your family size grows. Which I think is accurate.
https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/sa... https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/id/ad...
Note that the difference is less if you didn't have a car in SF (or NYC) but need one in Boise.
Speaking of Stanford, one of my coworkers left to go teach there for a year and then came right back. She was actually losing net worth there because they didn't pay her enough for the area, and she didn't want to cut back on her lifestyle and live frugally like one would have to to make a future on that salary. It's sad, but there you go. Maybe there should be a tuition surcharge on CS majors to allow them to actually pay instructors enough to retain them, vs running right back to industry.
For people in lower-paying careers, the lower housing costs elsewhere almost always dwarf the pay differences. For higher-paying careers, the pay differences are the dominant factor. Mid-range software engineer salary is actually pretty close to the dividing line, which makes it particularly important to evaluate the specific numbers yourself.
Worth pointing out that this function doesn't work for inputs much higher than $150k or so, and doesn't even work at points like $140k depending on the particular candidate.
As someone who moved from Pittsburgh to San Francisco and had my compensation quadruple, I call bullshit.
There are certainly outliers. There are certainly people with excellent skills who are being underutilized, and who will get paid a lot more if they find the exact right fit. Just a wild guess, but you didn't go from 35k in Pittsburgh to 140k in SF, you went from a lot more than that in Pittsburgh to a lot more than that in SF. If you're up in the 200k+ range in software in SF, you'd probably earn a lot less going anywhere except maybe NY or Boston. But if you're in the "average software engineer salary" range in SF, the falloff going to a mid-sized city is not nearly as steep.
But that is exactly why Engineers want to be in SF! Other markets won’t compensate you nearly as well, or increase your compensation as much, as companies in the Bay Area.
However, if one has a family and kids, I could see moving to a city with more affordable housing and good schools as a worthy trade off.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/boise-software-engineer-s...
If you look across several software-related job titles that are around 140k in SF (you may have to include terms like "lead" or "senior") you'll find Boise salaries to be closer to 3/4 than 1/2. Some are a little lower, some a little higher. Denver tends to be a little higher than Boise but still well below SF. Housing costs in Denver are also considerably higher than Boise and considerably lower than SF.
Which goes back to my original point: that it's particularly important for people in that approximate salary range to run the numbers for themselves and their own situations. While for people making a lot more the higher salary easily dwarfs the CoL and for people making a lot less the CoL easily dwarfs the salary, for people making not-particularly-exceptional salaries within the general software field, the numbers are similar enough that the specific offer + your specific housing need + other personal details can make the difference.
My anecdotal experience is engineers in SF make more than $140k, and engineers in Pittsburgh make less than $85k (although this is probably no longer true with all of the self-driving startups there now). I would suspect engineers in Boise make less than Pittsburgh, but I've never talked to anyone there.
if you click on the Boise link you provided and change the city to SF without making any other changes, it shows about $125k, not $145k. 145 is if you add "senior" to the title.
I haven't checked Pittsburgh, and I'm not trying to make an exhaustive list. Just making a more general point -- run the numbers for yourself, based on your specific offers and your specific needs. Because you might find that you personally can make >140k in SF and <85k in Pittsburgh and won't come close to making that up from taxes and CoL. Someone else might find they can make 140k in SF and 120k in some other city and easily make up the difference through taxes and CoL.