I live in Memphis TN and I've found that comments on HN towards the middle of the US are skewed negative. Perhaps I have a bias for remembering negative comments. Nonetheless, I find this attitude perplexing from the HN crowd.
I understand the value of physical proximity to lots of other like minded, smart people. However, I would have thought that the tech crowd would be the first to decry the inefficiencies of having one or two (SF and NY) annointed "tech hubs" and actively eschewing every other place. Why crowd every damn programmer in the world into the SF bay area when we have the internet?! That's the whole point of the internet!
There's also the cultural argument. Tech work has tended to attract people who are part of non-mainstream culture. Tech hub cities attract these people because they already have every culture and subculture imaginable and a society that mostly tolerates them. There's also a perception that other places don't have this and that their particular affiliation would invite outright hostility. That's mostly not true. Every large city (>1M people) will almost certainly have communities of people who share your culture or at least tolerate and support it.
Again though, I think that choosing where you live based on whether or not you can surround yourself with exclusively like minded people is counter to the hacker ethos. Let's not forget that Silicon Valley was not always what it is now. People built the place, and the rest of the US and the world could benefit from people who attempted to do the same elsewhere.
My friend, I have absolutely nothing against you, or the majority of people who live in Tennessee. In fact, the great majority of my family live in the part of the South that bleeds into the Midwest... and I live as far west as I can possibly get from them because there's a fundamental disconnect in terms of belief system and interests between them and myself, and between myself and the greater population of conservative areas such as but certainly not limited to Memphis.
I'm not even all that liberal politically (politics are probably a source where disconnect might come from for some hackers), I'm pretty middle-of-the road as far as extremes to the American right and left are concerned -- but when I lived in the South, I felt distinctly uncomfortable and out of place. In California and the PNW and even Colorado, I don't generally feel this disconnect with my surroundings; I feel more connected to the place and with a fraction of the populace greater than just a few individuals.
This is 100% personal, but I don't think I'm entirely alone in expressing these sentiments. I moved away because I was sick of always being uncomfortable, which didn't contribute to my quality of life, nor to that of the people who were probably mutually made uncomfortable. & again, by SF or NY standards, I'm not strange/liberal/letting my freak flag fly in the slightest. I'm (mostly) white, but therein lies part of the problem I have with the Midwest and the South.
I certainly understand. I do get sick of feeling like a weird liberal occasionally. But really, is it that bad?
Also, there's clear evidence [1][2] that people are leaving "mixed" communities to live in areas that are more homogenous and in line with their politics and culture. I don't want to be a part of that, as I consider it a problem.
Again, this is personal, but people in the South and Midwest seem to generally have and occasionally let fly... sentiment... against those who don't appear fully white on first glance. Yeah, combine the conservatism with the racism, and it really is that bad, sorry. The conservatism alone probably wouldn't have chased me away though.
The sort of sentiment I occasionally encountered seems to be a cultural thing, really. Ergo I left.
I've spent the majority of my time in the Midwest (mainly Chicago, but Milwaukee & Indy) and am currently on both coasts quite a bit (San Diego & NYC).
I would say that the main differences are in scope and pace.
The work ethic & amicability of the midwest is unparalleled pretty much anywhere. That said, as an entrepreneur or founder outside of Chicago-proper, I've found it terribly difficult to connect with any large amounts of people. There are lots of people building small businesses (but have essentially built themselves a job that is dependent on them), but not very many entrepreneurs (building systems that scale).
As far as tech goes, again, it's tough to find people outside Chicago-proper (although it's getting better).
That said, you do tend to have a lot more people who are content & happy, and seemingly a much more consistent pace of life.
Most people on HN seem to have little familiarity with actually living or experiencing the midwest (but many of the cities are well worth visiting - especially in the summer).
The biggest downside to me was the geography. I love Chicago, but for 1/2 the year it's freezing and depressing with not many outdoor activities to partake in :(
Yeah, spend a year in Phuket after browsing NomadList, you're culturally adventurous and a hero of frugality. Spend a year in a red state, everyone assumes you're making some terrible miscalculation.
I lived in the South longer than I've lived in the Bay Area and I can tell you why I feel that the Bay Area's culture is better for technology (this goes for the midwest as well).
In many places like the South (and Mid-West), most people tend to say variants of "Why?", "That's stupid", "That's crazy"; when you tell them what ridiculous, nonsensical or seemingly useless thing you want to build. Here in Bay Area more people say, "Why not? That sounds fun." and they either help you build it or fund it. Yeah a lot of times the things built here are crazy and make no sense... but sometimes, sometimes you end up with a Google.
Of course I could be wrong, since places like Atlanta have institutions like Georgia Tech. Maybe things have changed (or will change) like in New York? ...but I haven't seen strong evidence of that yet.
Your view of this is exactly backwards. To get an accurate view of what is happening, start with the assumption that all computer programming can be done remotely, from China or India. Now ask yourself, what kind of computer programming can not be done remotely? The kind that needs constant face-to-face contact, especially to maintain the relationship links between investors and engineers via a CEO. Those jobs need to be in New York or San Francisco.
> start with the assumption that all computer programming can be done remotely, from China or India. Now ask yourself, what kind of computer programming can not be done remotely?
Just about any kind of software development can be done remotely, really. It's really a function of the skills possessed by everyone involved in a distributed team vs the obstacles distribution may or may not present (and there's different degrees of remoteness -- same city, same time zone, same country, same hemisphere all present different challenges)
> specially to maintain the relationship links between investors and engineers via a CEO. Those jobs need to be in New York or San Francisco.
Unless the CEO doesn't (or your customers don't) live in SF and NY.
I suppose the next line is "well, the investors aren't going to want to visit flyover country." It turns out -- strangely enough -- there are even investors who don't live in SF and NY, though sometimes they strangely don't all want to invest in a slick social deals pyramid or revenue-free chat app or whatever else is hot at the moment...
You have defined the problem out of existence. Is that what you meant to do? If the middle of the country is full of great investors and great programmers and great customers and great CEOs then why are we even having this conversation? Why would anyone feel the need to write an essay like the one above? Why does the MidWest need defending? According to you, everything is already perfect.
...though sometimes they strangely don't all want to invest in a slick social deals pyramid or revenue-free chat app or whatever else is hot at the moment...
You can't argue with returns, and "slick" VC returns trump Smallville's every day of the week.
Self re-enforcing loop. The investors are in SF/NY because the startups are in SF/NY, because the investors are in SF/NY...
There are plenty of VC funded startups which aren't in SF or NY, and they will have slower burn rates than those who are in SF and NY, simply due to the cost of living.
I don't understand why people on here seem to believe startups are just a bunch of programmers in a room somewhere. They are a business, and sales is of utmost importance in business. You want to be as close as possible to your current and potential clients.
The investors are in SF/NY because they can make more money there.
I agree that it's probably a network effect rather than anything fundamental about SF/NY. But really, so what? Yes, if all the startups were in Cleveland then it would be smart to go to Cleveland. But they're not.
> Every large city (>1M people) will almost certainly have communities of people who share your culture or at least tolerate and support it.
That is not enough. There need to be companies willing to hire. Those companies spring around where there is more talent so they don't have to relocate everyone. Where is more talent? Around more companies. It is a feedback loop. Network effect is probably the correct phrase here.
Unless large tech companies perhaps move their main offices or open large offices around these Midwest or Southern cities the situation will not change. But do we see Google, Facebook, Apple moving their HQ to Cleveland, or Memphis?
It's worth mentioning that there are plenty of technology positions that aren't for a technology giant... For example in the Phoenix area we have Paypal, Wells Fargo, American Express, GoDaddy, Intel, Motorolla and a number of other very large companies. Many large companies have a presence in multiple cities, not just the tech hubs, and there and many teams have to operate effectively remote (from other members) anyway.
Phoenix has 80-90% the pay, with significantly less cost of living... other areas can say the same. There is something to be said for being in the Silicon Valley area, but just the same, it's not necessarily better for any given company to be there than any major city with an international airport terminal.
Companies that hire programmers live everywhere. Given the disparate perception of a person working at Paypal, etc., compared to a Bay Area startup, even given the difference in purchasing power... Might'n't (?) we conclude that people choose the Bay Area for other reasons than salary and hiring?
Why is the default to believe people in the B.A. are irrational? I say this as someone with no dog in the fight, but have observed each side arguing to defend their bias.
> Companies that hire programmers live everywhere.
They don't though, that's the thing. Some towns don't have that many programming jobs. If you are already in a tech hub it seems just apply to 10 companies and you'd get 3 offers in 2 weeks time is not unusual.
Another thing happens is the programmers already there are standing in line applying for the fews jobs available. And sometimes requirements and salaries become too low.
Not all programmers are young college grads wanting to work for cool startups. There are lot of them with homes, families, kids, aging parents, a larger social network etc.
> Might'n't (?) we conclude that people choose the Bay Area for other reasons than salary and hiring?
It depends. I, for example, started looking around the area where I was living already for a job. Didn't find anything there so after that applied to companies all over the country. I had offers in completely different parts of the county and just picked one. Availability of other future jobs was an important factor. But I didn't have 10 placest to pick from. It was just a few. If all were in BA I would have been in BA. If they were in Montana, I would have been in Montana probably. In other words, I didn't first pick the geographic area then applied to work there, I applied to companies, and then ended up in a geographic area.
I imagine if you are exceptionally good, it doesn't matter. Could probably throw a dart at the map, and then find a job there.
1 MILLION people aren't enough to see network effects??
Is 3M [1] closer to the magic number? I moved from Boston(4M) to Cleveland(1.7M) and although the lifestyle is different, there is still way more opportunities, culture, entertainment, etc..., than anyone could absorb in a single lifetime in either place.
I visit my friends in SF every year and although they make more than double my salary, they can't even come close to matching my apartment situation. There is an infinite number of things to do in any city, and I can already afford things (like a house, or an acre of land even!) that aren't even fathomable to them. I won't stay in Cleveland forever, simply because I'd like to experience other cities, but I can't say SF is even in my top three. SF is a great place, but I'd like to find one of the still relatively "undiscovered" great places that isn't completely saturated.
I was going to add a comment at the end about how I fear that I may be fighting a losing battle against socioeconomic feedback loops.
That's profoundly sad to me though. Concentrating all of the technological revolution's talent and wealth in a few cities will have bad effects on the rest of the country.
Wonder if more acceptance of remote work will change this. Image a thousand or ten thousand remote engineers, getting Google salaries. That is a lot of income, a lot taxes, a lot of spending power.
There are smaller cities that are called one-company towns. One university, one army base, one large manufacturing plant. That is the largest and most prominent employer in the region. If that one thing goes away, the town will suffer. Remote workers are different because they can hedge that risk. So with more remote work, eventually, perhaps we'll start seeing new patterns emerge, it could revitalize some areas. If there is more talent gathering, a positive feedback loop might start...
Edit: To add, tax incentive structure can be important. Some states do a lot better in that regard. There are even special deals arranged like "If you move your headquarters here, you'll pay lower taxes" or something similar.
I work remote from a small city in the Midwest and easily bring in > 200k servicing select clients from throughout the country. It could be a lot greater if I had any interest in subcontracting/hiring or growing.
While I occasionally visit SF I always get a good chuckle when my friend that lives there talks about how expensive things are and the pains of living there.
The trouble comes when companies pay remote employees less if their cost of living is lower, or when they move to another place so they can pay people less. HP did that when they moved to Boise, ID.
In most cases, companies aren't actually able to adjust point-for-point for CoL.. it just isn't possible in any market with local opportunity. If remote markets ever see dramatic expansion/acceptance, CoL won't even be a mentionable factor.
CoL might be N-300% higher in SF but salaries (thank wage-fixing companies) are not. Salaries are (necessarily higher) but it's easy to dwarf the spread in normal, requisite expenditures.
CA has a high state income tax, relatively higher sales tax (than most midwest areas), and in the case of SF, the oh-so-obvious (self-inflicted) real estate problem.
I would more call it a gravitational effect. The SFBA has more +$30mm net worth families than all of CANADA alone for example. I call it the black hole of money.
Epic Systems (digital healthcare records) employs 5,000 people just outside Madison, WI. Soon to be 10,000 according to their roadmap. I wouldn't be surprised if other corporations looking to hire gobs of college grads start popping up (or already have popped up) near other small midwest cities.
(1) Cleveland gets all the Broadway shows once they go off Broadway, but at about half the cost, (2) We have great music here, including the world-renowned Cleveland Jazz Orchestra, and tons of bands come through, (3) We have some great sports teams (hi, OSU) and a ton of great sports fans (hi, Browns fans), (4) We have great food at very affordable prices
Yes, exactly. As someone who lives in New York, this is the very definition of "in the middle of nowhere." Your idea of "culture" is Broadway shows, the local jazz orchestra, professional sports, and restaurants. To me, that's all stuff for tourists. Even San Francisco is culturally lacking by New York, LA, London standards.
Fine if you're satisfied by mass-cultural products, but the reality is that most cultural producers migrate to metropolitan centers once they reach a certain level of success and the second-tier cities are left with the loyal, the mediocre, and the novice.
That's not to say that there's nothing interesting going on in second-tier cities, but there's maybe 2 orders of magnitude less activity and the ceiling is far lower.
New York does have a great arts scene; but unless you're an artist, it'll always be peripheral to your day to day life.
Day to day life in New York is dreary. By American standards it's a filthy city. It smells and will always smell because trash is collected on the sidewalk. It manages to be both too hot and too cold. On summer days, a blanket of pollution hangs in the city air. The waterways are toxic after rainfall because NYC expels raw sewage into them. Most any place of business worth visiting will have a long wait. There are lots of delightful people in the right areas, but the many wrong areas are filled with throngs of really awful people. The amount of cat-calling, homophobia, and racism I experienced on the train or just walking around was an order of magnitude more than I've witnessed anywhere on the West Coast. The cost for living this privilege are some of the nation's highest taxes.
I don't regret my time in New York, but I do think it's one of the worst cities in the US in terms of livability.
From Joan Didion:
> All I mean is that I was very young in New York, and that at some point the golden rhythm was broken, and I am not that young anymore. The last time I was in New York was in a cold January, and everyone was ill and tired. Many of the people I used to know there had moved to Dallas or had gone on Antabuse or had bought a farm in New Hampshire. We stayed ten days, and then we took an afternoon flight back to Los Angeles, and on the way home from the airport that night I could see the moon on the Pacific and smell jasmine all around and we both knew that there was no longer any point in keeping the apartment we still kept in New York. There were years when I called Los Angeles “the Coast,” but they seem a long time ago.
> New York does have a great arts scene; but unless you're an artist, it'll always be peripheral to your day to day life.
This just isn't true. I know a number of people who work full-time in tech and are deeply integrated into various New York art scenes.
re: New York's awful quality of life compared to other cities, I completely agree. I can't blame anyone for wanting to live in a beautiful place with good weather and a more relaxed pace of life.
The subway makes the culture in NYC different than almost any other major city in the US.
If you lived in NYC maybe you understand. In other cities you can get around with public transportation, in NYC it's unquestionably the way to get around by everyone from day laborers to movie stars.
Also, your narrative of grittiness is very different than the other popular narrative, that NYC is now "disney" full of tourists, cops and wealthy transplants.
The simple fact remains that people want to be here in NYC despite whatever criticism.
Have you been to other cities with underground metro lines? The NYC subway is the dirtiest, noisiest, most claustrophobic metro system I've ever used; it even gives London a run for its money.
There are other great cities out there. Many of them do things differently, and do quite well at it. Try Hong Kong or Singapore's underground, or in Europe, Vienna's - even the ones in China are cleaner and easier to navigate.
I agree with nostromo. A day in New York is a day endlessly pushing against roadblocks, those roadblocks being people, traffic, delays, dirt, bad neighborhoods, long commutes, noise, expensive living, expensive eating... and all of that just to live in your tiny box and think that you're a part of it all.
I'll take small to medium-size towns any day, over that.
Notice how I qualified my statement by saying in the US.
I'm perfectly open to criticism of the subway compared to other countries more modern systems. As it stands though, for a person with only a US passport, the NYC subway is in a class of its own. On a global scale it is still one of the largest underground systems.
I was born in NYC and have also traveled extensively internationally. Foreigners and transplants often have this misconception that NYC = Manhattan. If I shared that sentiment then I would agree that NYC is not the greatest place to live. Try spending an afternoon in Astoria, Queens or Williamsburg, Brooklyn (two of the most trendy places in NYC at the moment but they work to prove the point). Tourists rarely see these places but residents live comfortable lives there with literally a 5 minute commute to the city.
Hell, the DC metro, for all its faults, is quite a bit nicer than NYC, but granted, it doesn't go as far.
Even for outer residents it is not great. My wife's family lives in Queens and it is inconvenient as all hell; there is a good reason people pay to live in Manhattan. NYC is bizarrely centered around Manhattan as its central hub, and all of the other boroughs are subservient to it; in a way they are deserts, devoid of all but the most basic businesses and services, as the arts/culture/jobs/education are in Manhattan.
To get to Manhattan takes 20 minutes by bus just to get to the L or M train, then another hour (or often more) to get to the outskirts. If you miss the bus, enjoy a 45 minute walk - the bus only comes every half hour, but is hardly regular, as it goes down the area's only main thoroughfare that is absolutely choked with cars, too many streetlights, and parking.
Maybe for some an 1:30-2:00hr commute daily is normal; at the best of times, in Spring/Fall, it's bearable but annoying. In the hot summer or cold winter, it's awful. I think, why go through all that - is the area really all that spectular? Can't you have 10x more (land,time,sanity) living in the Midwest or the South? Why even bother living in New York, if you're not going to live in Manhattan?
I went to NYC for the first time last year when I went to a conference. I wouldn't mind visiting the city itself, but I wouldn't live there for anything under seven figures per year (and not just because of the high cost of living).
This afternoon I just went to see a new opera that premiered yesterday at the Minnesota Opera Company (The Manchurian Candidate). I hardly feel deprived living in Minneapolis with the The Minnesota Orchestra, The Minnesota Opera, The St. Paul Chamber Orchestra, The Schubert Club, and a dozen other ensembles I'm forgetting. And that's just classical music, which is what I'm interested in.
If you're into live theater there's a dozen or more shows going at any one time. I'm sure there's a visual arts scene of which I'm happily unaware, jazz performances, dozens of small clubs, and more.
There's more than enough culture to fill my available time and interest. Living in NYC, I'm not sure I'd go see all that much more of it. Yes, I'd be spoiled for choices (and I miss the American Composers Orchestra) but I'm not really suffering in Minneapolis.
Right, if your tastes line up with mainstream cultural production, you're probably all set wherever you live. I happen to find it odd that people are interested in recapitulating the same music from the 18th and 19th century over and over again irrespective of what happened in music in the past 100 years (from serial music to minimalism, spectralism, post-minimalism, Wandelweiser, whatever, not to mention electronic music), but it is what it is. Not that no contemporary music happens in smaller cities – I know of a lot of great stuff in St. Louis and Minneapolis especially – but it usually scales with the size and prestige of the local universities and doesn't extend much past there. If your interests are more specific, you might get stuck with a few events per year.
That's actually the most important thing from my perspective. Somebody called me a hipster, but what I love about having access to a huge array of contemporary art, music, etc. is that it gives me the opportunity to see a lot and really understand what it is that moves me and that I can express myself through. As I learn more, my tastes become more specific and "obscure." On the flip side, knowing more also helps me appreciate more different things on a new level.
Actually, I only like 20th century music or newer for the most part. I think our local orchestras and chamber ensembles do a pretty good job of including new music. There are also new music ensembles here. More would be good for my tastes, but it's enough to satisfy my interests. I just don't think I'd go to a new music concert every week even if I did live in NYC.
Did you miss the part of my comment where I mentioned seeing a new opera commissioned by the Minnesota Opera that premiered this past Sunday?
> if your tastes line up with mainstream cultural production, you're probably all set wherever you live.
Up to a point, and then you're selling Cleveland short. The points on Broadway and the Orchestra both bear repeating - literally world-class in both regards, at half (or less!) the ticket price. On the hipster/contemporary side of things, I was spoiled for choice as a student in Cleveland - fantastic craft beer (I prefer it over most on the West Coast), concert venues like the Grog Shop[0] that rival most places in Seattle, and Ohio City (Cleveland suburb) is nigh indistinguishable from any other yuppie district over here (well, until you look at the prices).
In fact, the only thing that sticks out as missing is the lack of good clubs and an LGBT district, although Cleveland did just host the Gay Games last year. I'll echo other comments here - if someone offered me a 5% pay cut to move to Cleveland, I'd actually give it some thought.
Minneapolis also has an incredible local music scene (greatly bolstered by The Current[0] and Radio K[1]). If it weren't for the weather, Minneapolis would be a lot higher on city "tier" lists.
I'm from the Minnesota. I lived in Minneapolis from age 18 to very recently. I played in bands, my friends played it bands, etc. But let me tell you, after 10 years in that town you realize it really is very small.
@msutherl is completely right. If you have any creative bent outside of pop culture even a town the size of Minneapolis does not really provide the kind of creative stimulation you need. The kind of diversity and culture mixing that comes from a metropolis like NYC is on a whole other level entirely.
(By the way, the current is a crap radio station and they haven't played anything other than indie top 40 for years. Radio-K is cool, but every town with a university has a college radio station </hipster>)
I've thought a lot about this myself, as a musician and lover of art and music. I live in a mid-sized Midwestern town, where even Chicago would be a step up culturally. But I've thought about what it would be like for me to live in "Chicago" with a spouse and family. It would probably mean living in a suburb, spending a great deal of time in a car, and having neither the time nor the energy to go into the city for a concert or museum very often.
And the suburbs are yet another 2 orders of magnitude below my little town.
I've probably attended the Chicago Symphony more times than the average person who refers to their home as "Chicago." As for my town, if I want to play music or attend the Symphony with my kids, we're 10 minutes away.
And while it's true that great artists and musicians move to the metropolitan centers, they also move back out, in droves, because only a tiny fraction can survive the scene, much less prosper. I play in a band with some of them.
This is all without denying the obvious cultural role of the great cities. Thank you for bebop. ;-)
Come on, I live in Manhattan, this place is so incredibly stagnant and uninteresting these days. And don't talk about Brooklyn, it's full of vanilla transplants from the suburbs of middle America like myself.
Culture is people living their lives, pursuing interests and hobbies, being happy (not always), working, raising families. This is culture to me ... New York is just: either work all the time, talk about work, or be in poverty, talk about New York, be angry about New York, talk about leaving New York, talk about your rent.
And I can't even see any of the "mass produced" culture because the prices are absurd and the things sell out in minutes anyways.
He is from New York, and therefore immune to that type of response. Regardless of any argument you can come up with, the typical NY fanatic will brush it off as uninformed word diarrhea coming from the scum not smart enough to live there.
NY produces a lot of art / culture, but as with most things more than 90% of it is crap. If you don't feel like shifting through it then living in NY is pointless.
Or maybe you just don't care for modern city culture. I find a long walk in the woods more enriching than a world class art museum, though the latter has better bragging rights.
Seriously, humans lived in societies for thousands of years without the billion forms of stimulation that we have today. I refuse to believe their lives were in any way deprived because of this. The demand for an urban lifestyle is completely artificial and only serves to create a steady supply of desperate workers filled with envy of movie star lives. Humans in primitive societies today still manage to live happy lives. What would aid us all is to realize our desires are not our own but implanted by marketing to benefit the power elite.
Whatever floats your boat. You're into art and culture; NYC is a good scene for you. But if you're into something else...
How far is it from New York (City) to a good trout stream? Air that you can't see? A mountain peak above 10,000 feet? Powder skiing? (Yes, I know, those things aren't Midwest either, exactly.)
Artists, musicians, artisans, chefs, writers, cultural institutions, etc. producing new, non-derivative cultural products that address current issues, articulate forward-thinking ideas, or otherwise awaken, expand, deepen, and question our understanding of and relationship with the world and all its myriad facets.
This is the problem. GP mentioned London: I live in London. I see a lot of art in London. (I lived in Hackney Wick for a while, which at the time was basically a pile of art studios plonked into rotting industrial estates. There were some, er, very interesting people around.) None of it is particularly path-breaking.
But that's not an issue. Because any fule kno that all cultural production is highly derivative, and innovative only at the margins. GP gripes elsewhere about people ignoring the last 100 years of western art music, but seems to miss the fact that there is no Schoenberg without Brahms, Wagner and Mahler, no Reich without the Early Music revival; and, equally, the fact that not all productions of a given opera are alike. Innovation is possible, and happens, within the standard repertoire; that's one of the happy side effects of playing the same things over and over again.
I have no idea how forward-thinking the opera house(s) of Ohio are, admittedly.
I should have said "perspectives." The production of ideas operates differently post-internet and isn't so geographically specific. If you want to talk about trends in art, music, fashion, etc., then I could list quite a few.
Ha, scathing. But yeah, if a guy has not lived round the world before deciding Ohio is the best place to live, then it's not a very convincing argument.
I'd say that's heavily biased by the fact that Chappelle spent lots of time growing up in Ohio (and specifically Yellow Springs).
Lots of people have seemingly irrationally strong attachments to their hometowns - not quite the same as randomly stumbling upon OKC and deciding it's what you've wanted all along, you know?
And Chappelle's probably not the greatest example, since he very famously got fed up with his celebrity status and wanted to retreat from the world a little. Surprised you didn't go to Lebron instead.
>Lots of people have seemingly irrationally strong attachments to their hometowns
Nobody with a modicum of intelligence thinks that is irrational. Of course people are going to have strong attachments to a place where they spent a major portion of their childhood making memories and relationships.
The only seemingly irrational thing would be indifference. You don't spend 18 years in a place and not have any emotional reaction to it (good or bad).
I thought it was pretty clear that the implied irrational part of it is the opportunity cost of choosing your hometown, not the actual attachment itself.
If I'm a brilliant mathematician or a world-class athlete and I choose Kansas over Cambridge/Boston, then yeah, plenty of people are going to think that my attachment to Kansas is making me act irrationally. I don't think they lack a "modicum of intelligence" because of that thought.
There are obviously exceptions where your choice of location doesn't matter, but if you're a high performer then it frequently does (with the obvious notable exceptions e.g. Prince).
[EDIT: I originally just had a quip about not being a sports fan, but I thought you deserved a real reply.]
As a mathematician by training, I would venture to say that there are probably few mathematicians who are able to choose a location first and then a suitable job in academia or industry (in academia, that number is almost surely zero).
In particular, if you're an academic mathematician and you ended up in Kansas, then that probably means that you're working at the University of Kansas or Kansas State University.
Or Garnett (Minnesota). Not his hometown, but longest place of residence.
Also, Buffet, Prince, Eminem, etc. You can find an argument about a lot of places. The fact that people write of (any) place without spending any amounts of time there, speaks more about them than the place they're referencing.
You don't need to defend the midwest. Most people outside of San Francisco couldn't give less of a shit about San Francisco. The three primary smells of SF are urine, human feces, and weed.
I think Seattle folk are becoming increasingly hostile to the idea of moving down there. Some dream of it of course, but I think they're decreasing in number. Google and Facebook are expanding up here because there's so much talent that simply won't move to the bay. And SpaceX is starting a 1000 person studio soon.
Nashville is a good city. I hope it's tech scene continue to grow. Most west coast folk wouldn't dream of living in country music capital of the world. That's might even be a good thing. More opportunities for new people.
Lots of great places to live in the world. SF wouldn't even be in my top 100. So at least take refuge in knowing you're far from alone.
>Google and Facebook are expanding up here because there's so much talent that simply won't move to the bay
I think a lot of that is driven by Amazon, because they built the downtown offices. People get used to working downtown and they want to stay there. Easy commutes from Capitol Hill/QA/etc.
Now Facebook is expanding downtown, Google Fremont is growing, etc. because people refuse to commute to the east side.
As opposed to the Valley, where your options are (except for Twitter and mostly startups)
1) Work in the valley, and live the suburbs. Yuck. Pay a billion dollars for the privlege.
2) Work in the valley and live in SF. Pay a billion^2 dollars for the privilege, and have a shit commute (sitting on a private bus is still sitting on a bus).
No thanks.
That being said, I went to Case Western and would move back to Cleveland in a heartbeat, if the salaries and opportunities were even remotely comparable to Seattle.
> and would move back to Cleveland in a heartbeat, if the salaries and opportunities were even remotely comparable to Seattle.
At some point you might decide you don't need to jump from company to company, or from job to job. You'll realize you really only need a good job at a decent company. And there's a good chance that such a job exists in Cleveland, or Dallas, or Charlotte, or wherever.
At times, you might feel like you're missing out on the action. But then you'll look at your bank account or your house or your kid's college fund, which hasn't been being sucked dry by a ridiculously inflated cost-of-living, and you'll come back to your senses.
> Most people outside of San Francisco couldn't give less of a shit about San Francisco. The three primary smells of SF are urine, human feces, and weed.
I remember the first time I visited San Francisco: I was so excited to visit a city I'd heard so much about. There's a bar there which is supposed to be even better than one of my local ones; I arrived and discovered that a) it sold no food; b) the prices were double; c) the selection was worse; d) it stank of urine.
That entire city was a colossal let-down. I was so glad to return home. Maybe I should have had lower expectations?
Graduated in 2014, moved to Detroit to work for a hardware startup. Live and work downtown, and the professional experience has been phenomenal.
However, the issue that's so frequently left out when discussing the palatability of the Midwest is what it's like to be an Asian American here when you've grown up in a major city on the East or West coast.
And the reality is that it's really difficult. Race goes from being one aspect of your identity to an omnipresent difference that you feel constantly. On the vast majority of days that I spend here, I'm the only person of South Asian origin that I run into. This tends to lend itself to a sense of isolation that's difficult to capture in words.
I live in the Midwest, but visited a colleague at another site owned by my employer, in California. She echoed your sentiment. I have to say that if there's any specific reason why I'd hesitate to enthusiastically endorse living in the Midwest, it's the racism.
> I have to say that if there's any specific reason why I'd hesitate to enthusiastically endorse living in the Midwest, it's the racism.
The midwest includes a broad swath of states. While I've encountered some racism throughout the area, I'd be hard-pressed to see how it's vastly different than any other racism that permeates US culture.
True, the midwest as a region is broad and well-defined. But I'm guessing what the poster referred to us the midwest north of the mason-dixon line.
The upper midwest has its own breed of racism. It is quiet but built in to the socio-economic fabric of cities there in a way even worse than the south in many ways.
I'd like to point out that midwestern cities are among the most segragated in the U.S.[1] Minnesota, the place where I grew up, is famous for having one of the best public school systems in the country. What you won't hear Minnesotans talking about, though, it the ugly fact that Minnesota has the highest discrepancy in educational outcomes of any city in the country.
If you're from there, its easy to see why. There are exclusive suburbs with incredible schools for the local upper-class kids. But if you go to the inner city the schools are a joke. The difference is shocking in person.
The worst part is, there is not even a conversation in the upper midwest about race. The dominant narrative is that its a southern problem.
> What you won't hear Minnesotans talking about, though, it the ugly fact that Minnesota has the highest discrepancy in educational outcomes of any city in the country.
That's just simply incorrect (and, also, Minnesota is a state, not a city, you're probably referring to Minneapolis?). That's in the major local paper (Star Trib) weekly, if not more frequently. It is a topic of significant conversation and another proposed effort is being debated in the MN House currently, as well as efforts to decrease the number of suspensions disproportionately received by minority students, and a push to offer "free" preschool for lower class families, which will likely be approved soon.
Also, simply chalking up the cause of these issues to "racism" is lazy thinking. There's far more at play, including a significant immigrant population (large populations of Somali and Hmong, for instance), an inability for the MPLS school district to recruit good leadership, and more.
I happen to live in the (Northern) Midwest and I think you're just not in the right area. My city is ethnically and culturally diverse and I never encounter open racism. There are some of the more rural areas where that might be present. However, without statistics to back up any density of racism that may or may not be present it's hard to say whether race might be more of a factor here than anywhere else in the US.
I think the main reason the author prefers the midwest is because he was raised there. Property values and migration flows attest to people generally preferring the coasts.
I've lived in a lot of places: The UK, Alabama, Illinois (for a short time), Guam, Washington, New York, and California. Not having a home town, I think I'm better positioned to evaluate these places. My least favorite region is the south, followed closely by the midwest. The reason is simple: overt racism. Nowhere else have I seen such blatant and hateful discrimination. Even if the weather, food, jobs, and night life improved, I'd still shy away from living there.
> The reason is simple: overt racism. Nowhere else have I seen such blatant and hateful discrimination
I'm not white, and I've lived in the South for most of my life. From my experience, the South is less racist than either the West Coast or East Coast. Why? Because minorities are forced to hang out with people that aren't their own ethnic group. When this happens the larger ethnic groups become familiar with your own ethnic group as well as some of the culture that comes with it. Conversely in the larger metros in both the East and West coasts, this seems to happen a lot less often because there are enough ethnic minorities here so that there's a lot less mixing socially. Consequently, I've actually been the subject of inadvertent racism in the Bay Area at work. There wasn't any malice behind it, just ignorance, but it was really unpleasant and that would be inconceivable in a Southern metro (from my experience).
Europe in general is pretty bad for bigotry along different divisions. The stuff people in the UK could get away with saying about immigrants and people in other countries was pretty disgusting.
Every country I've spent time in over there (France, UK, Switzerland, Italy, and Germany) seems to have a culture that accepts making blanket offensive statements about people from other countries (or religions in the case of the UK).
I agree that there are some really unpleasant openly racist people in England.
Is it as bad as the US? Black americans make up half the US prison population; they're six times more likely to be imprisoned; as of 2001 one in six black men had been incarcerated;
Is it as bad as the US? Black americans make up half the US prison population;
Based on the numbers I find the the ratio for blacks in the US is 40-45% prison to population vs 12% general population.
In the UK the numbers seem to be about 12-15% prison population vs 2.5% general population.
If you look at Muslims instead of blacks then you'll find similarly lopsided ratios in many European countries. According to some sources as many a 70% of prisoners in France are Muslim (read North African or Turkish in most cases) compared to 10-12% of the general population.
Actually the just as interesting questions to ask is what % of senior and C level positions at large companies are filled by blacks? What % of senior government ministers and elected officials are black? What % of senior lecturers and researchers and universities and black? What % of the wealthiest top n% are black?
No matter how bad these numbers may seem in an absolute sense in the US, I strongly suspect they'll stomp all over equivalent numbers in Europe.
>Property values and migration flows attest to people generally preferring the coasts.
Actually, migration flows show people preferring the Sun Belt, despite the lower salaries and productivity rates. The coasts simply can't build housing fast enough to both accept migrants and maintain their own native-born populations.
> Not having a home town, I think I'm better positioned to evaluate these places. My least favorite region is the south, followed closely by the midwest. The reason is simple: overt racism.
I'm not saying you're wrong but it's worth noting that the black population has been increasing in the south for a while due to migration. It's an interesting trend.
As a fellow Midwesterner, I say "Amen". I live halfway between Chicago and St. Louis - a two hour drive in either direction. We've got everything we need, including great schools and tons of dining and entertainment options. I own a 2500 square foot house that will be completely paid for in 10 years, and my mortgage is ~$700/month.
I've been to both coasts and many large cities in the US and abroad. I'd still rather live here than anywhere else.
There is a huge difference between founding a startup in the midwest and being an engineer in the midwest. I believe that gets lost in a lot of the rhetoric from both sides. I love hiring engineers in the midwest. Consistently great work ethics, etc, etc.
On the other hand, if you're an entrepreneur, you don't live in SF and you're building a consumer internet startup, you're fucked. Primarily because your access to capital is so limited it's ridiculous. Most people that live in the midwest aren't able to put in the time required to build out the relationships needed to successfully fundraise in the Valley.
The other side of the coin: If you live in SF and your VC backed startup doesn't experience massive growth then you're fucked. In a cheaper city you can be ramen profitable, or a lifestyle business, or just a regular business or whatever.
This article is particularly relevant to me. I’m originally from a suburb of Cleveland less than half an hour from where the OP works, and I’m currently an undergraduate at Harvard. There are definitely some differences between the areas, and I can’t say that I have the overwhelmingly positive vision of the Midwest that the author of this post has. My feeling is that people in the Midwest are more content with the status quo — they understand what a comfortable life is, and they seek to achieve that. Life is very safe and sheltered, especially growing up there, and I feel that my peers from elsewhere have been exposed to so much more of life than I have.
The Midwest also lacks the intellectual vibrancy that a place like Boston does. It just seems to me that there are overwhelming concentration of smart, ambitious people from the coasts compared to those from the Midwest.
Personally, I love it here in Boston, way more than I do at home. Ohio was a good, safe place to grow up, and I imagine that it’s a great place to raise a family. However, I couldn’t imagine spending any more of my life there than I already have without dying from boredom or a creeping sense of mediocrity.
This rings true. I grew up in a suburb of Kansas City and, looking back, see it as a safe friendly place to grow up.
At uni, I was friends with a group of expat Manhattanites (not wealthy though) and similar to what you say, they looked at St. Louis as a quaint toy city. Many inconclusive dorm debates were held on the merits of the two environments. Of course neither of us could give ground, so similar to what you read nearby, we were talking past each other. Too defensive.
But that was 20 years and several cities ago. I still visit the Midwest and enjoy family and a few friends. I experience it as not open to newness, to difference, or to the exceptional. These things are just not valued. It is valued to be a regular person and to be comfortable and respectable.
This won't work for me. I love LA, where I live now, and have great respect for the Bay Area as well.
I think Midwest may be sort of a misnomer term. Chicago is midwest too and it definitely doesn't lack "cultural vibrancy". I think what you are referring to is more small town atmosphere rather than Midwest per se
I grew up in Akron, Ohio and now live in the Bay Area.
Everyone points out the obvious differences like the weather, seasons, and cost of living (housing in particular).
But one thing I rarely see mentioned is it seems that people in Northeast Ohio seem far less judgmental in general. Whereas here, I feel like every third person you meet is trying to size you up or “demonstrate” how smart they are.
Granted that’s probably a side effect of an overall higher bar of success for the region…
But it’s still refreshing to get a break from that attitude when I visit family back home. Unfortunately the there’s such a severe lack of tech jobs in Ohio that I doubt I’ll ever be moving back.
No one who has done his research doubts that Cleveland can be a really nice place to live. It's a charming midsize city with lots of good stuff happening. Unfortunately, that's often not how we choose our geographic location.
America's major cities (Chicago, Los Angeles, New York) and one midsize city with a special industry focus (the bay area) offer almost inconceivable economic opportunity to people in HN's line of work. Relative to population, their software and technology industries are tens of times the size of Cleveland.
If you are a schoolteacher (one of the most common and widely distributed white collar jobs), Cleveland is probably a hugely appealing destination. As a person working in the technology industry (a much more centralized niche), it presents a tremendous trade-off between quality of life and opportunity.
It's telling that the essay's author is a 100% remote employee of a firm in the bay area. Not even an ardent defender of the (non-Chicago) midwest was able to build his ideal career there.
"Cleveland is probably a hugely appealing destination. As a person working in the technology industry (a much more centralized niche), it presents a tremendous trade-off between quality of life and opportunity."
I live in the midwest and visited Cleveland last year. Outside of about two streets downtown, it's pretty much a ghost town at night.
Many, many businesses have left over the past 5 years because of the economy.
I moved from Cleveland to the Bay Area two and a half years ago. It was probably the best decision I have ever made. While working down in Mountain View, I learned there is absolutely nothing special about Silicon Valley. What is being done here in the Bay Area can be replicated anywhere. Had I not moved here, I would still have this vision of Silicon Valley being a special place.
I would even go so far as to say you're better off starting a company in the Midwest. It's a hell of a lot cheaper, and you can still find good talent. Sure, it will be harder to raise money; however, money will find the truly good ideas.
Ah but it is not a defense of Midwest as a workplace. It is a defense of the Midwest as a living place and effectively working on the West cost, and by implication, getting a West coast salary.
If you can do this arangement, it is not bad, agreed.
However I found tech jobs wise Ohio was a shithole. The number of available jobs, the salaries, the expectations were just not there when I was looking.
Like he said, the people are great, I had to leave a lot of friends and family behind, which hurt. The food, art scene, music wasn't bad, so agree on those fronts.
Edit: Interesting, getting downvoted without any comments. Not sure if this is an instinctive defense "he is attacking out Midwest pride"... Like I said, I like Midwest, and would have rather not had to leave. Unfortunately companies I got offers from didn't allow remote work.
> If you can do this arangement, it is not bad, agreed.
I'd say it's a pretty great arrangement ... but probably difficult to pull off. Which means you're screwed if you lose your job. Doubly screwed if you already have a mortgage in place-that's-good-to-live-but-not-to-work.
I'm getting a bit weary of people putting down others for where they live, while glorifying their own choices.
Guess what? It's just a location. Everyone has different tastes and different priorities. Some people are happy with where they live and wouldn't consider living anywhere else. Others wish they could move somewhere else where the pace of life is different -- slower or faster. Some people want a big house and plot of land. Others don't want to deal with the hassles of home ownership and like renting a modestly sized apartment.
Why do we feel the need to keep arguing this? Just let people live where they want to live, and stop wasting time evangelizing any particular city. No one needs to justify their city of choice.
As a native Clevelander I can fully back this piece. I came back to Cleveland upon graduating college in May and have not regretted my decision one bit. While the resources are nowhere as easy to come by as in the Valley there still is a great startup community that's been building over the past few years. The cheap cost of living, beautiful seasons and plethora of things to do year-round have me recruiting college friends to come join me instead of vice versa.
I'm tempted to move to a cheaper city inland, but I've heard horror stories of people trying to get to work when it snows. Is it extremely difficult to get to work in the winter?
No, not at all. Every once in a while there’s an extremely bad storm that makes it difficult, but for the most part the infrastructure (plows, salt trucks, etc.) has adapted to the climate such that it’s not a problem 97% of the time.
Minnesotan here, everyone in my office takes their laptops home if we think it'll snow. If it snows during the commute then things slow down, but there's armies of plow trucks and things get cleared quickly.
Snow is a major quality of life and safety issue. People from snowy climates will tell you it's not a big deal, but I'm from somewhere without snow, now living in the NE, it is definitely an issue and a major reason I won't settle here. Prepare to spend a few months every year basically stuck inside doing nothing. But that's a minor inconvenience compared to the issues with driving and even cycling. It's flat out dangerous to drive in snow, and more dangerous to drive on the black ice that remains.
There are cheap cities in America in much warmer climes.
Another part of the world, but where snow sometimes happens.
Utilities stay up - water, electricity, internet. It is not a big deal. People work from home and understand this; those that must go to work arrive late and go home early, this is understood too. Just have a padded coat.
I spent the first ~10 years of my web-dev career in Los Angeles / Orange County area, and South Florida tri-county area. Since 2009 (with a brief stint in Atlanta) I've been an independent consultant in Ohio. Not just the midwest, but a town of only a few thousand. The larger local businesses don't just have parking lots. They have built parking structures for Amish horse and buggies.
I've never in my career felt more productive and fulfilled than I have since doing this. It was the best career choice I've ever made.
The only complaint I have is that not just my local area, but Ohio and surrounding states in general seem to still be in the equivalent of the dark ages when it comes to technology and the web. I've lucked into some really good, steady clients who appreciate my work, so I know it's out there. The ratio of tech-savvy businesses is definitely obviously lower than you would expect to find in New York or San Francisco. I imagine it's only going to get better though, which I'm really looking forward to.
For an immigrant Midwest is though. In Bay Area, there are tons of groups of people from countries you've never heard of them. And funny is, all those people are working in technology so in their time together they have a lot of shared interests to talk about.
One other side effect of having more diverse demographics is people are less bios against ethnicity. Because people are exposed to a lot of people from other ethnicities.
The city the author was talking about, Cleveland, is a city with a 51% black population. A suburb I live next to in the area has a Jewish population comparable to an Israeli city (over 90%). I'm pretty sure we've got the largest Slovenian population outside of Slovenia. I just got a graduate degree from a college in Cleveland and roughly 80% of my fellow CS students were ethnically Indian, with the rest a pretty random mix from around the world. I guess I could go on.
In contrast, I honestly never felt like the urban techie parts of the Bay Area were hugely diverse when I lived there. Lots of really interesting people but there are much more interesting places to live as far as non-tech stuff goes.
This article hit home for me. Though I technically now live in a medium-sized mid-Atlantic city, the culture here is more like the Midwest. I'm not against the Bay area or NYC, but for me, I couldn't imagine living in those places: congestion, price of living, and their lacking of the "down-home" feeling.
I believe it would be more difficult to found a technology-centric company where I live, though. As an example, the company I work for, though very large, is based in a small city. For years, there was not much of an issue attracting new talent. The problem is that our IT organization has grown immensely recently, and attracting new "hacker" talent into the middle of the country is a huge obstacle. One of the solutions was opening another IT office in New Jersey, just a few miles from NYC. Problem solved.
But then there's those of us who grew up in the Midwest. I love being able to buy and own a nice home for under $200K. I enjoy being able to drive to work with minimal traffic. I even like reading about living in the Bay area on HN and laughing at the things so many have to deal with! But the truth is, tech people thrive in the Bay area. And I'd say that the Bay thrives on them. But there will always be a few of us engineers who live in "flyover" country :-)
I always thought I'd move to the valley to work for a startup and then eventually start my own. After my first offer right out of college with a company in SF didn't work out I ended up taking a job in DC.
My god am I glad that I held out on that one. Not only did I make a comparable salary in DC but the housing cost was at least half. I was paying slightly less than $2k for a nice 600 sqft one bedroom. In SF it would have been closer to $3.5k.
Now two years later I work remotely from Portland for a company based out of Madison Wisconsin. Who would have thought right? Certainly not me 2 years ago. As I've grown and traveled the US I've found the valley to be less and less desirable (and yes, I've been there several times).
Honestly the only draw to the valley is the higher volume of jobs. Aside from Google, Apple, et al, you're going to be saving far less in the valley than anywhere else. There's no incentive to move the valley if you can find a job anywhere else. I know people will tell you the network of VCs, the atmosphere, etc. But it's all overrated. If you're right out of school your number one concern should be saving money and learning. If you work in the valley you're only getting access to one of those and it's certainly not saving money (again, unless you're working for Big Tech Co.).
Now don't get me wrong. There are certainly places out there that are far superior to others. I would certainly rather live in the valley than Houston. The cultural aspect is key. I'm simply saying don't run to the valley because you have some idealized image of it. Research and do the math.
What's really ridiculous is that companies force people to live in the bay area and work from an office. There is absolutely no reason for this anymore. Developers can write code from anywhere, whether that means Ohio, India, or wherever.
I guess I find it a bit off-putting that a blog post trying to dispel stereotypes about a geographic region stoops to saying things like "On both coasts, the pace of life is really, really high: you just go, go, go and work constantly." This might be the norm in New York and Silicon Valley, but the south isn't this way, and I have been to towns as far east as MA that have laid back cultures — visit the town of Wellesley, MA if you want to see that. I am not disagreeing that there are great things about living anywhere, but trying to overturn stereotyping by stereotyping doesn't ring very true to me.
Wellesley MA is one of the most expensive suburbs of Boston with home prices above million, most of IT guys would have to work day and night to live in that laid back culture :)
Not arguing that it is cheap, just saying that the generalization that everywhere near the coast is fast moving is incorrect. Cheaper options include Wilmington, NC, Raleigh, NC, and Asheville, NC -- I skew NC because I lived there for several years and loved it (and I am now based in the Bay Area).
I grew up in Kentucky, and have lived in many other states in the east and southeast. I've also lived in Washington and LA. There are some things that I really miss about LA, such as the constant activity and drive, but those are also the things that I found I could never acclimate to living with (the traffic, the constant hustle).
I live in Kansas City now and am hoping to see big things start to happen more often in the technical start-up world. The city is embracing start-up culture it seems and it's just so damn cheap that I believe it to be inevitable.
I live in the suburbs of Dallas, and I wouldn't be able to stand living anywhere else.
Cities are expensive, cramped, filthy, and noisy. The Silicon Valley startup scene deeply creeps me out. I couldn't really care less about "culture"; just give me a good local bar to hang out at and a bunch of good restaurants, and I'll be happy. One thing about Dallas is that the suburbs are really ethnically diverse, and that translates into lots and lots of really damn good ethnic restaurants (I've even heard reports that we have more restaurants per captia than NYC, but that's probably a myth -- it's a believable one, though). Oh, and I pay $1200/month rent for a 1500 sq. ft. townhouse in a nice part of town. There's no way NYC or SF can beat that.
By the way, I'm a trans woman, and I went full-time before I started passing. The only time I've ever faced street harassment was the the two years I worked downtown (and I was harassed both before and after transition). Since I'm working in the suburbs again (hallelujah!), I haven't been harassed. Sorry, but I'd rather not have hobos and perverts shouting at me and following me around. Even the most liberal cities are still cities and still have unsavory types crowding the streets. You don't see that in the suburbs, even conservative ones. I never encountered even a single instance of transphobia in the suburbs (again, I went full-time before I was passable) -- and I'd like to repeat that I live in Texas.
Having lived in Pittsburgh for 10 years, I can say that I miss a lot about that City. I miss the seasons, the people and the landscape, and in Pittsburgh, there are a lot of great technology companies. Nothing compared to SF, of course, but you can definitely have a great life there. The thing that I can't overcome is the lack of an Ocean. It is very to beat a beach sunset after work.
As a (Southern) Californian who moved to Chicago many years ago, I feel the same away about missing the mountains. (For trail running, not biking, though). If I ever move back to CA, it'll be to Marin County so I can be near all those amazing running trails. The high cost of living there keeps me away, though.
maybe i'm reading too much into it, but i find the title bothersome. why start with the premise that the midwest needs "defense"?
there's great stuff happening here, and anyone with an open mind would recognize that. let's talk up our successes instead of being bashful because we're "not SF".
I loved my time in the midwest, but I don't miss the winters - they were brutal, and it would often take until May or June until spring weather would come.
I uniquely have friends around the world and spread out all over the US - location doesn't matter as much to me, since I could hang out with everyone I want. As a single man though, the Bay area makes a lot of sense for me as a result, since the pay still outpaces the cost of living for me. Being tired of wintry weather was also a huge factor in me migrating out west.
There is a chance I might migrate south to the Austin area in the future, or back east to the NY or DC area eventually - I do miss the strong ties I have to the east coast from having lived there for most of my life, but Austin sounds attractive as a tech hub and due to more sane housing costs.
For those in the Bay Area, I guess it's worth noting that people from Oakland tend to have an affinity for Cleveland and vice versa. Something I've noticed over the years.
Some of the author's points seem valid but a bit odd (mentioning the Cleveland Jazz Orchestra as being "world-renowned" instead of the Cleveland Orchestra? No mention of the art museums? Mention the Browns several times but not the Cavaliers, especially this year?) but overall it's a good piece. The thing that's missing is this: what makes Cleveland genuinely interesting is that it's a two-hundred year old city which is still figuring out what it's going to be when it grows up. It really could go a few different ways.
I grew up in the midwest and hope I never have to live there again. But I also hate California (hot, even in winter, way too sunny, smells awful about 80% of the time, probably in part because of the heat). I found that places like Washington, Oregon, and Montana are much more to my liking.
Moral of the story: everyone has different preferences and things they value, so assuming that any particular person would want to live in any particular place is pretty foolish. As a corollary, assuming that anyone talented will want to live in California (because everyone wants to live in California) seems like a pretty bad strategy.
The "best" university I could get into was my last choice, a certain, large public uni in Ohio, and I was upset but I chose it anyway.
However, Columbus is freaking awesome, I was so happy I decided to come here just because of the place and the friendly people (in fact, I have met one or two people who frequent this very site there!), not to mention the variety of great food and great coffee!
I have since starting planning leaving uni, but I probably want to stay in Columbus, if possible. How ironic, isn't it?
The reality is, the confluence of factors such as availability of VC capital, proximity of Stanford and weather make Bay Area the best place to be if you are a founder or a very early employee of a startup and you hold a significant stake. If the weather is a big factor for you, then Chicago will never beat Bay Area. But if you are not one of the above, and you don't care about the weather, Chicago beats Bay Area hands down on quality of life, in my opinion
I feel a lot of the same feelings the author felt while doing his undergrad, and it's nice to know other people feel the same way about their geographic location.
I'm also from Ohio and completing my undergrad, and considering where to possibly move for a career. (If that means much at all)
The problem I have with the cost of living argument is that, while housing tends to be cheaper, an iPad or a new car is not. That lower salary hurts everywhere except in mortgage or rent. And I say this as someone who has never lived in the Bay Area and hopefully never will.
True, but mortgage or rent is one of the largest items in most people's budgets. A new software engineer in Minneapolis can comfortably buy a house and start building equity. A new software engineer in the bay area probably can't even with the >40% salary difference.
Don't forget the close-to-10% state income tax (at engineer income), higher sales tax, CA SDI, higher food/utility costs, higher insurance, etc.
If you're lucky enough to work in a state with no (or low/fixed) income tax, that 10% combined with the hilarious housing cost situation covers the spread in salary difference very quickly.
And if you're working remotely there are obviously other potential lifestyle savings to be had (parking, generally less restaurant expenses, etc.)
There's also a really great budding startup scene in Columbus centered around Ohio State. The midwest really shouldn't be discounted for work, especially considering how cramped the valley's becoming.
I'm a student at Ohio State and I work part time as a web contractor. This summer I'll be in Seattle as an intern at Amazon though, so I'm excited to see the difference.
New Englander here and quite frankly I think the Midwest is politically and socially backwards and I do not want anything to do with your part of the country. I have the same feelings about the South.
Politically you're still debating the merits of gay marriage in many of your states and thankfully only because of the courts are you being forced to accept it as a legitimate thing.
Too much religion and not enough education.
Too conservative. Especially your desperate need to cling to gun-ownership as some sort of ultimate freedom.
If i'm picking petty things to dislike... we'll you're also boring. You don't export any interesting cultural artifacts you just soak up whatever the coasts have to offer. That's not much of a reason though and as I said, it's petty.
You sound like someone who's never seen anything outside of coastal New England, backwardness exists all over.
See how the folks in rural Maine feel about gay marriage - I'll point out that 47% of voters in 2012 were opposed which on the surface sure doesn't seem too different to me than the 46% of Ohioans apposed as of last polling in 2014.
I'd bet I'd find remarkably similar polling in Ohio, Maine, Vermont or New Hampshire about gun rights too.
When it comes down to it, the conservatives have lost the war they might not realize it yet, but history is on the side of those for equality and equitable treatment.
As for the culture comments? You're just a snob, but that very nearly goes without saying.
The problem with working in the Midwest is: what do I do if the job I have goes under. In a tech hub I can be lining up interesting interviews in a few days.
As another developer who lives in Ohio, but has taken numerous trips to SF and even lived in the bay area for a year, I agree with everything in this article.
When I think of the Midwest these days, I think of St Louis/Ferguson.
I think of the price for housing and how it reflects demand.
I live in Seattle, so my viewpoint is slightly different, but, eh. I used to live in a rural place, and I don't plan to go back, for a long time, if ever.
Let me pick apart this article a bit, and demonstrate how skew these high points are from things I care about.
* Housing cost. That's where the pay difference comes in. And my $800/mo in student loans doesn't change if I live on the coast or in the middle of nowhere. So it's actually better for me, because the proportional cost of fixed payments goes way down.
* Broadway shows, okay. But wouldn't you rather be in a vibrant place where creation happens, than be the "second hand"?
* Same for music. Do you want to be in the place where creation happens, or a pit stop on the tour?
* Sportsball. Meh.
* Foodwise, my mind was blown by the quality difference between St. Louis and Seattle/SF when I visited recently. Maybe I hit the wrong joints, but STL had terrible food. Absolutely shockingly worse. I'll have to shake down some people for more reccs next time.
* Seattle is incredibly friendly and polite. Drivers in the city are probably the friendliest I've ever come across. While it retains the historical Scandinavia reserve, people are really just decent here in general. SF is famous for its collaboration between businesses.
* I don't even understand the idea of wanting to turn off work on a daily basis. I left that attitude behind me when I last worked fast food. The 9-5er attitude is "yuck".
* The author is generally ignoring the intense network effects of having zillions of nerds in the same city.
---
Anyway. Not that TFA is wrong. But its priorities are very skew from mine.
I want to live in a place where technology is a significant lifestyle, where nerds are your neighbor, where programmers aren't weirdos. I want to live in a place with tons of cultures colliding and the resultant froth. I want to live in a place where there are new companies forming weekly. I want to live in a place where the optimism is in the air, where young people are flooding around the town with new ideas, new thinking, and crazy things no sane adult would do, and tech is in the heart of all that. Where the next thing is being done at 3 in the morning fuelled by coffee, math, and being young and foolish. Maybe that means I never will leave Seattle/SF/The-next-big-thing until I retire, but I'm okay with that.
>I think of the price for housing and how it reflects demand.
You should think supply instead. San Francisco is quite small geographically. It doesn't take much demand to drive the prices quite high under those conditions. Most places in the Midwest can grow in any direction as necessary.
>* Broadway shows, okay. But wouldn't you rather be in a vibrant place where creation happens, than be the "second hand"?
>* Same for music. Do you want to be in the place where creation happens, or a pit stop on the tour?
As someone involved in tech all of the time, I frankly don't care if I'm "where the creation happens", and most people I know don't. You don't have to be where art was originally made to enjoy it and to argue otherwise is pretty stupid.
* Same for music. Do you want to be in the place where creation happens, or a pit stop on the tour?
This one is bullshit. Plenty of bands came from Ohio, including OAR, the Foo Fighters, and the Black Keys. IMO, the live music scene in Columbus is way better than SF, with a diverse group of talented bands playing every night of the week.
My ten-year residence in Seattle (U District, Lake City, and Burien/Tukwila) led me to use terms like "passive-aggressive", "frigid", and "unaware".
Seattle drivers are particularly terrible -- they'll force a line of 20 cars to stop just so they can "politely" let someone in who would have been able to turn just fine ten seconds later when all the cars had passed; they're perfectly willing to inconvenience multiple other people in order to be superficially polite to one. If there's a space in front of them, they'll speed up, getting right on the bumper of the car in front of them -- even if there's plenty of room to pass -- and then follow closely, as if they just can't stand being more than a few yards behind the next car. (This particular passive-aggressive maneuver is so distinctive that I once identified a vehicle on the interstate in Kansas as "drives like they're from Seattle" from a distance, confirming from the licence plate when I got closer.)
I also noticed that everyone in Seattle was polite to my face, but the majority of long-term friends I made while in Seattle were from other places. The people who turned out to be fake friends were mostly the natives.
That's not to say that Seattle entirely sucks. It was a neat place to live, and there are a lot of good people there. But I find it interesting how differently we perceive the same social scene, and how that contributes to my being much happier far away from there.
I'm an introvert: I have few friends, but close ones. The Scandanavian "Seattle Freeze" suits me to a T - surprisingly so! But I can easily understand how people who prefer other interaction modalities would find it aggravating.
1. World class food. There is no way you can get the same quality of chinese,japanese,korean,indian,french,italian,californian,thai,vietnamese in Cleveland.
2. People creating things in coffeeshops on the weekends, instead of wasting life watching TV or drinking beer. You only get one life in this great country.
3. It's not ice freezing cold
4. It's not superficial (like LA), not money worshipping (like NY), not power hungry (like DC), not gun/football crazy (like Texas), not corrupt (like Florida)
5. Diversity
6. Tech, Venture networks
7. Silicon Valley people are great people. The entrepreneurs are supportive of each other, since they know how much pain it is to start a company. The people who take risks moving across country to here are brave and adaptive and optimistic. (instead of rotting away on a couch in midwest complaining about lack of jobs)
We should not compare Silicon Valley to Cleveland. Why don't we compare it to Chicago? The reason the Cleveland comparison is somewhat unfair is that Cleveland is a small city, so we are not comparing apples to apples
Pennsylvania the 33rd largest state. It is definitely not a large state by western standards. I guess if you consider NYC the center of the universe then maybe it's the Midwest, but as a Midwesterner (from Minneapolis) I'm not really feeling that.
I think puls meant that Pennsylvania is a big state in the sense that Philadelphia is considered to be a part of the east coast while Pittsburgh (home of Carnegie Mellon) is often considered to be a part of the midwest.
In that sense, Pennsylvania is a big state. Perhaps "wide" is a better descriptor.
Pittsburgh is kind of a buffer between the east coast and the midwest. Architecturally, it feels more like an east coast city, but culturally it feels more midwestern.
I agree. I grew up in Ohio, and to me, Pittsburgh and the rest of western PA is part of the Midwest. It has the same farmland/steel-town culture that Ohio does.
Obviously Philadelphia is not, so I would argue that the dividing line is somewhere in the middle of the state.
Well, see, this kind of depends on your definition of "Midwest". I grew up a fair distance west of Denver, and to me, the dividing line between East and Midwest is Chicago. The "real" west begins at Denver. This neatly divides the country into approximately thirds.
But to say that Ohio and western PA are "Midwest" because they're west of the Appalachians... bah. You easterners need to get out more. And if you think steel town culture makes you part of the Midwest, well... come west of Chicago and look around. You don't see many steel towns out here.
I mean, I suppose that's the labels that you grew up on, and it's how the locals label themselves, so on that level it's hard to argue with. But anything that includes "West" as part of the name (or even "Mid") that includes Pittsburgh... look at a map of the country, and then explain to me how that makes any sense at all.
I understand the value of physical proximity to lots of other like minded, smart people. However, I would have thought that the tech crowd would be the first to decry the inefficiencies of having one or two (SF and NY) annointed "tech hubs" and actively eschewing every other place. Why crowd every damn programmer in the world into the SF bay area when we have the internet?! That's the whole point of the internet!
There's also the cultural argument. Tech work has tended to attract people who are part of non-mainstream culture. Tech hub cities attract these people because they already have every culture and subculture imaginable and a society that mostly tolerates them. There's also a perception that other places don't have this and that their particular affiliation would invite outright hostility. That's mostly not true. Every large city (>1M people) will almost certainly have communities of people who share your culture or at least tolerate and support it.
Again though, I think that choosing where you live based on whether or not you can surround yourself with exclusively like minded people is counter to the hacker ethos. Let's not forget that Silicon Valley was not always what it is now. People built the place, and the rest of the US and the world could benefit from people who attempted to do the same elsewhere.