
Ask HN: What would attract you to a job in flyover country? - midwestcoder
I&#x27;ve been working as a consultant for a large company in the midwestern US that does a lot of software development, both for internal use and for external services used by the company&#x27;s clients.<p>The company can&#x27;t seem to attract experienced software developers to move, only new grads (but people do stick around long after they become experienced), so they use a lot of consultants to fill out their teams.<p>In the past six months, I have done projects using Python&#x2F;Django, AngularJS, D3, RoR, Hadoop&#x2F;HBase, and other current technologies, so this definitely isn&#x27;t a case where the technology stack is boring. Compensation and benefits are reasonable as well, considering the low cost of living.<p>So, HNers, what would entice you to consider working for a company outside of the red-hot tech hubs?
======
georgemcbay
"Compensation and benefits are reasonable as well, considering the low cost of
living."

Why not ignore the the local cost of living and compensate at SV market rate
levels? That way there is a tangible and obvious pro to the move: the delta
between "tech-hub" cost of living and "flyover" cost of living.

If you scale compensation down to be relatively in-line with local cost of
living you aren't really offering anyone a pro in the face of many cons
(harder to find another job if this one doesn't work out, the general inertia
of moving halfway across the country, likely less interesting social/cultural
options, likely screwier rules when it comes to non-competes (than what you
get in CA), etc.)

~~~
angersock
This is exactly what I've seen in some companies near where I live--they
refuse to hire at market rates, and if they resort to "but but but cost of
living" I assume they're trying to sell me something.

It's so fucking obvious--pay the same amount, have a better culture, and that
should be it. Alas, some folks are a bit slow. :(

~~~
freehunter
Paying the same amount would be challenging if they're not doing the same
amount of business. Google can pay an average software engineer $100k because
they do a lot of business. Should a company that only makes $100k in a single
year pay their developers the same? Tech companies in SF tend to be pretty
big/well funded organizations.

~~~
georgemcbay
This is true, but at the same time a company making $100k in a single year
probably doesn't need to hire "the best of the best" (even if they think they
do, because everyone thinks they do) and can actually get by with local
college grads until such a time as they hit a scale where they need outside
help, by which point they can hopefully pay for it.

------
johngalt
Found your problem.

 _Compensation and benefits are reasonable as well, considering the low cost
of living._

I've had offers with that qualifier. They always come in 40% below market.
Even if cost of living and salary is a 1:1 trade. I'll always trade up and not
down.

Here is why: The primary differences in cost of living is housing. Cars,
computers and software cost the same regardless. Additionally housing costs
more in places where people want to live and less where they don't want to
live. Sure I can buy a mansion in Minot, but I can't buy a beach. There are
more subtle issues with this too. The costs of conferences, training, and
tools doesn't change. There are also network effects. Potential employees
check up on a businesses reputation as well. In my area I know who to avoid
and have contacts in dozens of other tech focused businesses. Odds are I don't
know anyone who's been within 100miles of you. What happens if things don't
work out? Are you the _only_ tech employer in town?

Bluntly you're asking me to give up my existing network of people and
employers for lower pay, less future growth opportunities, and all you can
offer is a cheap house in a place where I may not want to live. It's not a
good deal, so people don't take it.

What would attract me to a job in the midwest?

Paying market rates would be #1. Being upfront that training/conference travel
opportunities will be funded. A few other tech companies within reasonable
distance so I'm not in a bind if I need to move on.

------
tptacek
It really depends on where in "flyover country" you're talking about.

Are you considering Tulsa, or Akron, or Sioux City? That's a tough call, since
the markets there are pretty thin. Taking a full-time job in a thin market for
tech saps your negotiating leverage, because your employer knows they don't
have much credible competition.

On the other hand, are you considering Chicago, or, MSP? Those are ---
contrary to popular belief --- gigantic cities, larger than San Francisco.
There are advantages to working in (say) Chicago over SF. You won't get your
next startup funded there, but you'll have an easier time getting a
bootstrapped company off the ground. There are tradeoffs, but we'd have to
talk about what's important to you to hash them out.

Personally: I've enjoyed my last couple visits to San Francisco (surprisingly;
I moved away from San Francisco hating them place). But I wouldn't want to
live there.

------
drivers99
"The company can't seem to attract experienced software developers to move"

... at the price you're willing to pay, I assume.

"Compensation and benefits are reasonable as well, considering the low cost of
living"

This seems to confirm my assumption. The benefit of having lower costs would
be so I can save more, but if the pay is less then what is the benefit?

~~~
freehunter
That's my biggest problem living in the midwest. I never want to move to SF or
NY or places with massively high cost of living ( _because_ of the cost of
living), but the pay seems to scale directly in line with cost of living
anyway. If I have 20% discretionary income no matter where I am living, why
would I not move to someplace more exciting?

Although I don't know if I would be able to stomach a cut from $250k/yr in SF
to $70k/yr in Iowa, even if cost of living decreased to match.

~~~
mark-r
As a resident of flyover country I look at it the opposite way - why would I
move to the coast for higher pay only to have it soaked up in living expenses?
Even with that I'd probably be downgrading my housing, and there are other
aspects of my lifestyle that I'd miss. And do you really think the pay
disparity is that extreme?

~~~
poulsbohemian
We moved to a rural area (nearest large city is a 4 hour drive) four years ago
and I'd agree with the other commenters that housing is the only cost that
decreased any - and even that is almost irrelevant as people fleeing cities
have increased house prices and/or market manipulation has worked to keep
housing costs relatively high. Sure you can buy a double-wide or a serious
fixer-upper here that you'd never find in the city, but if you want a typical
3 bedroom middle class house you aren't getting much of a discount.

The truth is, I feel more compelled to increase my income and saving now
because of the lack of opportunities in the local economy. My income is
entirely from non-local customers and if my sales pipeline ever dried up I'd
have no option but to move. This is basically at the heart of why I don't move
to the midwest (where my wife would prefer to be) because it would be the same
thing - you'd be the big fish in a small pond.

------
drewrv
You need to pay way more than the coasts.

There are career benefits to being in a location with other tech companies.
Not just finding a new job, but simply going to meetups and coffee shops and
meeting people who are in a similar line of work. When you say "people do
stick around" I wonder if this is part of the reason. I'd need extra money to
make up for the money I'm losing by being far away from the action. Sending me
to conferences might make up for this.

There are cultural benefits to being in an actual city. Ballet, theater, live
music, etc. I'm sure there are wonderful small town artists but a big city
will have more cultural activities by virtue of having more people. Extra
money and extra vacation time (like 6-7 weeks a year) for a trip to NYC
occasionally could convince me. Of course there are cities in the middle of
the country, Chicago and Minneapolis for example, in which case disregard this
point.

There would still be quality of life issues. I like sushi and have never had
good sushi in the midwest. I like being able to read a book on pubic transit
instead of driving myself to work. I like walkable neighborhoods. I like
sailing. I like living in a place where it hardly ever snows, yet I can drive
for a bit to a huge mountain and go snowboarding. I'd need a lot of money to
give up some of these things, not sure you can even a price on it.

I'd suggest trying to hire remote workers.

------
joeclark77
I lived in Omaha for a year and would definitely consider moving back for a
great job, however, there's one big problem and that is: even though you're in
a beautiful rural part of the country with lots going for it, you're still in
the big city, i.e., the one place in that state that has the fewest of the
advantages of being in a small state. You don't have the low cost of living,
you don't have the strong sense of community, don't know your neighbors, can't
leave the car unlocked, and it's still difficult and expensive to get away
from it all. So you may have people come to work for you thinking they'll get
to enjoy life in the slow lane, and then find out that they've given up all
they loved about the big city but haven't experienced the promises of the
country.

~~~
Tcepsa
I'm mostly in agreement with this if you choose to live in said city, but I
would argue that traffic will be better even in one of the "big" cities of the
Midwest (I currently live the greater D.C./Baltimore metro area and am amazed
at what people in the Twin Cities metro area consider to be bad traffic). As a
result, it would be much less time-consuming to commute into the city from the
countryside in the Midwest than it would be to make a commute of similar
distance in SV/NY/DC/etc.

------
nicholas73
Moving outside a tech hub has distinct disadvantages, besides entertainment.
You have less job prospects, thus vastly increase your risk and limit future
growth. In addition you are less likely to branch off with colleagues and
investors.

For me, the things that would sell me are 1) significant pay above net cost of
living compared to tech hub 2) flexible work time policies 3) no attempt to
own what I do on the side (CA has clear rules on this) 4) control over job
direction and technologies 5) and lastly, maybe your company really is
awesome.

~~~
hga
Add no non-compete to the list, CA is also clear on that, and for a very long
time.

It's the single unique thing about the state, and I'm convinced it has a lot
to do with Silicon Valley's long term success, especially during the decline
and fall of Route 128 (roughly the '80s and the PC era, which I watched first
hand).

------
siculars
It's the "Compensation and benefits are reasonable as well, the low cost of
living." part. When you pay someone reasonably relative to their immediate
environment what you're really saying is: Hi new hire, we expect you to live
here forever because you can't save money to leave to a more expensive city
and we value less than your peers in larger markets.

What you fail to realize that in order to attract talent to "flyover country"
you need to compensate them for being in "flyover country".

------
krstck
Nobody wants to pay.

Outside of tech hubs, companies don't seem to value software devs. I guarantee
that if your company was paying rates competitive to the major cities - not
"considering the low cost of living", but actually competing on the dollar -
there would be more interest. You have to pay programmers enough to mitigate
the risk that there just aren't as many jobs in those areas and there aren't
as many opportunities for professional development. Instead, everyone wants to
look at the cost of living in SF/NYC, and claim that it's such a better deal
to move to $midwest_city, even for less money. No. The environment matters.
Pay up to compensate.

Check Meetup.com. Are there large, active groups meeting regularly for a
variety of languages and technologies in your area? Think about what devs have
to give up when they leave a city with a thriving programmer community to come
to your company.

------
waterfowl
more money than on the coasts. Simple answer but people don't like "paying
more."

Do you have SV/NYC/etc esque perks? Uncounted vacation, free food, etc
etc?(which would all be cheaper to offer in the midwest for your company).

If you want the best people you should compensate in line with the "best"(by
comp) employers OR differentiate yourself substantially.

I would totally work for "midwest market" for 25hr a week or so with full
benefits. Big pay cut, big cost cut, lots more free time(but companies don't
like that either).

~~~
vladgur
FYI 'unlimited' vacation is not a perk, its an accounting trick that more
often than not IS NOT in employee's interest.

~~~
nicholas73
Yup, not only do you take less vacation you don't get paid out when you leave.

------
vollmarj
At FarmLogs (YC w12) we have been able to hire some really amazing people in
the "flyover" country. We moved to Ann Arbor from Mountain View to be closer
to our customers.

Ann Arbor is an attractive city. People realize that when they come and visit.
Much like startup hubs, Ann Arbor has a high density of really smart people
(partly because of UofM), and does have its own advantages over the Bay Area.

Ultimately, people don't join us (or not join us) because of location. We hire
people that want to be a part of our mission to bring great technology to
agriculture. When people get to see what we are working on, who we are, and
how much progress we've made, they get really excited. At that point location
doesn't matter as much. We are relocating people from all over including the
Bay area.

------
arh68
As someone searching for a job, it's hard to say. There are only a few big
cities not on the coast that stand out: Twin Cities, Chicago, Austin, maybe
Denver, maybe Ann Arbor. If you're not in one of those areas, you could be in
any of a few dozen cities, so how am I going to find you? Plus there's just a
trend where people rarely move from big town to a small town. Most people want
to stay where they are or move 'up' to a better, often more crowded, area.

Compensation can be lower, no problem, as long as quality of life isn't
dropping off.

~~~
tptacek
I love Ann Arbor and miss living there, but Ann Arbor is the textbook case of
a locale with a thin market for tech labor. Wanting to live in Ann Arbor more
or less eliminates your negotiating leverage with employers.

~~~
dllthomas
So... you're saying I should hire in Ann Arbor?

~~~
tptacek
Sure!

------
loumf
I live in rural Massachusetts, way too far for a Boston commute. I found that
if I really got to know the local market, I could find great local developers
-- I actually prefer that to NYC (where I started), where you can find devs,
but it's hard to compete with the other companies there.

Our strategy was to make our place the absolute best place to work and pay
appropriately -- perhaps not all the way to SF market, but at the high-end of
our market. Word gets around. We were also aggressive with the local colleges.

------
codeonfire
Before I moved to a tech hub I lived in a flyover state. Whenever I
interviewed at companies there, the developers would be so down. They seemed
almost depressed like they had nowhere to go. Invariably the management was
unsophisticated and not very experienced. Their thinking about software Dev
management was decades behind. Do you want to know what development was like
in the 70s or 80s when programming was a blue collar job? Go work in one of
those states.

At one point I realized the entire state and region had nothing for me and
left. I still get job leads from that place from 80s era companies and I know
following them means booting up dos from a floppy or doing COBOL work while
being told what to do by a part time manager, part time truck driver. What is
far worse though is the fear of being sucked into this microcosm of 'this is
how we do it here'. There are no up to date companies out there, only
companies that have found a local maxima of expertise that, though they don't
know it, is five to ten years behind at best. You tend to get stuck being
lectured by the so-called experts on some 10 year old technology that is state
of the art in their minds.

------
scarecrowbob
I work in the sticks out in Texas.

I remain freelance because I haven't found a company that will pay me my
freelance rates while remaining remote and still having the power to throttle
down as I'd prefer to do. I can make as much as my buddy who is a plumber
working a quarter of the hours and not having to own a truck full of tools or
get under houses.

Just a guess, but I'd think most of the folks who like to live out in the
sticks like to live in "their" sticks... I've lived in Texas my whole life.
And it doesn't take a lot of remote work to make the nut, especially if you're
being compensated at good market rates.

Between those two facts, I'd suspect that the issue is that most folks who
live in "flyover country" aren't inclined to move and don't have to.

You might have better luck training locals or grabbing folks who want to live
in your area. Or, like a lot of folks do, hiring remote.

~~~
positivejam
_Just a guess, but I 'd think most of the folks who like to live out in the
sticks like to live in "their" sticks_

Agreed.

------
TallGuyShort
I agree with most of the feedback already posted in this thread: compensation
"considering the low cost of living" is not necessarily good compensation, and
remote work may be the ticket. To other HNers, I would say that I just moved
from Silicon Valley to the Midwest and I'm so much happier with all the open
space and corn fields. In SV I used to feel trapped and tense all the time.
Everyone talked about money. To the OP, I would say I work remotely for an
industry-leading software company, with a Silicon Valley salary, and basically
my own schedule. Don't see your goal as trying to get people to move to the
Midwest, see it as trying to compete with Silicon Valley companies for talent.
There are fewer jobs out here, so I have to look much harder to network and
ensure job security. I wouldn't give up my current arrangement any time soon.

------
justinsteele
Why not hire remote?

~~~
joesmo
Yup. Hire remote and pay tech hub rates. It's that simple. You'll also get
much more loyal, dedicated employees. Currently in this situation and it's
really the best job I've had out of dozens.

~~~
notastartup
what did you mean by tech hub rates?

~~~
grayrest
Companies usually scale pay based on the cost of living in the city where the
worker lives. Tech hubs tend to be high cost of living areas. A $115k job in
NYC becomes a $90k job in Omaha based on the premise that it costs 25% more to
live in NYC.

This accurately reflects the buying power in the two different cities but base
pay also generally translates percentage-wise into other benefits like 401k
matching and your negotiating position for salary at your next job.

------
curiousHacker
Just pay more. I'd even work in the middle of Alberta, CA if I were paid 2x
Silicon Valley median salary.

------
mayankag
TL; DR: The company: its people and its mission. Everything else is secondary.

I recently moved from San Francisco Bay Area to join Farmlogs in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. Here is how I thought about it:

I derive majority of my happiness from what I do, not necessarily from the
money that I have in my bank account or the social ameneties that are provided
by the city that I live in. This is not to say that it will not be nice to
have more money in my bank account or to live in a big city like New York or
San Francisco, but my self-realization that I am most happy when I am
satisfied at work.

I feel that you first need to pick the company you want to work for. I chose
FarmLogs. It just happened to be in Ann Arbor. It would have been nice for me
if it was in San Francisco but it wasn’t. Now I was not going to let that
opportunity go just because it was not in San Francisco. For me, doing
meaningful work has more importance than living in a specific city.

People have mentioned a lot of cons about working in the midwest but here are
some of the pros:

1\. Lower cost of living: I am not kidding when I say that I save much more in
Ann Arbor in dollar amount as compared to when I was living in SF. I have been
able to purchase my own house as compared to spending a fortune on rent in SF.

2\. Better Negotiation: You can negotiate a better deal from your employer
just because they are in midwest and want to hire you.

3\. Experience of living in a new place: I, personally, have never lived in a
place where it snows and I am looking forward to that experience. I don’t know
if I will like it or not. If I don’t, I will know snow is not for me and will
go back but I have to try.

So in short, I feel one should pick a company they want to work for.
Everything else seems secondary. You will spend most of your time at work, and
at least for me, if I am not happy at work, I am not happy in life.

In addition, I can go back to SF anytime if I wanted to.

Thats what I have to say about that.

------
msoad
For me, low cost of living means low quality of living. There are more things
to do in more expensive cities and quality of almost everything is higher,
from restaurants to doctors to schools.

Many people brought up the compensation which is fair, but for me, even if a
company in mid-west offers 30% increase in my earnings I would pass.

For people like me that are minority, diversity is very important. It makes
living much easier when you are surrounded with all different kind of people.
By visiting some cities in Montana and Idaho I understood how good Silicon
Valley and NYC are. People keep staring at us in restaurants just because we
were talking a foreign language. I know it's all because of their curiosity
and they don't hate us necessarily but it is not comfortable.

------
jpmec
The people, the culture, the projects, the money. Probably in that order.

If I could work with a superstar team, where I am guaranteed hands-down to be
the dumbest person in the room, where I can practice leading edge software
development, contribute to fantastic projects (some of which were decided by
me), and get paid very well, then sign me up.

With the amazing power of the internet, even remote jobs aren't really that
remote. I would say benefits like sending employees to conferences, making
sure they have good equipment and comfortable surroundings, allowing change in
the organization, and making sure that the entire team is always seeking to
improve are good ways to attract talent. Money is also good.

------
webnrrd2k
The first problem that comes to mind is that I'd have a lower salary on my
resume, and would likely take a hit when I worked again in a high-salary state
like California.

The second problem is that I'd also be taking a hit on real estate, if I ever
planned on moving back to CA. This is speculative, I know, but it's how I
think: I'd most likely buy a house, and, when I sold it it would be most
likely worth less than if I'd just bought in CA to begin with. So I'd be
taking a hit there as well.

I'd also think it would have a lot to do with the industry you're in... If I
wrote software that controlled, say, oil refineries, than then I might be more
willing to work in Texas.

------
debaserab2
As a senior dev in the Midwest, there's a lot of jobs available to you for
good pay, so having something else that differentiates you is a good idea, but
it all starts with the pay. There's plenty of good talent already in the
midwest.

------
lwhalen
Ever since the Phoenicians invented money, there has only ever been one answer
to that question :-) Basically, remote work at "tech hub" prices (that's what
all your competitors are offering), or laughably oversized salaries (even by
already-inflated tech-hub rates) if your client insists on having a local dev
team. There's a reason it's called flyover country, and to entice me to work
there (as someone who escaped from 'flyover country' to the East Coast and
then again to the West Coast) is not going be cheap by anyone's standards.

------
TulliusCicero
I work for one of the big tech companies in the bay area, and I already plan
on eventually moving to a much smaller metro eventually. Mainly it's because
buying a house here is crazy expensive, and also because I'd like to be closer
to nature (e.g. a 20 min bike ride to a river or forest or something like
that). For me, just being in a desirable small city would be the big thing
(good schools, good walkability/bikability, close to naturey stuff, not too
far from a major metro (< 2 hours by car)).

------
_greim_
I've always thought that it would be neat if a tech company bought a few
square miles of empty land somewhere in Wyoming and build the mother of all
tech campuses. Build on-campus housing and incentivize housing developers to
build nearby, wire up beefy internets, incentivize other tech startups to set
up shop nearby, and basically form a small tech gravitational well from
nothing in a stupendously beautiful area. Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I for
one would be extremely interested.

------
drblast
Living in a mid-to-high cost of living area while I'm working now affords the
following advantage:

I'm building equity in a house that I can keep when I retire because I love it
here, or sell it and move _anywhere_ I want.

If I move to Oklahoma and decide I don't like it, and you're paying me in
accordance with the reasonable cost of living, I'm stuck.

So, no thanks. Either pay market rate regardless of location or you're not
going to entice people invested in a high cost of living area away.

------
gmays
Remote work.

~~~
seanguy68
I saw some of your old comments on a past passive income thread and because of
the recent similar posting with links to the old thread I was able to read
about your real estate post. I had some questions if you wouldn't mind.

~~~
gmays
Sure. I took my email address out of my profile because I was getting more
email than I could thoughtfully respond to. I just added it back for now.

------
xvedejas
I'm not sure that I could be enticed to work outside of California, and the
reason is because of the many friends I've made at university. Almost the
majority of them stay in California and it would take far more than extra
compensation to entice me away from that.

~~~
jonnytron
I work in Missouri, and wouldn't leave here for basically the same reason. Too
many friends here from college, and my family's close.

------
poulsbohemian
I went to school in Iowa, my wife is from Iowa, and in many ways it would be a
great place for us to live. Biggest problem I have is one that simply can't be
overcome: no skiing, no mountains, no forests. What Vancouver / Seattle /
Portland and the Bay Area have going for them is concentrations of real tech
(not just corporate IT gigs) with great geography and weather. Plus, superior
compensation. Sorry, Minneapolis and Chicago have no appeal.

Playing the long-game why do you care about location when you can hire good
remote talent anywhere - they are happy to stay where they want to be, you get
access to the talent you want without sourcing and relocation costs.

------
cs02rm0
The bottom line is there's a price on it. Almost certainly in salary terms,
but to a marginal degree perhaps other parts of the package.

------
frozenport
Large companies can trick them into moving. Get them at a `cool` incubator in
a major city and _then_ ship them out to the farm.

------
bnejad
So you're a consultant too? What made you decide not to work there
permanently?

------
michaelochurch
What is "flyover country"? There's a world of difference between a place like
Chicago or Minneapolis (an underrated gem) and some exurb in the Deep South.
Does Chicago count as "flyover country"? You can definitely get the kinds of
people they're looking for to move to, say, Chicago or Minneapolis. A suburb
40 miles from Chicago, on the other hand, is pretty much a doomed location.

Being in a city (even a mid-sized city like Madison) matters more than the
general geographic area. Chicago itself is rock-solid, an office park near the
airport is not going to work.

* Obviously, if you're not paying a full relocation package (which includes a month or two of temporary housing, all moving costs, and a spousal placement agency) then you're not playing to win, and you won't.

* Same pay as on the coasts. Excepting Chicago and Minneapolis, you may even want to make that 110 to 120 percent in order to offset decrease of spousal pay.

* 3-5 conferences per year, fully paid. Announce it upfront as a perk.

* Establish a culture of giving back to the open-source world. Get the names of some star employees out there. People will then apply in order to work with them.

* At least 4 weeks of vacation. Minneapolis is beautiful, and its winters aren't as bad as people make them out to be, but getting out of there for a week or two in February really helps.

* Enough interesting work, and enough diversity of interesting work, that the job looks like a probable 3-5+ year fit. If it's run by McKinseys, you're dead in the water. Great engineers want to work in engineer-driven companies. Cross-country moves are too stressful to do one without an assurance that there'll be interesting work to do many years out.

* Culture of talent development and internal promotion. This needs to be verbalized in recruiting. "We're in <X>, so we invest in talent. We can't take smart people for granted." Now it's a selling point.

* Remote work. Smart people want to work with other smart people, and while you'll have some rock-solid people who are willing to move, you won't get "critical mass" unless you allow remote work.

