
One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds - jdp23
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_29837065/one-third-bay-area-residents-hope-leave-soon
======
bkjelden
I'm one of those in the 1/3rd, currently in the process of moving to the
Denver/Boulder area.

I knew on paper the housing would be cheaper, but what's stood out to me is
how much less crowded it is:

You can go to stores and find parking, and not wait 15 minutes at the cashier.

You can go to restaurants and actually get a table.

You can make unprotected left turns.

Things are busy during rush hour, but outside of that it's really not bad, and
overall it doesn't perpetually feel like the infrastructure is about to
collapse under the weight of being so far over-capacity.

There are some things I will miss, but I keep reminding myself that I can fly
back to SF cheaply (or anywhere in the US from DEN, really) and hit all of my
favorite spots. I am a little afraid I won't be able to find the same quality
fruits and vegetables.

When I moved out to the bay area, I thought it would be great to have so many
job opportunities and career flexibility. But now as I'm leaving I feel like
that wasn't all it's built up to be. Having some options if your employment
situation goes south is important, but I don't really need to change jobs
every 18 months, or have 5 cold calls from recruiters in my inbox every week.
I'd truly rather find a company where I am a good fit and just stay put for a
few years.

I also think that is in some ways healthier too: having a bit higher switching
cost forces you to learn how to work out some disagreements with your employer
and boss, instead of just leaving at the drop of a hat.

~~~
khushia
What does "you can make unprotected left turns" mean?

I'm from the UK so I guess this is the US equivalent of turning right at a set
of traffic lights... but what significance does "unprotected" have?

~~~
DanielStraight
Unprotected means there is no traffic light.

Typically it will look like this...

    
    
      =             (end)
      ===========     ^  =====================
             <<       |                 <<
      -   -   -   -   ^   -   -   -   -   -  -
         <<           |                     <<
      ============    |  =====================
       (start)-->->---^  =====================
           >>                 >>          >>
      -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
        >>             >>    >>         >>
      ========================================

~~~
msoad
Nice ASCII work! :)

------
windlep
I'm sure the fact that there's an increasing trend of empty Chinese investment
properties isn't helping. I grew up in Cupertino, and when I visit my parents
there, I'm rather shocked at how downhill the neighborhood has gone in parts.
It's crazy that these old 70's tract homes go for 1.5 million. Even more
insane is that they're bought and then left empty to go downhill. Literally
broken windows and paint falling off. I never used to see that.

Part of the problem with building more housing (outside of SF where transit is
decent) is that it means even more people. Lack of effective mass transit
means those additional people need to drive everywhere, and there's no space
for more roads/freeways. So the roads will just get even more clogged.

Cupertino recently had a developer proposal for 4 large high-density housing
developments (condos & some apartments), and of course they were to go into
areas that already had ridiculous traffic, and there was no way to facilitate
even more drivers.

Until the South Bay gets serious about mass transit, merely adding more
housing is only going to make the traffic pain worse.

~~~
rubicon33
> "I'm sure the fact that there's an increasing trend of empty Chinese
> investment properties isn't helping."

This. This. This.

A couple of years ago, I found myself utterly shocked by the price of homes in
San Francisco. In a fit of frustration, I fired off a few emails a few random
real estate firms in SF, asking one simple question:

"Who the BLEEP can afford these homes?"

You see, I was frustrated. I have a great job, great pay, and yet I can't even
come close to buying a home in the city I live in.

The responses I got were jaw dropping, if not infuriating. The #1 purchaser at
2 of the 3 firms I emailed, were foreign investments. Unused, speculative,
investments.

I am shocked that land isn't more protected in this state. It seems strange to
me, that someone living thousands of miles away, can buy a piece of land with
a home on it, thereby shrinking the available market, and driving up the price
of housing. This means people who live in, work in, and contribute to, their
local community, can't even afford to buy a home there.

The fact that this isn't seen as a full on crisis, confuses and saddens me.

~~~
davidw
What would make it a less interesting investment is if there were a credible
threat to add enough supply to devalue it.

That's generally how markets keep prices regulated: if they go up enough, more
people jump in to producing the good.

That mechanism is severely broken in the Bay Area, among other popular places
in the US.

~~~
ericd
Alternatively, repealing Prop 13, so that property taxes rise with the value.
Or increasing property taxes as you get more homes. Both of these would
decrease housing prices significantly.

~~~
muzz
Given that the supply of land cannot be increased (the huge omission in GP's
argument), repealing Prop 13 is indeed a large part of the solution.

~~~
davidw
Thanks to technology, the supply of land is not really the constraint on
housing supply in most of San Francisco, and _especially_ not in most of the
Bay Area.

~~~
muzz
What technology are you referring to?

~~~
davidw
At the extreme, these things can hold a lot of people without too much land:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper)

But you don't really need those in most places. Simply building 'in' more and
up 2/3/4 stories would add a ton of housing in much of the bay area.

~~~
muzz
Those are _very_ expensive to build, approaching $1000/sqft. Also require
utilities, transit, and other city services (schools, police, fire, etc).

~~~
Touche
There isn't a cheap way out of SF's situation.

> Also require utilities, transit, and other city services (schools, police,
> fire, etc).

High rises don't require those things. _People_ require those things.

~~~
dragonwriter
For some of them, the requirements (for the same number of people and the same
overall outcomes) increase with density, so, in a sense, high-rises (or other
arrangements which increase density) do require them.

~~~
Touche
I didn't state my point well enough; people are the driving factor here. The
density is caused by people wanting to move to SF. High rises are a way to
deal with the reality, not providing housing isn't going to solve the problem
in any way people are going to be happy with.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The density is caused by people wanting to move to SF. High rises are a way
> to deal with the reality, not providing housing isn't going to solve the
> problem in any way people are going to be happy with.

Quite likely, just as many (if not more, in both absolute and proportional
terms) people in SF will be unhappy with adoption of high-rises as the
solution; the lack of availability under the current regime constrains some of
the problems because it limits the ability of people to move in regardless of
their desire to do so; relieving that constraint -- especially if the problems
besides finding places to store the bodies aren't addressed -- just makes all
the other problems of density worse.

------
jseliger
Makes sense. I wrote a piece called "Do millennials have a future in Seattle?
Do millennials have a future in any superstar cities?"
([http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-
futu...](http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-future-in-
seattle-do-millennials-have-a-future-in-any-superstar-cities/)) that focuses
on Seattle, but the problems in SF are even worse.

We're seeing decades of parochial land use policies turn into affordability
crises in SF and similar cities. Which is why so many people are moving to
Texas: [http://time.com/80005/why-texas-is-our-
future](http://time.com/80005/why-texas-is-our-future), despite some of
Texas's other challenges (like travel and inadequate mass transit).

~~~
oxryly1
You can have good mass transit or affordable housing, but not both. This
sucks.

~~~
avn2109
>> "...but not both."

What about Chicago. Way cheaper than New York, and has the second best train
system in the country.

~~~
rayiner
You can have affordable housing, good mass transit, and jobs. Pick two.

~~~
yolesaber
Chicago has all three. It just has a really shitty climate and is surrounded
by...corn fields

~~~
falsestprophet
And Lake Michigan.

~~~
yolesaber
Ah Lake Michigan. How I hated you in the winter when your freezing winds suck
the life out of me, but how I loved your cold cold waters come summer

------
pyrrhotech
After living in the SF Bay Area for 5 years, (1 in a crappy apt in Belmont, 4
in a modest home in Hayward), I have very mixed views of the place. I love the
progressive politics, diversity, high concentration of smart and interesting
people. I hate the traffic, over-crowded trains and the vast wealth inequality
--especially since I feel that a large portion of the wealth has been retained
due to tax loop holes and that if it were taxed fairly, we could solve a lot
of the referenced infrastructure problems.

~~~
AdrianB1
Do you also feel that you should decide how wealth should be retained? If
people work for something (income) what makes you feel you are entitled to
decide what to do with their work's result? I love socialists, they care more
about other people's money than their own lives. They fight for equal poverty
for all, too, but they never mind their own business.

~~~
myhf
Actually the term "loophole" refers not to a dispute over how wealth _should_
be redistributed, but to a discrepancy between the expected amount and the
measured amount.

------
smeyer
I wonder what the percentage is in other areas around the country. It would be
nice to know to have a better sense of how much is a reasonable baseline and
how much is Bay Area specific.

~~~
joe_the_user
Also,

The high cost of housing here is often presented as Bay Area specific
phenomena whereas it's phenomena that's appeared many urban areas, especially
the most desirable ones that Bay Area residents might consider moving to.

~~~
potatolicious
Increasing urban unaffordability is a theme throughout the US, yes, but let's
not pretend that the Bay Area has experienced this to a degree not seen
anywhere else - even in New York.

While unaffordability and its many causes needs to be addressed everywhere, SF
does seem like the odd one out of the bunch.

~~~
joe_the_user
Well, the increase in cost of housing has been very patchy - each instance it
is very mediated by local conditions but still not simply a local phenomena.

As a Bay Area resident, I'm eager to escape to places _like the Bay_ but with
a lower cost of living and scanning craigslist for such places, I have
consistently found the differences less than I'd imagine.

A variety of things seem to have come together.

On the demand side, the job market today seems to favor certain of the young
and the educated. The social consensus has become that no one, especially not
the young and educated, wants to live in America's vast expanse of suburban
developments - and investors are equally shy about investing her.

But also on the supply side, investment in any and all stores of value has
gone up all along with the process of the Fed printing money aggressively with
investment rental property going with that; the Blackstone group is now one of
the nations' largest landlords. And of course a array of Home-value protectors
in the form of Nimbyists, prevents construction and a lack of land central
cities naturally restricts supply as well.

But still, I think it's reasonably to say you have a national phenomena which
simply manifests locally in different ways.

------
jonstokes
Please don't come to Austin. I moved from SF to Austin a little over two years
ago, and I want to make it clear that it's terrible. The food is bad, the
people are lame, and all the musicians are out of tune. I hear Chicago is
where it's at, so please go there. Or New York. Or anywhere else, really. Just
don't come to Austin.

~~~
jsonne
I'm going to clarify that I'm not picking on you, but I loathe this attitude.
I see it in Denver constantly. I moved here, but now we're full up.
Ironically, it mostly comes from people that are transplants themselves. It's
rather elitist to tell people where they can and can't live especially with
the "forget you, I got mine" dynamic going on from the transplants themselves.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
I think that the OP's intent at humor just wooshed right by you. The OP author
was poking fun at the situation, by making up things about Austin so that
people don't rush there like they did San Francisco.

~~~
jsonne
>by making up things about Austin so that people don't rush there like they
did San Francisco.

No this is exactly what I thought OP meant and is just a softer way of telling
people to not move somewhere.

------
x2398dh1
The results of that poll reminded me of this:

[http://www.theonion.com/article/report-98-percent-of-us-
comm...](http://www.theonion.com/article/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-
favor-public-tra-1434)

Stated intent is different than actual intent. I think it's interesting to
note that employment is going up, while people state that they will leave in a
few years. What does a few years mean - 2 years? 5 years? Wouldn't ones actual
move correlate more with economic outlook than stated intent to move?

------
Xcelerate
Is the Bay Area no longer a good place to start a career? I'm close to
finishing up my PhD, and my original plan was to apply to work at the tech
companies that I find most interesting. For the most part, these are located
in the Bay Area — although some are in New York, Austin, Boston, Seattle,
Raleigh, and Atlanta.

I figured I would stay there 2-4 years tops though, since my family and
girlfriend live in the southeast. I don't mind living in a box-sized apartment
for a while, but if there's no longer a career benefit to doing this, then
perhaps I should focus my job search efforts on other cities?

~~~
hkmurakami
I'm slightly older than you (my college friends finished their PhDs 2 years
ago), grew up in SV and still work here.

With respect to cost of living, I think it is fine to start a career here. A
PhD starting salary at most (big) places will cover a 1 bed room in a good
area with decent transit options like San Mateo just fine. You won't live like
a king but you won't like like a miser either. That being said looking for
places while still being Tennessee will be hard, so you might get a sublet for
2 months and look for a more permanent place after you arrive.

Where it gets really hard is when you start looking for homes to buy when you
start a family, and care about school districts. If you're open to moving out
to the South East after getting established in your field (not sure if you
want to stay in chemistry/pharma or head towards purely data oriented roles),
you would be able to mitigate this [1] One thing I'd consider is how feasible
moving across the country will actually be.

Anyways, happy to answer questions over email. Contact is in profile.

[1] you should definitely look at Cambridge/Boston if you want to stay in
pharma/chem.

~~~
Xcelerate
Thanks for the advice. I'll check out the Boston area too.

------
jonny_eh
What's the number of people that want to move to the Bay Area though?

~~~
blackhaz
I'm thinking about moving to either Bay Area or Los Angeles with a family,
from Prague. I have a 7 years old kid. I am not sure if that's the right
thing. We're doing it for the climate. It's really difficult to find a warm
English-speaking country where you won't be culturally isolated from the rest
of the world. I can work pretty much from anywhere, however I am not a
magnate. Things definitely to be missed:

\- Prague's ultra-affordability (avg. salary is about $1,000/mo, so if you're
selling to global market you can live with luxury) \- travel opportunities--
I'm in the middle of everything \- proximity to relatives \- great British
school--very liberal, easy international atmosphere, we're lucky \- overall
"easygoingness" \- full decriminalization (no problem in CA) \- economically
uniform society, although sometimes it's a double-edged sword \- no
requirement for pretending being a patriot

Things I will not miss: \- very short summer, always feeling cold, gloomy
skies \- crappy food, although it's improving fast lately.

Am I crazy? Where would you move if you'd want a good weather? I enjoy Berlin
immensely, but it's too cold. I'd move to London, but it's cold. I hate being
cold.

~~~
jerf
There are some other American cities with "good enough" climates and tech hubs
if you're not looking to be in the Valley specifically. Austin and Atlanta are
two that would be southern enough that it probably meet the rest of your
criteria. It may not be as nice as the Valley per se, but still perhaps nicer
than what you're used to. If you're not particularly worried about being in a
tech hub because you work remotely and intend to continue to do so, a whole
lot of other areas of interest open up too, both in and out of the US.

~~~
blackhaz
Yes, they're both on to-explore list. :-)

------
throwaway6497
Among the people who voted, this is the number for Taxable household income
for 2016

More than $150,000 16% Prefer not to respond 11% Rest of the % are all under
$150,000.

Good senior engineer/product people make way more than that. I don't think any
of those people are leaving. They are the critical-mass who will make/break
good technical companies and power the innovation cycle. SV is in no trouble.
There is no real scare of brain-drain.

~~~
throwaway6497
I admit this comment might be insensitive and will probably ruffle the
feathers of many but I was purely thinking from the point of view of economic
impact and who drive(s) the innovation engine here. VCs, People who made it in
tech, hungry (for success) people who want to make it in tech, and senior
product and engineering people who can build solid products (not charlatans or
imposters) have no reason to leave SV. They are all doing well money wise
except probably hungry ones who are motivated to make a lot of impact or money
or both.

I am interested to hear what other people have to say about this.

~~~
shimon
Zoom out - you're missing the huge demographic risk. The next generation of
people who will become top engineers, founders, etc. are facing tougher
tradeoffs between standard of living and access to SV's social and business
networks. It's not only the risk that the current drivers will leave but that
the new drivers will just go elsewhere.

~~~
throwaway6497
For 2015/16, new college grads at good companies total comp is in the range
$120-180K, and they definitely have access to good social networks within the
company and outside. Is there a large group of next generation people I am
missing?

~~~
vonmoltke
Considering how few 2015/2016 college grads will actually get one of those
jobs at good companies, I think your large group is, well, any graduating
class. If the Bay Area becomes unattractive for the kids who _can 't_ score
$120k+, or for seniors like me who can't score the $200k+ jobs, it won't
survive at the level it has been going on for.

In that sense, the distribution of salaries attached to the answers is
telling. How do the startups and non-elite companies survive if nobody they
can actually afford wants to come or stay? The area can't just be a playground
for the elite megacompanies that can pay the salaries you state.

~~~
shimon
Actually, maybe it can? If we can ignore the somewhat tasteless aspect of
this, what if the Bay Area was just a playground for kids who get 6-figure
salaries at graduation, and then stay at high-paying jobs there?

It becomes extremely elitist, with all the costs and benefits of that. The
benefit is that everyone who can afford to live there is implicitly vetted by
a rich employer or investor, so there could be extremely high serendipity. The
costs are massive insularity, risk of the next big thing coming from
elsewhere, and hugely inflated costs for basic service labor.

But, if the vetting is good enough, maybe those costs are worth it?

------
jshorty
I may be missing some nuance here, but wouldn't increasing sales tax (as the
Silicon Valley Leadership Group is advocating) further disproportionately
punish lower-income residents? The article doesn't make clear whether moving
towards a "Manhattan-like megalopolis" would be a positive or negative trend,
but this would push it further down that road.

~~~
r0fls
From my limited understanding of economics: yes. The reason is that lower
income people spend more of their money on necessities, whereas richer people
spend more money on luxury goods (things they don't need), and they could
hence respond more to an increase in sales tax (that is, spend less as a
fraction of their income). To reiterate, the lower income people can't spend
less (they're buying necessities), so the increase will cause them to spend a
greater total fraction of their wages. So, when compared to an increase in
income tax, an increase in sales tax is theoretically far more regressive.

------
stewartUK
Anyone wondering where to move?
[https://teleport.org/cities](https://teleport.org/cities) Compare life
quality data, costs of living, salaries...

------
r00fus
The "hope" part discourages me. It means that despite the wishes to leave, the
jobs elsewhere (or telecommuting opportunities) may simply not be there.

------
DannyBee
Errr, so now i'm wondering why everyone stopped caring about cost of living in
2015? :)

It looks like they may have been super-concerned about water running out
instead?

------
kylec
I moved to the area a few months ago for my career, and while I wouldn't say I
hope to leave soon, I don't plan on putting down roots. My hope is to save up
some money and buy a cheap house in cash where the cost of real estate and
living is cheap, then move there. I suspect that there are a lot of other
people that are looking to do the same.

------
mwsherman
Nobody moves there anymore, it’s too crowded.

~~~
muzz
Also

Nobody buys houses there anymore, because the bidding wars have gotten out of
hand.

Nobody drives to work there anymore, the commute traffic is just too bad.

Nobody wants to work there anymore, there are just too many jobs producing
competition for scarce housing and transit.

------
tomjacobs
12,000 people moved to SF in 2014. 4,000 new homes were added. I think we need
more homes. [https://medium.com/@TomPJacobs/what-housing-
crisis-3c0568a5d...](https://medium.com/@TomPJacobs/what-housing-
crisis-3c0568a5dd44)

~~~
muzz
The link seems to advocate/facilitate increasing occupancy, which is indeed
one solution. With 12k people and 4k homes, that's a ratio of 3 which is very
close to the average occupancy of around 2.5 that most cities have.

~~~
jtuente
Except that looking at a single year doesn't tell you much about why even a
ratio of 3 isn't good in SF. After a quick google search I came across this
set of charts that do a pretty good job of covering the history of population
and housing in SF.[0] For the period 2010-2013, population rose 32,500 and
housing expanded 7,500 - a sustained ratio of 4.33. The decade prior to that
saw a much gentler ratio just a little over 1, but that may have been catching
up to the booming growth of the '90s and the dotcom bubble. The thing that
really caught my eye though was the tidbit of information in the first chart -
nearly half of the existing housing in SF was built prior to 1940. The
original report (linked in the article) provides a much more grim outlook for
2010-2015 predicting a total population growth of 60,000 with a housing
increase of 12,000 - a ratio of 5.[1]

0 - [http://sf.curbed.com/2015/2/4/9995388/sfs-population-is-
grow...](http://sf.curbed.com/2015/2/4/9995388/sfs-population-is-growing-way-
faster-than-its-housing-stock)

1 - [http://www.paragon-
re.com/San_Francisco_Real_Estate_Feb_2015](http://www.paragon-
re.com/San_Francisco_Real_Estate_Feb_2015)

------
dev1n
Come check out troy, new york. Growing startup scene and lots of awesome shops
and cafe's.

~~~
fluxquanta
Is there really a lot to offer there? I currently live farther upstate (north
of the Adirondacks) and have been considering moving down to the capital
region.

~~~
dev1n
yeah its a really fun time. Along with all of the shops, microbreweries and
bars that opened up within the last four years, there is a makerspace called
the center of gravity which opened fairly recently [1]. It's got 3D printers
and all that jazz. The city has done a nice job reinventing itself.

[1]: [http://www.tvcog.net](http://www.tvcog.net)

------
techchick85
I never thought I would say that LA is cheaper than San Francisco. The average
one bedroom apartment is around $3k. I'm not sure how people can afford to
live here anymore. I live in Marin and commute to Silicon Valley...

------
uptownfunk
I already left! In Boston currently, but looking to go back to SoCal soon!
(Really wonder why there isn't a bigger startup scene in LA/SD than in the Bay
Area, it's such a sweet location..)

~~~
buckbova
There's been a good size biotech startup scene in SD for some time.

~~~
uptownfunk
Yes you are correct! Very interesting phenomenon how similar industries will
cluster in/around the same location.

------
pessimizer
I'm pretty sure that the tech kids didn't plan to stay there for more than a
few years anyway. They're making big salaries, but the rent is so high that
they can't save any money. What they can do is drag that fancy resume back to
the Indiana suburb they came from, and buy a nice house with a 20 minute
commute to the industrial park that they work in. Or a nice condo in downtown
Boise, a five-minute bike ride from their CTO job at some newspaper, or the
gas company.

Not necessarily a bad outcome...

------
Johnny555
I've been saying that for about 15 years now, yet I'm still here. I've
certainly looked around, visited a few places, went on some job interviews out
of the area, but haven't been able to find anyplace that I felt I could call
"home".

------
more_corn
What is the telos of man? (ultimate goal, end) The best thing for you is
impossible, and that's for you to have never been (here) The next best thing
is to die soon (or leave)

The wisdom of Silenus applies to life in the San Francisco

------
intrasight
My advice: find a nice town with really good Internet and lots of people you
think you would enjoy being around. Programmers can work from anywhere. Take
advantage of that fact (if you are a programmer).

------
dmode
Has this number gone up or down compared to other years ? It is completely
conceivable though that people would want to move, given the difficulty in
procuring homes.

------
ww520
It's a cycle. Waves of people come to and leave from the Bay Area over time.
The last exodus was the 2008. The one before was the dotcom bust.

------
tathastu
Great, we'll have 1/3 less traffic and more housing space soon!

------
Nathannn
And 1/3 just got there. The cycle continues.

------
eva1984
Seattle is good!

~~~
peatmoss
No it's not. I'm trudging through mud and oppressive rain right this moment.

~~~
TranquilMarmot
More like "my apartment is 90 degrees and it's not even June"

------
Balgair
Don't look at Denver, it's all stoners from the green wave and Tebow fans now.
Maybe Austin?

------
refriedbeans3
bye felicia. lower rents for all!

------
thrownaway2424
The question is will people use this signal to change course (better transit,
sane housing density, walkability, etc) or to perpetuate the wrong course
(more tract housing in Antioch, wider freeways, etc).

------
ixtli
Please don't come to New York. I moved from Amherst to New York a little over
four years ago, and I want to make it clear that it's terrible. The food is
bad, the people are lame, and all the musicians are out of tune. I hear
Chicago is where it's at, so please go there. Or Seattle. Or anywhere else,
really. Just don't come to New York.

------
trhway
Hope too, in 20 years, retire to Latin America :) Until that, I have to work,
and BA is the only place where a programmer can work.

~~~
raverbashing
> and BA is the only place where a programmer can work.

Yes, in exactly none of the big cities in the USA there is programming being
done, let alone medium cities.

Nothing in NYC, nothing in Chicago, Seattle, Boston, Austin, DFW, Minneapolis,
Portland, etc

Only on SFBA

Sure

~~~
trhway
Haven't tried myself, yet huge crowds of incoming people can't be that wrong
:)

In particular i think only CA has non-recognition of non-competes (and
moonlighting protection too if i remember right) while the rest of US -
doesn't.

~~~
yolesaber
Yeah because the herd mentality has shown to be correct so often.

C'mon you know what you are saying is wrong. I worked in SV/SF and now live in
NYC and I much prefer the tech scene here. In fact there's a massive shortage
of programmers so you could actually make more money in NYC.

But you don't even need to live there. You can work remote. Programming is one
of the _only_ jobs you can do literally from anywhere.

~~~
trhway
>Programming is one of the only jobs you can do literally from anywhere

you're putting theory ahead of practice. We're talking right now inside of one
more thread where programmers discuss how hard it is to live in BA - don't you
feel any contradiction between that fact and your statement?

You with your theory reminded me about that joke yesterday in Prairie Home
Companion : "People of Galveston can look in the eye of reality and dismiss
it" :)

~~~
yolesaber
You are clearly a troll, albeit a funny one as I've never seen someone refer
to PHC on HN before.

Go the Who's Hiring thread today and there's plenty of remote options. I
worked remote for a few years. I also worked in _gasp_ the flyover states for
a bit too. You really can program anywhere.

Or you can keep drinking the BA kool aid. I spent some time there, not for me,
pretty awful place really. But apparently the programming job I work at now
outside of the BA doesn't exist according to you?

