4 ms·

Supply and demand. So long as people want a limited resource enough to pay $X+1 for it, prices will rise. There's a limit to the inherent value of living in a m

Supply and demand. So long as people want a limited resource enough to pay $X+1 for it, prices will rise. There's a limit to the inherent value of living in a megacity (adjusting for floorspace, quality, etc), so once insufficient customers are found, prices will flatten or drop. Being able to work from anywhere, there's no reason for me to stay anywhere near a megacity (which I find expensive and distasteful). As employers discover the cost savings of telecommuting, employees will discover the cost savings of moving out of megacities ... and prices will slow, flatten, and perhaps even drop.

humanrebar 10y ago
I agree. The only challenge for me is the lack of dining table economics on the part of employers outside of places like NYC and the Bay Area. What I mean is that they almost exclusively look at local market prices for developers. They don't generally factor in what developers can make in the big cities. Now, some do, but generally they just apply the inverse of a cost-of-living multiplier and make that offer. That's problematic because then our savings rate, something that should be measured in absolute terms, is being reduced. Anyway, point being, if I add up my benefits, savings rate, and cost-of-living adjusted expenses, I end up with a big number for most non-coastal-U.S. employers. I then have the risk of branding myself as an overpriced prima donna, especially if I'm seen as a cost center instead of as a strategic resource.
nfriedly 10y ago
> there's no reason for me to stay anywhere near a megacity (which I find expensive and distasteful) Yes! I lived in SF for a year, but then moved back home to Ohio and went back to working remotely. I occasionally travel to bigger cities to work with colleagues (maybe 3-5 trips a year), and this feels like a much nicer balance. I also earn enough that I could live like a king around here... or live on a more "normal" income, save the extra, and retire at ~45.

humanrebar 10y ago

I agree. The only challenge for me is the lack of dining table economics on the part of employers outside of places like NYC and the Bay Area. What I mean is that they almost exclusively look at local market prices for developers. They don't generally factor in what developers can make in the big cities. Now, some do, but generally they just apply the inverse of a cost-of-living multiplier and make that offer. That's problematic because then our savings rate, something that should be measured in absolute terms, is being reduced. Anyway, point being, if I add up my benefits, savings rate, and cost-of-living adjusted expenses, I end up with a big number for most non-coastal-U.S. employers. I then have the risk of branding myself as an overpriced prima donna, especially if I'm seen as a cost center instead of as a strategic resource.

nfriedly 10y ago

> there's no reason for me to stay anywhere near a megacity (which I find expensive and distasteful) Yes! I lived in SF for a year, but then moved back home to Ohio and went back to working remotely. I occasionally travel to bigger cities to work with colleagues (maybe 3-5 trips a year), and this feels like a much nicer balance. I also earn enough that I could live like a king around here... or live on a more "normal" income, save the extra, and retire at ~45.