This. Though I'd probably add a 4th category, those being none of the preceding 3 groups. That 4th group would include me, and quite a number of others. In m

This. Though I'd probably add a 4th category, those being none of the preceding 3 groups. That 4th group would include me, and quite a number of others. In my previous job hunt, I had numerous recruiters try to explain to me that the Bay Area was the only place to be. I helped them work the math to show the CoL differences between where I was and where they wanted me. This didn't phase them. Then I discussed this in terms of required compensation deltas to make this meaningful, using the rubric of not slipping significantly backwards in quality of life measures (house size, commute, food prices, taxes, etc.). This got their attention. A few times when I replied here on similar articles noting that the Bay Area was simply pricing itself out of competition for talent and companies, the responses varied between sympathy to ... well ... (paraphrasing) you are a fool to expect higher comp to live and work in this utopia. Well, no. There are many reasons why the Bay Area is in the state it is in. It isn't quite catastrophic ... yet ... but IMO it is moving there fast. Burn rates for newcos are massive compared to other regions. General costs are high relative to other regions. Economic theory suggests that this will eventually fix itself, the invisible hand of the market and all. For me, I took a position that enabled remote work, and can hop a plane to HQ when needed (1/month or so). This is far more cost effective for the company and I than it would be to move me. Just my $0.02. There are those whom might leap to the defense of the region, but its worth asking if the critique is founded or not. I believe it is.