8 ms·

I'm glad your happy with your company's engineering output. As an engineer, I would head for Chicago or Minneapolis. Madison doesn't have "the next job". When

I'm glad your happy with your company's engineering output. As an engineer, I would head for Chicago or Minneapolis. Madison doesn't have "the next job". When that time comes, I wouldn't want to uproot my family. I'm glad your rention is stellar. I would expect increased retention due to lack of alternatives. Most companies believe their compensation is competitive. A lot of them are wrong. The Midwest might be a place where companies can skirt those two things fairly easy.

yesimahuman 9y ago
You certainly would be entitled to make that decision, and many do! The point of my original comment was that we have sufficient talent to build and scale tech companies here. It's certainly not going to attract every talented worker (like yourself), but not even the bay area has that going for it anymore. For entrepreneurs thinking of building in the Midwest, you absolutely can. Let's not let that point get lost in a discussion about personal values.
- chaostheory 9y ago
  > not even the bay area has that going for it anymore. Are there definitive stats on this because I would disagree especially compared to the Midwest?
  - yesimahuman 9y ago
    My point was there are enough talented people who don't want to work in the bay area that other cities have enough to grow tech companies. This is kind of obvious.
    - chaostheory 9y ago
      That’s always been the case. The issue is quality. Outside of the valley, top caliber developers tend to congregate in big hubs like NYC or LA; or interesting places like Portland / Seattle, Austin, or Denver. The Midwest tends to be for locals only due to a combination of less agressive investors (not to mention a lack of), bad climate, and lack of stuff to do compared to everywhere else Chicago would be an exception but crime would keep people away Can any of this change? Of course, but it’s really hard to change culture and climate takes time (ex even after all these years CA still had a gold rush mindset)
      - Fins 9y ago
        Chicago didn't seem to have that great a real crime problem (as opposed to perception) when I lived there. There probably would not be much to do in Nebraska, but then I can't see Bay Area as being exactly an epicenter of culture either.
        chaostheory 9y ago
        Chicago is typically in the top 10 in the country in terms of crime according to the numbers / population > Bay Area as being exactly an epicenter of culture either It depends on what you want. The SF Bay Area is not NYC in terms of fashion or theater. If you want that, you go to NYC. If you want a good clubbing scene, it's either LA or NYC. However it has a bit of everything. If you like the city, there's SF and Oakland. There's also a lot of suburbs and quaint downtowns like Palo Alto if you like that. There's always something going on regardless of whether you're in the city or out. The food scene is good. Wine country is next door. Tahoe isn't too far, and there's a lot of places to hike nearby. There's also fishing and sailing on the Pacific, or canoing in the rivers. Yosemite is doable. Also the weather is almost always temperate year round, hovering around the 60s-70's. These are a few reasons as to why housing is so expensive here. I didn't even go over the professional reasons. Comparing the Bay Area to Nebraska is disingenuous. There's no equal in the MidWest, though Chicago would be the closest. The US MidWest is just a really hard sell to almost everyone except to the people who grew up there. There's just too many other alternatives in the US. (I used to be a consultant going here and there)
        Fins 9y ago
        Crime in Chicago is very much concentrated. In areas where your average HN reader would live, I very much doubt that your chance of being a crime victim would be any higher than in SFBA. And in most suburbs (from which you can get to Chicago much easier than to SF from SV) it would be significantly less; reading NextDoor here is downright scary. Certainly, California has more diverse nature than most of the Midwest does. But culturally... as far as theaters, museums, music etc. goes, SF is behind not only New York, but Chicago as well. Food scene, once you pass French Laundry and couple more places in Napa isn't Chicago either, just more expensive. I've left far less money at Alinea than at Atelier Crenn, and while of course this is highly subjective, there really was no comparison between the two. Weather is nice, but the second year it became incredibly boring; I like my seasons. But then, I've moved here for personal, not professional reasons. And professionally, while I was making quite a bit less money in Chicago, I could live in a hot area, 1 minute from subway, 15 minutes walk to work, 10 minutes walk to NEXT or Moto (yes, I like my food) and somehow had far more money left to squirrel away than I do living in some cheesy apartment complex in a middle of San Jose nowhere. Certainly, if you get into a startup that actually makes it, gets acquired, or something like that, you have a better chance of striking it rich than in Chicago. But as far as I know, most people don't. And it's not that work here was that much more interesting -- doing yet another JS framework du jour, or yet another noSQL database (because rewriting MUMPS, just not quite as good, is always fun) isn't that exciting once you get old enough and stop jumping at every new and shiny thing. I'd much rather do something interesting at Wolfram (well, if Chambana weren't just as boring as SFBA) than doing yet another chat app in SV...
ryandrake 9y ago
Is there any company out there who actually says “our compensation is NOT competitive?” That’s pretty much the lowest bar. When I hear “competitive salary” it means the company can’t think of a more positive word to describe it that is also truthful.
- maccard 9y ago
  Maybe not but there are plenty of companies who don’t say their company is competitive.
- yesimahuman 9y ago
  I'm really not sure what your point is. If you're losing candidates based on compensation being too low, then you're not competitive.
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    Everyone at least says their compensation is competitive—-it’s not a way for an employer to differentiate. As a candidate, when I see the word “competitive” that tells me it’s lower than “generous,” “excellent,” “top of market,” basically lower than any other description of compensation out there.
pnutjam 9y ago
Yes, "Next job opportunity" is the biggest stumbling block in the midwest. It's workable, but more difficult when you become more specialized. I've always assumed this is the same everywhere, but I've never received a competitive raise outside of my first year with a company. If you come in and make some big adjustments that save money, you might (maybe) get a bump, but after that they take it for granted. I've only ever kept up with inflation (especially health care inflation), by changing employers, so "next job" is a huge consideration.

yesimahuman 9y ago

You certainly would be entitled to make that decision, and many do! The point of my original comment was that we have sufficient talent to build and scale tech companies here. It's certainly not going to attract every talented worker (like yourself), but not even the bay area has that going for it anymore. For entrepreneurs thinking of building in the Midwest, you absolutely can. Let's not let that point get lost in a discussion about personal values.

chaostheory 9y ago
> not even the bay area has that going for it anymore. Are there definitive stats on this because I would disagree especially compared to the Midwest?
- yesimahuman 9y ago
  My point was there are enough talented people who don't want to work in the bay area that other cities have enough to grow tech companies. This is kind of obvious.
  - chaostheory 9y ago
    That’s always been the case. The issue is quality. Outside of the valley, top caliber developers tend to congregate in big hubs like NYC or LA; or interesting places like Portland / Seattle, Austin, or Denver. The Midwest tends to be for locals only due to a combination of less agressive investors (not to mention a lack of), bad climate, and lack of stuff to do compared to everywhere else Chicago would be an exception but crime would keep people away Can any of this change? Of course, but it’s really hard to change culture and climate takes time (ex even after all these years CA still had a gold rush mindset)
    - Fins 9y ago
      Chicago didn't seem to have that great a real crime problem (as opposed to perception) when I lived there. There probably would not be much to do in Nebraska, but then I can't see Bay Area as being exactly an epicenter of culture either.
      - chaostheory 9y ago
        Chicago is typically in the top 10 in the country in terms of crime according to the numbers / population > Bay Area as being exactly an epicenter of culture either It depends on what you want. The SF Bay Area is not NYC in terms of fashion or theater. If you want that, you go to NYC. If you want a good clubbing scene, it's either LA or NYC. However it has a bit of everything. If you like the city, there's SF and Oakland. There's also a lot of suburbs and quaint downtowns like Palo Alto if you like that. There's always something going on regardless of whether you're in the city or out. The food scene is good. Wine country is next door. Tahoe isn't too far, and there's a lot of places to hike nearby. There's also fishing and sailing on the Pacific, or canoing in the rivers. Yosemite is doable. Also the weather is almost always temperate year round, hovering around the 60s-70's. These are a few reasons as to why housing is so expensive here. I didn't even go over the professional reasons. Comparing the Bay Area to Nebraska is disingenuous. There's no equal in the MidWest, though Chicago would be the closest. The US MidWest is just a really hard sell to almost everyone except to the people who grew up there. There's just too many other alternatives in the US. (I used to be a consultant going here and there)
        Fins 9y ago
        Crime in Chicago is very much concentrated. In areas where your average HN reader would live, I very much doubt that your chance of being a crime victim would be any higher than in SFBA. And in most suburbs (from which you can get to Chicago much easier than to SF from SV) it would be significantly less; reading NextDoor here is downright scary. Certainly, California has more diverse nature than most of the Midwest does. But culturally... as far as theaters, museums, music etc. goes, SF is behind not only New York, but Chicago as well. Food scene, once you pass French Laundry and couple more places in Napa isn't Chicago either, just more expensive. I've left far less money at Alinea than at Atelier Crenn, and while of course this is highly subjective, there really was no comparison between the two. Weather is nice, but the second year it became incredibly boring; I like my seasons. But then, I've moved here for personal, not professional reasons. And professionally, while I was making quite a bit less money in Chicago, I could live in a hot area, 1 minute from subway, 15 minutes walk to work, 10 minutes walk to NEXT or Moto (yes, I like my food) and somehow had far more money left to squirrel away than I do living in some cheesy apartment complex in a middle of San Jose nowhere. Certainly, if you get into a startup that actually makes it, gets acquired, or something like that, you have a better chance of striking it rich than in Chicago. But as far as I know, most people don't. And it's not that work here was that much more interesting -- doing yet another JS framework du jour, or yet another noSQL database (because rewriting MUMPS, just not quite as good, is always fun) isn't that exciting once you get old enough and stop jumping at every new and shiny thing. I'd much rather do something interesting at Wolfram (well, if Chambana weren't just as boring as SFBA) than doing yet another chat app in SV...

ryandrake 9y ago

Is there any company out there who actually says “our compensation is NOT competitive?” That’s pretty much the lowest bar. When I hear “competitive salary” it means the company can’t think of a more positive word to describe it that is also truthful.

maccard 9y ago
Maybe not but there are plenty of companies who don’t say their company is competitive.
yesimahuman 9y ago
I'm really not sure what your point is. If you're losing candidates based on compensation being too low, then you're not competitive.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Everyone at least says their compensation is competitive—-it’s not a way for an employer to differentiate. As a candidate, when I see the word “competitive” that tells me it’s lower than “generous,” “excellent,” “top of market,” basically lower than any other description of compensation out there.

pnutjam 9y ago

Yes, "Next job opportunity" is the biggest stumbling block in the midwest. It's workable, but more difficult when you become more specialized. I've always assumed this is the same everywhere, but I've never received a competitive raise outside of my first year with a company. If you come in and make some big adjustments that save money, you might (maybe) get a bump, but after that they take it for granted. I've only ever kept up with inflation (especially health care inflation), by changing employers, so "next job" is a huge consideration.