4 ms·

Moving to Boise doesn't give me a better lifestyle. It gives me more disposable income and tons of reasons to want to hang myself. To wit: - Driving and car o

Moving to Boise doesn't give me a better lifestyle. It gives me more disposable income and tons of reasons to want to hang myself. To wit: - Driving and car ownership - Lack of convenience, quality and variety in food choices - Fewer options for personal fellowship and professional networking - Cannabis prohibition - Loss of weather I love - Dull landscape ...to name a few People live in San Francisco 'cause it's wonderful and they can. Only a gun could "lure" me from here.

HelloMcFly 13y ago
I also thought Boise was a bad example. From my perspective, the natural alternative to San Francisco is Seattle: decent public transit, awesome food, has a tech culture, friendly cannabis policies, amazing landscape, and (most importantly to me) a much more affordable cost of living. When I was making the choice to relocate to the west coast, I started out 100% set on getting to the Bay Area. But as I visited the cities, looked at the job opportunities (disclosure: I am not a programmer by trade, but have worked in the tech industry), and evaluated my living choices, San Francisco just didn't make any sense for me. Of course I don't mean to suggest that's the only alternative. Rather, I agree with the OP that it seems like there's an argument to be made for basing your start-up outside of San Francisco, and there are at least decent alternatives.
- geoka9 13y ago
  > the natural alternative to San Francisco is Seattle Only it rains 8 months out of 12 in Seattle :(
  - HelloMcFly 13y ago
    No city is 100% perfect. I've found that the rain in Seattle is one of those things most brought up by people that have never lived here. It's a daily light rain, and not constant. The annual rainfall in Atlanta is higher than the annual rainfall in Seattle. It is dark in the winter months though, and for some that will be a big bummer. But it's an easy trade for me if that means I can easily afford to live in the city.
    - geoka9 13y ago
      Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I live in Vancouver, which is basically the same kettle of fish as far as the weather goes :) It is dark 8 months per year; and it doesn't help that statistically it actually rains only 150 days. If not for the "dark" months, this (PNW) would be the best place on Earth as far as I'm concerned. But, as you said, no place is 100% perfect.
gyardley 13y ago
Well, some people live in San Francisco because they think it's wonderful and they can, but that's not a universal opinion. Some people are annoyed by San Francisco but live there just because that's where the work is. Other people like San Francisco just fine but are ready for a change. Those people are the ones that can be lured to new places, not you.
- danilocampos 13y ago
  Nice try, Peter.
seanmcdirmid 13y ago
As someone who spent his childhood east of the cascades (Eastern Washington), I think you are being a bit harsh on Boise (and let's just throw in nearby SLC since it has more tech). Sure, the landscape is semi-arid, but the surrounding mountains are very nice, and you have lots of good skiing with dry snow you aren't getting in California; that is very good powder. Food is becoming less of a problem as these cities attract more immigrants (SLC). Idaho and Montana have been lax on cannabis forever, even if their laws don't explicitly allow for it. There is something quirky about libertarian survivalists, hippies, and LDS members living closely together in the same state.

HelloMcFly 13y ago

I also thought Boise was a bad example. From my perspective, the natural alternative to San Francisco is Seattle: decent public transit, awesome food, has a tech culture, friendly cannabis policies, amazing landscape, and (most importantly to me) a much more affordable cost of living. When I was making the choice to relocate to the west coast, I started out 100% set on getting to the Bay Area. But as I visited the cities, looked at the job opportunities (disclosure: I am not a programmer by trade, but have worked in the tech industry), and evaluated my living choices, San Francisco just didn't make any sense for me. Of course I don't mean to suggest that's the only alternative. Rather, I agree with the OP that it seems like there's an argument to be made for basing your start-up outside of San Francisco, and there are at least decent alternatives.

geoka9 13y ago
> the natural alternative to San Francisco is Seattle Only it rains 8 months out of 12 in Seattle :(
- HelloMcFly 13y ago
  No city is 100% perfect. I've found that the rain in Seattle is one of those things most brought up by people that have never lived here. It's a daily light rain, and not constant. The annual rainfall in Atlanta is higher than the annual rainfall in Seattle. It is dark in the winter months though, and for some that will be a big bummer. But it's an easy trade for me if that means I can easily afford to live in the city.
  - geoka9 13y ago
    Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I live in Vancouver, which is basically the same kettle of fish as far as the weather goes :) It is dark 8 months per year; and it doesn't help that statistically it actually rains only 150 days. If not for the "dark" months, this (PNW) would be the best place on Earth as far as I'm concerned. But, as you said, no place is 100% perfect.

gyardley 13y ago

Well, some people live in San Francisco because they think it's wonderful and they can, but that's not a universal opinion. Some people are annoyed by San Francisco but live there just because that's where the work is. Other people like San Francisco just fine but are ready for a change. Those people are the ones that can be lured to new places, not you.

danilocampos 13y ago
Nice try, Peter.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

As someone who spent his childhood east of the cascades (Eastern Washington), I think you are being a bit harsh on Boise (and let's just throw in nearby SLC since it has more tech). Sure, the landscape is semi-arid, but the surrounding mountains are very nice, and you have lots of good skiing with dry snow you aren't getting in California; that is very good powder. Food is becoming less of a problem as these cities attract more immigrants (SLC). Idaho and Montana have been lax on cannabis forever, even if their laws don't explicitly allow for it. There is something quirky about libertarian survivalists, hippies, and LDS members living closely together in the same state.