A) parentheticals are aside comments B) I'm not saying that all outside programmers are inferior. I'm saying that, given a uniformly random sample of Bay Area

A) parentheticals are aside comments B) I'm not saying that all outside programmers are inferior. I'm saying that, given a uniformly random sample of Bay Area vs. outside programmer, I would expect the Bay Area programmer to be "better" for some set of objective measures. If you don't think that, then you also have to disagree with basic market dynamics. Good programmers can earn more money here, and expose themselves to significant upside opportunities -- both social and financial -- which simply cannot be offered in the same quantity elsewhere. So if you show me a programmer who doesn't live in a place where they are exposed to those opportunities, I have to conclude one of only a few options: 1) not a good enough programmer to work at a company where they would be exposed to those opportunities 2) too risk-adverse or pessimistic to believe that they could leverage those opportunities, such that the cost of living here would be outweighed by the potential benefits -- which, if that is what this person believes about themselves, then perhaps #1 also applies 3) extreme aversion to city or suburban living? Or severe miscalculation of the cost-benefit of living here. Certainly there are some cases where people who don't live here -- the center of the universe as far as technology careers are concerned -- are actually very highly skilled and leveraging those skills in their own communities. John Carmack doesn't live here, nor does Matz. But I think you have to admit that those are exceptional cases. The average case is that you have an average programmer -- how else do you interpret the decision not to live in a place which affords objectively superior upside scenarios? I'm not sure if you understand it, but your attitude is a big part of the reason some of us would never, ever move there. I'm sure you find this just peachy, which would also be your own failure. Yeah I get it and I'm sorry for offending you. But I think there are certainly some realities at play, and one of them is that not all places attract talent equally. Nobody bats an eye if I said "community theater in Peoria does not attract the best acting talent," somehow that's an obvious statement -- of course if one was truly talented they'd have found a more rewarding stage. Why is the same principle upsetting when applied to your own profession? Talented developers will find their way to the place which best rewards them. The biggest rewards tend to be available in the SF Bay Area. Ergo, to the extent that talent and compensation, opportunity etc are correlated -- the better talent is found here. Finally, I'd like to apologize on behalf of all the stupid foreigners... This is an unnecessary reaction. I think you must know what I'm saying here is that the voting seems to have a tendency to indicate popular sentiment, and not thoughtfulness, or insight. Consequently, it tends to punish provocative or controversial statements.