3 ms·

Personally, yes (but I'm not in the market having just moved). Montana is a beautiful place that has yet to be overran by greedy entrepreneurs seeking to raise

by olympus 11y ago

Personally, yes (but I'm not in the market having just moved). Montana is a beautiful place that has yet to be overran by greedy entrepreneurs seeking to raise profits by lowering their costs. I kinda wish you weren't trying to bring more people to the state so that I could retire in a quiet place. Most of the start-up crowd seems to think that it's worth paying several times more rent to be physically near the big money in SanFran. But there are a few cities that have an active tech scene (Dallas and Kansas City come to mind) that have managed to make it. The difference is that those were decently sized cities with lots of other infrastructure to start with. Can a city with a population under 100,000 offer the other infrastructure needed to create a successful business? You've got fast internet, but do you have enough blue collar workers to support your office needs? An airport big enough to offer flights out to important meetings that can't be done virtually? There are several other things to consider when picking a city to base a company from. I'd recommend getting in touch with the Chamber of Commerce to see how you can come together to pitch the city. Helena is certainly a nice place, but you have to sell the other aspects than just fast internet.

Jemaclus 11y ago
> Most of the start-up crowd seems to think that it's worth paying several times more rent to be physically near the big money in SanFran. It's not an unfounded belief, imo. I've been trying to convince several of my friends to move to San Francisco, and the "it's too expensive" refrain is something I'm getting a little tired of hearing. Yes, it's expensive, but in general, the salary and other income opportunities make it worth it for a decent software engineer. I don't know how much the cost of living is in Montana, but I'm from Alabama, and I assume it's relatively comparable, and I had a 40K/year job there. My rent was $500/mo. I'd say my monthly expenses were a little less than $1600/mo, which puts my annual expenses at around 20K. Over the last five years in SF, my annual expenses approached 60K, mostly toward rent (like you said, rent is high). Whoa. That's crazy, right? But let's stop and do the math. Let's throw out a nice round number and say my average income over those first few years in SF was ~120K and say 30% tax rate, to keep things simple. In San Francisco, 120K (income) - 60K (expenses) - 36K taxes = 24K savings. In Alabama, 40K (income) - 20K (expenses) - 12K (taxes) = 8K savings. My expenses in Alabama were 1/3 that of SF -- the rent was almost 6 times cheaper in Alabama than my rent in SF is! But in San Francisco, my increased salary means that I'm saving three times as much in San Francisco versus Alabama. My cost of living in SF is 3x higher than my cost of living in San Francisco -- but my income is also 3x higher! And I'm not even included income from stock or freelance work. (Granted, I could get stock and freelance work elsewhere, but again, like you said, "the big money" is in SF, so roughly the same math would apply.) All this is to say that, assuming you enjoy living in an urban environment and are responsible with your money, it IS worth paying several times more rent to be physically near the big money in SF. A dollar is a dollar anywhere in the United States. Saving 24K per year for 5 years gets you awfully close to 125K, well on your way to a nice house pretty much anywhere else in the country - Montana included. It would take you over twice that long to get to even 100K if you lived in Alabama. Is it worth paying a high rent to enjoy the benefits of living in SF? I think so. I love SF -- the city, the culture, the weather, the working environment, and yes, the money. There are times when I wish I had a bigger house, but by and large, I'm extremely happy here. But more to OP's point: Would I move to Montana? I agree with you. There would have to be really, really attractive incentives aside from money. Great schools, great entertainment, friends, family, and plenty of job opportunities. Solid infrastructure is a must, but my day job isn't my identity -- there are another 12-18 hours in a day that command my time and energy as well, and those needs must be met!
- _delirium 11y ago
  I agree it can sometimes be a good comparison for SF, but I think there are a lot of circumstances where it isn't. Depends on the particular pair of cities, and your other preferences, like type of housing. For one thing, though this may not apply to Helena, the salary differential is not nearly that big when you compare to many other cities. You can easily make over $100k working in tech in lots of places that are comparatively cheap: Austin, Pittsburgh, Houston, Chicago, etc. I think you will have trouble running the numbers on salary vs. CoL in Google Mountain View vs. Google Pittsburgh in a way that makes Google Mountain View come out ahead. I think whether you prefer to rent or buy also makes a difference. SF is just about doable on a high salary to rent, but requires serious wealth to buy. But the strategy you allude to of renting there a few years and saving up to later buy elsewhere is plausible.

by olympus 11y ago

Jemaclus 11y ago

> Most of the start-up crowd seems to think that it's worth paying several times more rent to be physically near the big money in SanFran. It's not an unfounded belief, imo. I've been trying to convince several of my friends to move to San Francisco, and the "it's too expensive" refrain is something I'm getting a little tired of hearing. Yes, it's expensive, but in general, the salary and other income opportunities make it worth it for a decent software engineer. I don't know how much the cost of living is in Montana, but I'm from Alabama, and I assume it's relatively comparable, and I had a 40K/year job there. My rent was $500/mo. I'd say my monthly expenses were a little less than $1600/mo, which puts my annual expenses at around 20K. Over the last five years in SF, my annual expenses approached 60K, mostly toward rent (like you said, rent is high). Whoa. That's crazy, right? But let's stop and do the math. Let's throw out a nice round number and say my average income over those first few years in SF was ~120K and say 30% tax rate, to keep things simple. In San Francisco, 120K (income) - 60K (expenses) - 36K taxes = 24K savings. In Alabama, 40K (income) - 20K (expenses) - 12K (taxes) = 8K savings. My expenses in Alabama were 1/3 that of SF -- the rent was almost 6 times cheaper in Alabama than my rent in SF is! But in San Francisco, my increased salary means that I'm saving three times as much in San Francisco versus Alabama. My cost of living in SF is 3x higher than my cost of living in San Francisco -- but my income is also 3x higher! And I'm not even included income from stock or freelance work. (Granted, I could get stock and freelance work elsewhere, but again, like you said, "the big money" is in SF, so roughly the same math would apply.) All this is to say that, assuming you enjoy living in an urban environment and are responsible with your money, it IS worth paying several times more rent to be physically near the big money in SF. A dollar is a dollar anywhere in the United States. Saving 24K per year for 5 years gets you awfully close to 125K, well on your way to a nice house pretty much anywhere else in the country - Montana included. It would take you over twice that long to get to even 100K if you lived in Alabama. Is it worth paying a high rent to enjoy the benefits of living in SF? I think so. I love SF -- the city, the culture, the weather, the working environment, and yes, the money. There are times when I wish I had a bigger house, but by and large, I'm extremely happy here. But more to OP's point: Would I move to Montana? I agree with you. There would have to be really, really attractive incentives aside from money. Great schools, great entertainment, friends, family, and plenty of job opportunities. Solid infrastructure is a must, but my day job isn't my identity -- there are another 12-18 hours in a day that command my time and energy as well, and those needs must be met!

_delirium 11y ago
I agree it can sometimes be a good comparison for SF, but I think there are a lot of circumstances where it isn't. Depends on the particular pair of cities, and your other preferences, like type of housing. For one thing, though this may not apply to Helena, the salary differential is not nearly that big when you compare to many other cities. You can easily make over $100k working in tech in lots of places that are comparatively cheap: Austin, Pittsburgh, Houston, Chicago, etc. I think you will have trouble running the numbers on salary vs. CoL in Google Mountain View vs. Google Pittsburgh in a way that makes Google Mountain View come out ahead. I think whether you prefer to rent or buy also makes a difference. SF is just about doable on a high salary to rent, but requires serious wealth to buy. But the strategy you allude to of renting there a few years and saving up to later buy elsewhere is plausible.