I guess I didn't realize how many commentators here were New Yorkers. XD
Everyone's moving to more comfortable places with lower costs of living. NYC is not an attractive place for job candidates unless those candidates are already in NYC. Even companies with a strong presence in NYC are expanding in places like Nashville, Omaha, Dallas, Denver, etc. rather than in NYC.
At some point, New Yorkers ought to ask themselves why everyone wants to move to these nice midwestern cities.
Tech market is hot everywhere. NYC has been an aberration on cost of living for my whole lifetime and more. What's new is the plethora of tech jobs outside of NYC and SF. Again, ask yourself why great tech jobs would suddenly appear in Nashville, TN. Why would that happen? Why do you think?
Truth. I took a lower paying job in the midwest, and I can now save a lot more money, while also living a less stressful life. NYC is a really cool city and I enjoyed living there. But I "did my time".
I think more and more tech workers are going to wake up to the fact that while mega-city life can be cool, it's not the only way to live.
I mean the only reason why you save a lot more money now is because your current lower paying job had a better negotiated salary. You could have just as easily gotten a job with less take home pay in Omaha than in NY.
I think there is something to be said about early career people rushing to NY and not realizing how much 80k really is, though. Schools should really have a class for all majors that just goes over how you calculate and compare cost of living and put a price on benefits, including the intangible benefits like having other employers you could move laterally among without planning to uproot and go 1000 miles away.
I’m not sure why tech workers think they’re special. Almost everyone that moves to NYC for a good office job goes through this. Moving to a suburb or another city after age 35 is a stereotype. So is staying here and enjoying a DINK or single life (unless you have a lot of money!).
> At some point, New Yorkers ought to ask themselves why everyone wants to move to these nice midwestern cities.
Not sure why you chose the midwest as a qualifier here - out of all the cities you listed, only Omaha would be considered a midwestern city.
Out of the 15 fastest growing cities according to the Census, almost none of them are in the midwest [1] (Only one really: Columbus). Admittedly it's over a short time span.
Also: #5 is LA, a city I don't think anyone would consider to be low cost of living.
The real story is that the south (+ Texas, depending on what you consider Texas) seems to be growing rapidly, not the midwest.
I mean, you could focus on whether the word "midwest" is accurate, or you could take my point that there is a reason why people are moving out of places like NYC in favor of less dense cities that don't smell like urine.
> I mean, you could focus on whether the word "midwest" is accurate
It's actually pretty important, because the crux of your argument is that they're moving to places with much a lower CoL. If people are moving from NYC to LA/Seattle/etc., your argument doesn't really hold much water.
> or you could take my point that there is a reason why people are moving out of places like NYC in favor of less dense cities that don't smell like urine.
Where are you getting that information from? As far as I can tell, NYC has had about a 6% population growth since 2010. It actually matches the US overall population growth pretty well, which is pretty impressive for what is far and away the most populated city in the country.
> If people are moving from NYC to LA/Seattle/etc., your argument doesn't really hold much water.
Gee, I don't remember mentioning "LA/Seattle/etc." by name. Unlike some other cities that I mentioned by name. Did you see the part where I mentioned cities by name?
> As far as I can tell, NYC has had about a 6% population growth since 2010. It actually matches the US overall population growth pretty well
Great, now compare that to the growth rates of Dallas or Nashville or etc.
> Gee, I don't remember mentioning "LA/Seattle/etc." by name. Unlike some other cities that I mentioned by name. Did you see the part where I mentioned cities by name?
You mentioned some cities by name that have growing populations, with the implication being that they're moving FROM the city TO those places.
If the the influx in Nashville is from Louisiana, then who cares? What does that have to do with NYC or people chasing lower CoL areas?
> Great, now compare that to the growth rates of Dallas or Nashville or etc.
Great! Let's see how they continue to grow once they reach NYC's size. Adding 3% to a city as large as NYC is significantly different from adding 3% to Omaha.
For example, Nashville's population is about where NYC was at right around the civil war. Sounds like we'll have to wait a bit.
I mentioned cities by name that have booming tech sectors and an influx of corporate headquarters. If the influx in Nashville is from Louisiana, that's still important, because it represents an influx that previously would have gone to some other city where there are attractive jobs. NYC used to be one of those cities, and now compared to Nashville it has far less to offer than it did in previous decades.
Do you understand my point now? It does not matter whether Nashville's population ever equals that of NYC. The population growth spread across 5 cities in formerly rural areas represents growth that otherwise would have gone to the great economic hubs of the nation, which must now compete for job applicants on something other than the MOMA and the smell of urine in the streets.
Because, if NYC doesn't compete, then it loses the best job applicants to places like Nashville.
The funny thing is that I just wrote a blog post about people who make pedantic side-comments and act like this defeats the over-arching argument.
You began by suggesting that the cities I mentioned weren't in the Midwest. In other words, you began by ignoring my point. Now you're pulling sentences out of context to still rub against the point.
My point, now as then, was that places such as the cities I mentioned are increasingly attracting the best tech sector job applicants, and that New Yorkers ought to take the time to ask why that is. No matter what other pedantic problems you can find with my basic phraseology, my point stands. Ask yourself, why are places like Nashville growing so much? And why are there multiple such cities? And why are companies like TD Ameritrade shifting their employees out of New York and into Omaha and Dallas?
I don't live in Nashville, but I think it's a nice city. Low taxes, low cost of living, slow pace of life, no urine smell in the streets, and for the price of a NYC shoebox, you can have a 5-bedroom house with a nice yard. It's tough to argue against that lifestyle once you've lived it. I don't know many people who move back to NYC.
So, as I said, New Yorkers ought to think about that. If New York companies want to attract the best job applicants, then they ought to think about what else they can offer, seeing as how they can't offer 5-bedroom houses with nice yards and low tax rates.
> You began by suggesting that the cities I mentioned weren't in the Midwest
Because I agree the midwest has a low CoL. But people are moving to cities like LA, which don't. Even cities like Denver are starting to experience large CoL increases, so I'm not even really sure what your point is.
> My point, now as then, was that places such as the cities I mentioned are increasingly attracting the best tech sector job applicants
What are you basing this on? It seems silly to assume that the population growth in these cities is entirely tech-driven.
> New Yorkers ought to take the time to ask why that is
Why?
> Ask yourself, why are places like Nashville growing so much?
Why do low cap stocks sometimes grow explosively compared to high cap stocks?
Answer: When you're smaller, it's easier to grow at faster rates.
> I don't know many people who move back to NYC.
I do, so I guess we're at an impasse here.
> If New York companies want to attract the best job applicants, then they ought to think about what else they can offer
Large salaries, obviously. Opportunities, if you want that. Tim Hockey lives in the NYC area, not Omaha.
> If the influx in Nashville is from Louisiana, that's still important, because it represents an influx that previously would have gone to some other city where there are attractive jobs.
Your original comment:
> Everyone's moving to more comfortable places with lower costs of living.
Moving from Louisiana to Nashville (or from NYC to Seattle) doesn't encompass that statement, so yeah, it does matter.
> Because, if NYC doesn't compete, then it loses the best job applicants to places like Nashville.
Or, NYC attracts good job applicants and Nashville can as well. This doesn't have to be some weird hyper-competitive thing where NYC < Nashville because Amazon isn't coming to NYC.
People aren't leaving NYC - the city's still growing in population despite being, again, by far the largest city in the country. NYC's doing fine. NYC will be continue to be fine without Amazon. Nashville can be fine too.
I'm not trashing your city, I don't know why you feel the need to trash mine.
Nashville and Dallas aren't quite midwestern (nor is Denver really), but your point stands. Costs to live and work in the big coastal cities just seem to keep rising, but many folks are not getting enough additional value out of living in those places to justify paying it. This pattern is probably going to keep up for a while, especially because remote work is such a good deal for both companies and employees if they can do it right.
Everyone's moving to more comfortable places with lower costs of living. NYC is not an attractive place for job candidates unless those candidates are already in NYC. Even companies with a strong presence in NYC are expanding in places like Nashville, Omaha, Dallas, Denver, etc. rather than in NYC.
At some point, New Yorkers ought to ask themselves why everyone wants to move to these nice midwestern cities.