Others have also replied but yea: with all due respect to IT helpdesk support staff and Wordpress maintainers and the guy who does the web site for the local nail salon, there's no way any of that compares to a career in software. Living in a low cost of living area is nice but it's not worth that.
>the guy who does the web site for the local nail salon
LOL, hi, nice to meet you. Well technically, I work at a small agency that does this for many local businesses.
Best job I've ever had. Fair pay, work with great people, zero stress, work on whatever I want, < 40 hours a week every week, actually get to help real people and see how happy they are with our work.
Let me rush to trade that in for a "career in software."
Those aren't the only jobs in low-cost areas. Almost every mid-size or larger company has an internal software group making real software, and every metropolitan area has at least several of these.
Lots of that is on older "enterprise" stacks v. cool open-source or experimental stacks, but it's still a plenty legitimate career path, and you'd be surprised how modern a company that looks like a dinosaur at first glance can be when you look a little deeper. Example: Walmart runs lots of stuff on Node.js.
If you want to slave away in a startup, then yeah, you're probably going to want to be in SF, SEA, or NYC.
If you want a long-term job at a stable employer where most people don't take themselves too seriously, overtime is rarely or never expected, and you work with a bunch of smart, established people (even if they're a bit change averse), there is plenty of opportunity outside of the tech hubs.
And on salary, the average may be an OK guideline but it is by no means the top of the market. Lots of good people will hire in at 1.5-2x the area's average.
> Those aren't the only jobs in low-cost areas. Almost every mid-size or larger company has an internal software group making real software, and every metropolitan area has at least several of these.
Having one company in an area does not help. My original comment dealt with the risk of when that one company doesn't work out for whatever reason. If that's the only tech employer in the area, you're screwed.
Even if there are a few in the area, getting a tech job is not like getting a job at the local Starbucks. One could easily apply to all 20 companies in the area and not get anywhere. Ask me how I know. At least in the Bay Area, you could apply to 20 companies a week and not run out of potential opportunities.
I mean, yeah, you're correct that there are many more potential technical employers in San Francisco. However, this doesn't necessarily correlate with those jobs being more accessible or desirable than the jobs available in other places.
For one, you have a lot more competition from other applicants, because every brogrammer thinks that he needs to move to SV to be part of the scene (and I really dislike that SV is becoming Hollywood-for-nerds; flooded with tons of fledgling wannabes who worship at the feet of an elite few).
For two, you have a lot more snobbery and people expecting specific pedigrees. They want Ivy League, they want other startup or big-name tech experience, etc. There are a lot more people who think talking to a candidate coming from a job in Nebraska where he wrote software for a company that runs a machinery rental business (for example) is below them. That type of experience is severely undervalued, and if SF needs anything it's more people with an appreciation for a stable production ethos.
For three, SF is appreciably worse along most axes and the extreme cost of living means the "extra" money go down the drain very quickly, seriously diluting the real value of the salary. This is compounded when you consider that taxes are also very high in CA and SF, especially compared with states without income taxes like TX or FL.
Four, we're talking about "the Midwest" as a unit here, but the fact is there are a lot of cities in the Midwest and some of them have a lot more bustle than others. There are not many companies that are strictly tech companies, but there are hundreds of potential employers in every metro area, and again, some are much more active than others.
Also, when discussing job markets in the "Midwest", I'm really referring to everything that's not a tech hub, because the distinction is really tech hub v. non-tech hub. Houston and Dallas/Ft. Worth are in the top 5 biggest metros in the US and I'm sure there's plenty of tech work there. Florida is one of the most populous states in the US and the availability will depend on the metro, but they have a good share of tech work. The Mountain West has much to offer (especially Utah).
The point is that there is plenty of opportunity for someone who wants to look outside of NYC, SF, SEA, and LA. No one should feel like they're trapped there as long as they're willing to work for some companies that aren't household names.
Lastly, you never run out of opportunities if you're willing to work remote, and this can be a good way to maximize the benefit of low COL areas.
This is compounded when you consider that taxes are also very high in CA and SF, especially compared with states without income taxes like TX or FL.
This is true for SF and NYC but not for SEA (all three of which you mention in the grandparent post). Washington has no state income tax. The cost of living in Seattle is also more comparable to, say, Austin than SF or NYC.
I'll dispute that your points one and two about competition and snobbery apply less in Seattle than they do in SF. I've never been to NYC or LA so I won't comment on those. My feeling about those areas is that the tech scene in NYC is more comparable to SF than to SEA and the tech scene in LA is more comparable to SEA than to SF - although you still deal with the crazy California state income taxes and cost of living issues.
Personally, I think that it is preferable to work for a tech company where what you do is a profit center rather than for a non-tech company where what you do is a cost center. That said, plenty of people make a good living making internal software for non-tech companies. I am sure quite a few of them are great programmers. If they prefer that lifestyle to what they would get in a tech hub, more power to them.
In practice, this isn't likely to happen outside of California. Most companies are not going to sue you unless it's worth their while; that is, unless your side project is making a lot of money. In California, if your side project is making a lot of money, you should probably expect to get hit with a lawsuit for misappropriation of trade secrets, etc., because that's what people do when money is on the table.
It is of course true that the vindictive or psychotic boss could always try to make your life a living hell by filing a ridiculous lawsuit, but if they want to do that, they'll do it no matter what state you live in, and just trudge up whichever allegations seem most plausible.
California's toting of such protections is really a crafty political scheme. The change in law doesn't really make a substantial material change for anyone, as it's almost never worthwhile to sue someone over their side project (and if it is, you can usually get them on all kinds of violations that are related to but are not directly "he was employed by me while he made it"), but it sounds great in a soundbite and gives the people something to feel better about when they look at their tax rates.
Aside from these "protections", the state has significant disadvantages for someone interested in running a side project or any other type of business, not the least of which are the high taxes.
I don't have any interesting experiences that are directly applicable. I did work with one person who was sued for violating a non-compete in not-CA, but he was non-technical VP level and founded a company that competed directly with our former employer. The non-compete was more of an add-on to trade secret violations, etc.
