This is potentially a great way to go and solve the "engineering shortage" in the U.S. There are tons of qualified engineers in places all over the U.S., but S.V. never bothers to look for them. The great side benefit is that the cost of living in most of the U.S. is much lower than on the coasts meaning you can almost get 2 people in nowhere Alabama or Nashville, Someplace for the price of 1 San Franciscan or 1 New Yorker.
They'll speak English, share a common-ish culture, and have gone through the American educational system so interfacing with them isn't nearly as hard as real offshored employees or contracted firms. They'll also be within continental U.S. time-zones. You want to solve work visa problems? This is how you do it.
I've met a few entrepreneurs who were self-funding and thus really cared about their burn rate while building their product who opted for teams of devs in overlooked places in the U.S.
If you want a starting point, checkout towns near DOE National Labs. They're usually out in the middle of nowheresville (because of nukes) and are full of incredibly educated, qualified people, who may have moved there for lab work and ended up not like the stifling academic environment of National Labs. There resumes may not be a string of startups, but they're used to working on bleeding edge stuff and the cost of living in these areas is generally pretty low.
Judging by the recruiter spam I get, it's not entirely true that SV companies are not looking outside SV for employees -- it's just that they expect them to move to SF to work for their company. About 90% of the recruiter spam I get is from companies based in SF, but most of them are not open to remote workers.
Our company (Ambition, YC'w14) has thrived with this logic. Its really part of our culture & our philosophy for being a "cockroach" startup (aka stay alive long enough to build a great business).
Our HQ is in Chattanooga, TN. Many of our engineers interned or worked with Oak Ridge Nat'l lab while at university.
The majority of our employees are not from Chattanooga, but ended up choosing the southeast or midwest over SV - we constantly hear from amazing engineers/ designers/ sales people in Nashville or Atlanta (both ~ 90 miles away), as well as Memphis, Knoxville, Birmingham, research triangle (NC), and of course SV, NYC, Chicago, etc.
In our opinion, great people live all over the place for a multitude of great reasons. In our case, Chattanooga had A. excellent quality of life & B. reasonable cost of living. We still spend a lot of time in the Bay Area and have built an incredible network, but not every 10x engineer wants to live in SoMa.
I agree with your overall point of looking in the areas around DOE labs (disclaimer: I'm at one now and worked at a different one in the past), but maybe only half-ish of them are truly in nowheresville. I would say Idaho, Los Alamos, NETL, Pacific, and probably Ames definitely are; while Oak Ridge is kind of on the bubble. This might just be my bias having grown up in the Midwest.
The rest are in major metropolitan areas, or very close by, such as: Livermore, Brookhaven, Argonne, and NREL (among others).
One thing you might notice is that many of the more out-of-the-way labs are on or next to the campuses of large universities with strong technical bases that maybe you didn't know about, like Iowa State for Ames and West Virginia University for NETL.
Don't forget Fermi National Accelerator Lab (Batavia, IL). I worked there a year (LHC CMS detector), and it was so terrible I jumped right back to the private sector with ~5 other co-workers.
Oh I know Fermi hahaha, my hometown is literally next to Batavia (Geneva). I just wasn't listing all of the labs.
It was a bit surprising to me, but each lab really seems to have a completely different overall culture set, and then it splinters even further within each group. I worked at Livermore one summer, and the differences between them and Oak Ridge (my current employer) are stark. Part of it is that these labs do a lot of local hiring, so they get shaped by regional values.
Conversely, my significant other is an experimental nuclear physics PhD candidate who works at Brookhaven. Their stuff is open and international, while the labs I've worked at have very strict guards on information sharing and international collaboration.
What drives so much variation in the cultures do you recon/? More isolation type (galapagos syndrome) or is it the parent/funding culture (beauracracy etc)?
It's a combination of disparate factors. Most labs were set up under different initial conditions, and their future contracts and direction spun out of their initial intention. There are specific nuclear security/safety labs (Livermore/Sandia/Los Alamos), specific fundamental research labs (Fermi/Brookhaven), and more generalist labs (Oak Ridge/Argonne). This is not to say that each lab doesn't have significant overlap.
Livermore may be fundamentally a nuclear security/weapons lab, but they also morphed into a HPC and biotechnology lab, while I worked in more of their general energy research directorate, which covers everything from hydraulic fracturing and carbon sequestration, to novel enzymes for breaking down free methane. To give an exmaple, I never interacted with the people working at the National Ignition Facility, nor was I allowed in their building except on a tour (it was an awesome tour).
Oak Ridge has a general Environmental Sciences Division, which ranges from genetic engineering, to ecology, to soil sampling, to water power technologies research. That's just in the single building where I work, and these are just small subsets of current missions, while labs have specialties in certain areas, such as Livermore being great for lasers, or Argonne being known for transportation research. Oak Ridge has a big campus, and it's easy to never interact with other buildings. I believe both Oak Ridge and Livermore have 7k+ employees.
The labs are also managed completely differently. Livermore is technically run by a corporate board after it was restructured away from the University of California system, maybe 10 or so years ago. Lawrence Berkeley Lab I believe is still in the UC system. Oak Ridge is managed by a combination of Batelle and the University of Tennessee. I want to say Fermi and Brookhaven are managed by national physicist groups or something, although I'm not certain.
And finally, of course, the overall lab culture is influenced by their hiring practices and regionality. Before I became involved in this system I had no idea they were all so different, and the really amazing breadth of projects across all the labs. Hope this helped elucidate it a bit.
I believe outsourcing to the midwest would fix the housing shortage here in the valley as well. Less people would need to move here and thus, hopefully, help rebalance the housing supply.
I don't see how two people producing the same output deserve different salaries based on where they live - why should geographic location dictate my salary relative to my peers?
> "why should geographic location dictate my salary relative to my peers?"
It doesn't. Your unwillingness to relocate does.
Everyone has their own reasons for where they're willing to look for work and why. But those reasons, your reasons, have a price tag attached. To you, your reasons + your salary is equivalent to a SV salary. (Else you'd relocate.)
Similarly, companies who are unwilling to allow remote workers and/or choose not to build remote teams aren't paying more because of their location. They're paying more because they value having their employees at their location and that value is greater (to them) than the difference in SV salaries vs the midwest.
Because demand is less. The wage is still dictated by supply and demand. The supply is probably less, but the demand for that labor is far less. The demand for an engineer in the midwest is higher than the demand for an engineer in Thailand because there are less time barriers, language barriers, etc.
A house in Palo Alto, CA costs more than the exact same house in Dexter, Michigan. If they were made of the exact same materials on the exact same size of land, you wouldn't expect them to cost the same either.
I don't think the house comparison is a good example - a house in Palo Alto can only be utilised in Palo Alto. A remote worker could work from anywhere and produce the same output, regardless of location.
Pay levels based on location seem like a good way for companies to "save" money by providing a convenient excuse to pay someone less for the same work.
When you factor in the cost of living it's not an "excuse".
If, after the obligatory expenses like housing and food, the employee has more after tax dollars to spend on whatever he wants and in many ways a higher quality of living (better housing, better control over crime although that's looking to change WRT California, etc.), is he getting cheated as you imply?
I've lived in the Boston area and the D.C. area for a dozen years each, and have now moved back to my smallish home town in SW Missouri ... the differences are staggering.
Officially the same pay, but the people in California get an extra 1K/month for their higher living expenses. Heck, the Federal government does this for civil servant compensation.
Flip side: if the company is nasty, it'll tie up it's outside of California employees with non-competes---although that could be a bit tricky, given that it would get no support in the California state courts. How would you establish jurisdiction in the employee's home state?
That is correct. I, living in Dallas, am willing to sell my labor in Dallas for a lower price than I am willing to sell my labor in Palo Alto. Thus, a company in Palo Alto can save money by hiring me in Dallas to do the job. There is nothing inconsistent about this.
What does this have to do with anything? The amount you paid for a house is based on it's value to you. Same as your employer and it's employees. I live in the midwest - a cheap place to live. But I charge SV rates because of the value I provide my clients. I don't have to charge "less" because I live in a cheap area. It is irrelevant.
I meant it in this sort of comparison: if you uproot the house, and drop it in Palo Alto on the same size plot of land it's worth more. If the programer gets up, and moves to San Francisco, his labor is also worth more. Same person, same house, different demand (and supply).
Cost of living is wildly different in different areas. People in NYC need to earn more money than somebody in Idaho Falls to live even close to a comparable lifestyle. A million dollars will buy you an "ok" 2 bed room apartment in Manhattan in an "ok" neighborhood, while a million dollars near Houston will buy you multiple acres with a brand new 7 thousand sq foot 6 bedroom 9 bath home on the waterfront with a guest house and a swimming pool next to a pro-level 18 hole golf course.
If you don't understand it further, feel free to take the midwest salary and try and live in San Francisco or NYC.
OK, but imagine this situation: I have affixed a monitor with a webcam to a robot that represents "me" in an office. It is able to sit at a desk, attend meetings, etc. I work from home in some place with a lower cost of living and use the robot proxy for interaction with my peers. Should I be paid more or less than other people working in that same office, producing the same output?
Less, because those people have to live there where it's more expensive. While you live where you live where it is less expensive.
You're thinking of this as advantaging you, getting SF pay for working in Idaho Falls, but you need to think of is that salary in Idaho Falls is the "normal" base salary, everybody earns at that rate, and cost of living adjustments are paid on top of that base salary for people in expensive areas to create as equal of living conditions as possible in more expensive areas.
This is so commonly understood that nobody bothers to break it out that way except for the Federal Government pay scale. Everybody from Podunk, Nowhere gets excited when they get a job in the big city because of this pay differential on what they'd make where they live. Except the cost differential is similar and when they arrive they suddenly realize it doesn't buy them anything more.
By paying people "the same" at the base salary, your salary model would disadvantage people working and living in cities such that they could not do it and companies that need to be in cities would be unable to function.
Companies with large workforces in cheaper areas could also not pay their workers SF/NYC salaries or their costs would simply overcome their revenue or if they can manage it, they may as well have just hired in SF/NYC in the first place and realized better efficiencies of physically working together. Your robot is a poor substitute for actual face-to-face interaction and introduces lots of inefficiencies into communication.
Not all jobs for a company need to be in the expensive areas, so it would make more sense for companies to push those jobs to cheaper areas. But some jobs do need to be in expensive areas for efficiency. Cities exist because of those efficiencies. However, being a city with 5x population of Idaho Falls doesn't mean you have 5x the resources, so demand drives up the cost of goods and thus the cost of services rise and thus it simply costs more to live there.
Companies wish to continue operating, so they need people to be able to afford to live near where the company needs to be (which is dictated by the efficiencies of the city). This is reflected by pay differentials for people that need to live and work in these cities. Nobody can live in SF or NYC on Idaho Falls pay.
For a variety of reasons, your personal, physical presence in an industry cluster[0] is valuable. Managing a business is a coordination problem, and it's generally the case that said coordination problem is best solved by having everyone in the same office. So an employee in Silicon Valley or NYC is, on aggregate, significantly more productive than the same worker in most of the Midwest, even if their individual effort is no different.
Unfortunately, the dominant housing policy regime of restrictive single-family zoning and auto-oriented transportation, which significantly limits new housing production in the most productive areas of the US, causes high wages and growing populations to lead to lead to extraordinarily expensive, overcrowded housing.
Market forces. Just like anything else - supply and demand.
Don't think of it in terms of gross dollars. Think of it in terms of standard of living. A skilled engineer is going to have an upper-middle-class standard of living, regardless of location.
Because "you" (the generic you--not necessarily you specifically) are usually willing to accept a different salary for a given job description based on where you lived based on a variety of factors: alternative opportunities, attractiveness of the area, cost of living (primarily housing), etc. And, in fact, jobs in higher cost of living areas (assuming equivalent jobs are actually available elsewhere) tend to not fully factor in the difference in housing prices.
Although I won't be moving to the midwest, I am rooting for this. I'm in SF because I grew up here and have a lot of family in the area. I don't live here because of the excellent salaries, because while the average software developer here earns (according to sfgate and us news best jobs) between $110,000 and $120,000 a year, the median 3br house costs 1.1 million.
It would be a great triumph if the tech industry found a way to function without needing to move every software developer internationally into a the 48 square miles of SF plus a small corridor down the peninsula.
I've read about startups in Baltimore, St. Louis. These are bustling, interesting old cities with cool architecture, walkable downtowns, great old gardens and museums, and vastly lower rents. If the tech industry could find a way to convert some of those 110K a year jobs in SF into a large number of $95k a year jobs in cincinatti or st. louis, it would have an exceptional effect on the world.
And you know, if you are paying $110k in a place where a reasonably nice 3br house can be had for $300k, I'd be a lot more receptive to worries of a worker "shortage" than if you're offering that salary in a place where a 3br house is $1.1.
So all I'm really saying here is good luck, I hope this works for everyone involved.
Most of the Midwest doesn't have a dying need for "The Valley". This article reads a bit like SV is the saving grace of the Midwest, If only those people had access to tech.
I think there's a very healthy tech scene in many areas of the Midwest. I live in Minneapolis and there are plenty of local companies doing well with local people. There are also quite a few local resources for entrepreneurs without the need to be involved in SV.
When I graduated Purdue, 9 years ago, there was very little in the way of software jobs at least (And I got the impression that the top companeis hiring Mech E and EE students could be as selective as they wanted). I had to go to one of the coasts to get a sane offer.
The only real job offer I got in Indiana was a one year contract for $30k/year in Fort Wayne, which was less than half the salary for the non-contract position I took in California. There is no sane cost of living adjustment that will cause those to be comparable.
Twin Cities and Chicago areas are exceptions to the rule, when it comes to Midwest. Both have a healthy mix of old-school industrial giants, financial, retail, and new tech and bio companies. This is different from other big metros in the region like Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Indianapolis. Pittsburgh is another (arguably) Midwestern city that has a growing new-tech/bio industry (Google and Intel + recently, old-school Bosch Research Center + several medical-sector startups).
Folks love to talk about the Midwest as fly-over nation, but the Midwest is a great place to hire. Of Zapier's 9 person team we have 4 people in the Midwest: 2 engineers, 1 marketing, 1 support. And we have no intention of stopping hiring in the Midwest.
Does it have to be the Midwest though? I'm in Chicago, and moving to Florida due to the weather and less-brutal state income/property tax (and I can own a sailboat).
There is absolutely an opportunity to hire talented people at affordable rates outside major urban areas. I just finished an eight year adventure growing a startup from nothing, and I did it remotely from South Dakota. In a few months I'll be looking for another remote opportunity with a company like Expensify that "gets it"; I'll get to work from my beautiful hometown and they'll likely get talent cheaper than they could in an expensive major metro area.
I wish more companies had this mentality, it's amazing how much talent pool they are leaving out there by not allowing remote work for some positions. Especially for those of us that live in the Midwest but cannot leave for any number of reasons.
Honestly, the "right" way for companies to do it is to simple lease an office near a concentration of a few workers. Even if it's just 4 or 5 employees, a nice office with internet and a kitchen isn't very expensive. That way it's not "remote" work, it's just another corporate office location.
Checking online in Kansas City, MO. 13,000 SF of office space runs < $10k/mo. That's a bargain. Spot checking other places (Colorado Springs, Nashville) doesn't run too much different.
Yep. I work in St Louis for a company based in Palo Alto. There's three of us working here out of a small office, and they were able to get a place for pretty cheap in a neighborhood with a lot going on. Our company's real estate manager is super big on finding us spaces that are close to lots of walkable things (for lunch, drinks after work, shopping, etc) and doesn't want people out in some suburban business park.
The team here in STL started out in late 2012 as one guy in a coworking space. I hired on eight months later. Another few months after that we picked up a third person and the company leased us a space, bought us video conferencing gear, gave us a budget for supplies and stocking the fridge, and has been super supportive of whatever else we might need.
I've been really happy with the whole arrangement. Collaborating over video conferencing and chat is pretty easy and I've rarely run into situations where I really felt out in left field. I've found that when I've visited the actual office, people have a fairly "heads-down, get your stuff done, and generally use asynchronous methods to bug people" work style anyway (and a lot of people prefer to work from home one or two days a week rather than ride Caltrain), which lends itself ok for remote teams.
That's exactly right. A friend of mine in St. Louis is currently negotiating $14/sq.ft. down to, ideally, $12. Last I heard from my CxO friend in California, he was excited to find $30.
To me, it's shocking that anyone would start a business out there. (Okay, not really... there is a lot of money out there and it flows much more freely. But I couldn't personally justify spending my cash on 2.5x more expensive real estate!)
Quality of life is becoming much higher in both KC and STL over the last few years. Residential rents and house prices are cheap. Offices are practically free. The restaurants are becoming better and attuned to coastal sensibilities.
One point that should be mentioned it that both STL and KCMO have significant violent crime problems. The STL crime rate has been improving impressively. When I went there recently, I was shocked by relative improvement. Neighborhoods that were dilapidated in the mid-00s are now happening spots.
Flee the coasts! Opportunities await in the country!
In the right suburbs of Dallas, you can get flex space for $6/sqft - $9/sqft. The area has great support infrastructure and talent pool for doing hardware, too.
For real, I mean I'd even be open to taking a paycut for something like that too.
There are quite a few companies I'd love to work for as a Product Manager, Solution Architect, or Community Manager (I've done a lot). But I can't even entertain the idea because I can't leave MN.
I'd even consider a part time commute story as well (fly there once a month or something).
I'm jealous -- I would love to telecommute from my home town in the Upper Peninsula, but it just wasn't happening when I was looking for jobs after college. I ended up moving to a bigger city just to get a job as a software engineer.
Still looking for a way to get back home, though. There have been so few options, and none where I felt I'd be able to advance my career. Self employment has always been the most attractive option.
I loved the upper peninsula when I visited years ago. and it seemed /dirt/ cheap, I paid $20/night for a motel. Plus any place with Cornish pasties at every stop steals my heart.
As a Midwesterner, I am slightly put off by the use of the term "outsourcing" in the title. Considering the term wasn't used in the article I feel it carries negative connotation. Maybe I am reading too deeply into this...
I have to admit, as a fly-over stater (Colorado) I found the tone be pretty condescending. There's an air of "we're moving the stuff people in the valley are to smart to do" to it. I'm not sure if it's intended, but it seems like they think the midwest is only good for the entry level. That really amazing developers don't exist outside of the valley.
If that's true, I for one hope they don't change their position. We're building one hell of an engineering team and much of it is from the midwest. If other folks figure this out, I'd have to actually compete for the best developers!
Is it possible to get an entry-level engineering job in the Valley today? It doesn't seem like that's common at all. So if you're just starting out and particularly if you don't happen to have a boutique degree, where are you going to start at entry level as a developer? To me, it sounds like a great way to hire.
Yes, their are plenty of startups with less brand name recognition hiring. A friend of mine from a non technical background managed to get a decent PM job after finishing hackbrite.
Alternatively you can get in the door of a brand name company by doing QA for a year or so.I have multiple friends that transitioned from a liberals arts degree to being developers by first starting in QA. It's totally possible.
Internships are also a good way to get your foot in the door.
That's what I did. I had a degree in Physics, and at the time, Microsoft had a small training program for test developers. I did that for a couple years, and through a pair of job hops, am now a developer at an established startup. I didn't try to switch internally at MS, but I believe it would have been possible.
The one thing I would note, is that QA generally has lower prestige/pay then dev, so if you want to move to dev, be careful about things. Make sure any QA job you take has a significant development component, ideally letting you design and implement decent-sized projects you can point to when interviewing for a dev role.
Good QA people are incredibly hard to find, especially ones that can do automated testing. One of my old managers started at Apple in QA and then transitioned over to being a developer after a year or two. I’ve seen this pattern a number of times. The potential risk is that many organizations won’t allow you to leave QA. That may not be a problem if thats what you want to do. QA can pay quite well if you are doing the right thing.
The way to play this is to go into an organization with a good brand name, work hard, focus on automation as much as possible and if they won’t help you transition over to being a developer leave after two years for a place that will. Having a good brand on your resume will open a lot of doors. Also, if you are going down this road its a good idea to build a portfolio of software on github.
Devops is also a good option to consider. It really depends on what your background is and what skills you bring to the table.
I think you are. This http://www.saturnsys.com/ "local" (as in ~200 miles away from me) Minnesota company has been using the tagline "Offshore to the North Shore" (...of Lake Superior) in their radio advertising for years. Their home page touts their "Rural outsourcing model."
Outsourcing is exactly what it is. Nothing to be offended about.
Someone put that in the HN title, the original article does not (for it's worth, I've flagged it thus).
Also, virtually every company in the world outsources. Do you use an external account for tax compliance? Outsourcing. Do you have a lawyer that's on a contract? Outsourcing. You got that advertisement created for your online ad campaign from a marketing company? Outsourcing.
Using the word outsourcing here is not correct. They are paying full-time employees and managing them as such.
If it had not been enclosed in quotation marks, maybe. But the presence of those signals that they don't mean strict outsourcing, but are using it with a touch of irony.
Not too deeply, I think. Outsourcing implies the use of second-rate talent (and literally refers to sourcing cheaper talent outside of the company, which is not the case here). It's definitely condescending, and I understand why tech talent in the Midwest would take offense to this tone. There is definitely a large pool of top notch talent in the Midwest, and it's no secret at all that it's the most cost effective part of the country.
For the data entry jobs as a contract employee, I think it is actually the correct word. Outsourcing doesn't need to be on-shore, or even remote. IBM outsources its secretaries and maintenance who work in the same building as employees. This company wanted to outsource data entry and customer service.
If they are actually hiring the people (as it seems the author of the post had happen to him eventually), then it isn't outsourcing anymore.
That's true, and I think jakestl understands that. But it's received with a tone of "look, what a surprise, those Midwestern folks are worth something," which definitely isn't a great way to make someone feel.
So what do you think about foreign developers who work for American companies (that are outsourced muscle)? That they are inferior? I feel like I'm being hostile now, but that is what seems to must follow, if you even accept the term outsourcing.
I think outsourcing is either motivated by 1. cost, which does not necessarily have anything to do with quality, might just be that the cost of living is very different, and the cost of living difference in this case seems to be non-negligible. 2. Expertise; we, as a company, don't want to/can't have an X department, so you guys can take care of it.
A possible barrier to productive outsourcing is a mismatch in cultures. In that case, you can't really blame the outsourced party for not being American/German/Austrian... This is a thing that can mask itself as incompetence.
Outsourcing usually means hiring cheap, low-quality third-party labor and firing/not hiring skilled, trained full-time employees. Whether this is from another country or not is unrelated.
The situation described in the article has nothing to do with outsourcing, but building a remote team, both foreign and domestic.
Using the term "outsourcing" does a disservice to those employees. Since the Midwest was mentioned specifically, I had a similar reaction to the one you had for my comment.
I don't really call this "Outsourcing." I call it smart hiring.
I have two teams -- one in Cincinnati, and one in Walnut Hills, CA. On my teams, I have a blend of about 60% onsite and 40% remote workers. I pay equally across the board, with the guys in CA getting an extra $1K/month due to the insane cost of living. I hire wherever I can find talent, and I find technology that works to bring us together as a team regardless of our location.
This is sort of my dream. When, while on vacation, I saw that the state had run fiber up to the local state park (a gorgeous, national park sized state park), I asked whether private interests were also attached.
I have since heard that there were plans to upgrade backbone service to the local town 13 miles away. Supposedly, an insurance company was going to host a call center there -- although that part of the story and the party involved sounded suspicious.
If you all want to explore whether this location might be one you want to add to your list, shoot me an email. (Regardless of whether it does anything for me, personally. I'd like to see the town do well.)
It's in the same general area as the OP: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Approximately 15 miles of Lake Superior shoreline, extending inward 3 - 5 miles, in the eastern part of the park over a series of parallel ridges that are remant uplift of the old Lake Superior syncline.
One road around the boundary, and another up to a scenic overlook. The rest of the park is accessed by trails.
If you like hiking and camping, or want to spring for one of the better cabin rentals, it's a gorgeous, peaceful place.
I currently live in Michigan and telecommute fulltime for a company on the East Coast. I highly recommend it! It works well as our entire team is distributed.
I approve this message, as I am a web software developer in the midwest. I'm also involved in a great startup focused community here, http://digitalfertilizer.org/ with a network of high quality developers and designers, many of whom are full-time employed by startups all across the country.
I'm also on the market for remote work. Same username on Twitter.
Good for them. It really helps when the entire company embraces a distributed workforce and not just having that "one guy".
I live in California, two hours away from the Bay Area, and I still cannot convince employers to hire remote. Yet they still send me recruiting emails.
They'll speak English, share a common-ish culture, and have gone through the American educational system so interfacing with them isn't nearly as hard as real offshored employees or contracted firms. They'll also be within continental U.S. time-zones. You want to solve work visa problems? This is how you do it.
I've met a few entrepreneurs who were self-funding and thus really cared about their burn rate while building their product who opted for teams of devs in overlooked places in the U.S.
If you want a starting point, checkout towns near DOE National Labs. They're usually out in the middle of nowheresville (because of nukes) and are full of incredibly educated, qualified people, who may have moved there for lab work and ended up not like the stifling academic environment of National Labs. There resumes may not be a string of startups, but they're used to working on bleeding edge stuff and the cost of living in these areas is generally pretty low.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_laboratory