Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    140 points 7d7n | 14 comments | | HN request time: 0.608s | source | bottom
    Show context
    pratik661 ◴[] No.26182359[source]
    I grew up in metro Atlanta and studied at Georgia Tech. The state government subsidizes college education for grads with a certain GPA (HOPE Scholarship). However, I (and most CS grads I knew) left Atlanta for better paying jobs in NYC/Bay Area/Seattle/Austin. I always wondered why the ATL tech scene was 'underdeveloped' compared to comparable sized cities like Seattle and Austin, despite having major research institutions (Georgia Tech and Emory) to anchor it.

    This is what I mean by 'underdeveloped':

    - Most software dev job postings (as of May 2018) have SPECIFIC tech stack requirements. This to me is a red flag. Most recruiters in 'developed' tech cities assume that software development skills are transferable and that technology stacks/frameworks/languages can be learned.

    - The salaries offered were still very low compared to comparable COL locations like Austin

    - No major FAANG presence to put upward pressure on local developer wages

    replies(14): >>26182424 #>>26182453 #>>26182607 #>>26182952 #>>26183122 #>>26183172 #>>26183431 #>>26185995 #>>26186002 #>>26186101 #>>26186104 #>>26186504 #>>26188019 #>>26188376 #
    nkozyra ◴[] No.26182453[source]
    You could say this of most metros. The most glaring is Boston, which is an international hub for tech education but isn't really competitive with the cities you list, at least relative to its educational reputation.

    When I think of NYC, SF, Austin, Seattle, I think of cities with robust arts/culture/dining/entertainment, accessibility (public transit) and enough professional basis to allow job mobility. These things entice younger people to congregate.

    There are other metros that have great education and in particular tech education (Raleigh/Durham, Pittsburgh, Chicago) but don't tend to build up tech industries.

    replies(4): >>26182507 #>>26182711 #>>26182883 #>>26182915 #
    1. finiteseries ◴[] No.26182711[source]
    Austin doesn’t fill a single one of those criteria for what it’s worth.

    I have never lived somewhere with less public transportation, art & culture, dining, and entertainment options than Austin, Texas.

    And I’ve spent my entire life in the American south. Houston for example of all places, does twice as much on all of those qualities!

    replies(4): >>26182994 #>>26183282 #>>26184100 #>>26187616 #
    2. nkozyra ◴[] No.26182994[source]
    > art & culture, dining, and entertainment options than Austin, Texas.

    Buh? I was there less than 2 years but this is a baffling statement to me.

    edit: except public transportation point.

    replies(1): >>26193781 #
    3. pbar ◴[] No.26183282[source]
    It’s always surprising to folks, but true, that Houston has a wealth of arts/culture/dining, and even a modicum of public transit (the metro rail, heh). Entertainment could be better, but the rest blow Austin out of the water!
    replies(2): >>26184086 #>>26194720 #
    4. cwdegidio ◴[] No.26184086[source]
    As a transplant to Houston, I will never understand why Austin became a tech center and Houston has not. There is a lot of raw tech talent here, incubators, etc. No matter what policies are in place or what investments are made, it never seems to take hold.
    replies(2): >>26185836 #>>26191229 #
    5. aeoleonn ◴[] No.26184100[source]
    I'm leaving Austin for the West Coast.

    Not enough outdoor activities here. The amount of hiking trails is great for Texas. But not at the national scale or when compared to the West Coast & northern Rockies.

    Texas is mostly private land, so there just aren't any greenbelts (that I know of, within 2 hours of Austin) where you can hike for 10-40 miles one way.

    I'm strongly leaning towards Washington for that reason-- Huge "parks" (more like "wilderness zones") for hiking, as well as ocean kayaking, ocean sailing, and ocean fishing.

    It's a cheap flight to Alaska from there. And WA is the only contiguous west coast state without state income tax.

    replies(2): >>26186167 #>>26186479 #
    6. nilkn ◴[] No.26185836{3}[source]
    As someone who's spent time in both Austin and Houston, I'd agree with the sentiment that Houston is pretty objectively a much better place to live. These phenomena are probably more driven by superficial appearances, though, and that's where Austin has always had an edge. It's hilly, it's perceived as a college town, and on the surface it has a lot of access to nature. It looks better on the surface than Houston to an observer who hasn't lived in both places. Really, it's just like the Bay Area -- it looks good, but it actually is a very rough and empty place to live for most folks.
    7. jupiter90000 ◴[] No.26186167[source]
    Washington has a ton of cool outdoors stuff. Just be ready to have maybe max a couple months of great weather per year to enjoy it (unless you don't mind overcast and drizzle, or forest fire smoke in summer). Also competing with the other 4+ million people in Seattle metro to get it in out there. Amazing diversity of things to do though.
    replies(2): >>26186600 #>>26187352 #
    8. subsubzero ◴[] No.26186479[source]
    I flew to Austin back in 2013, spent a week looking at places and checking out hiking areas and running. I loved the food/friendly people but that was about all. For me it was a dealbreaker on lack of trails/wilderness, and also the very high humidity there. In addition housing was expensive as I looked at a few condos and they were roughly the same cost as the one I used to own in San Jose.

    WA seems very nice, the no state tax thing basically means a free mortgage payment if you are making good money in tech(not paying CA taxes)

    9. aeoleonn ◴[] No.26186600{3}[source]
    Great point. I suppose it depends on the location-- west of the mountains, in the mountains, or east of the mountains.

    With remote work, and an off-grid equipped van, I imagine someone who works from a computer can explore a large swath of the state, and nearby states, to find the right mix of weather and activities.

    That said, they'd still likely be based in the Seattle area, and would largely remain subject to its weather conditions.

    10. manacit ◴[] No.26187352{3}[source]
    This is somewhat true, but after picking up skiing, I look forward to the winter weather in Seattle more than I ever did before.

    It was a huge game changer for me personally - it took a while to pick up, but now I actually look forward to the months of December to March (sometimes April) in Seattle, because it means I'm 45 minutes away from good skiing, and a couple hours away from great skiing.

    Of course, it's not a spot for everyone, but even if you just do cross-country skiing or snowshoeing, it's totally possible to get "great" weather in the winter here.

    11. RandallBrown ◴[] No.26187616[source]
    I haven't been to Austin but I've only ever heard good things about it's art & culture, dining, and entertainment.
    12. CPLX ◴[] No.26191229{3}[source]
    A lot of this stuff is just sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

    I think a huge element has to be the success of SxSW. That has given a lot of people the personal positive exposure to Austin that makes them think moving there is plausible.

    13. runako ◴[] No.26193781[source]
    Houston is ~5x the size of Austin. Bigger cities have more options.

    Houston is also far more diverse, which directly impacts art, culture, and dining specifically.

    Much of the same about art, culture, and dining also applies to Dallas.

    14. rendang ◴[] No.26194720[source]
    Wouldn't surprise me, only because the Houston metro is >3x bigger than Austin