←back to thread

Airbnb will build a new tech hub in Atlanta

(www.protocol.com)
140 points 7d7n | 5 comments | 18 Feb 21 16:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.23s | source
Show context
pratik661 ◴[18 Feb 21 17:01 UTC] 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 #
rjbwork ◴[18 Feb 21 17:05 UTC] No.26182424[source]▶
Just out of curiosity, as an Atlanta based dev, what kinds of salaries are common in Austin at various levels?
replies(3): >>26182458 #>>26182459 #>>26186883 #
SOLAR_FIELDS ◴[18 Feb 21 17:08 UTC] No.26182459[source]▶
levels.fyi is a good resource. Those are typically Bay Area salaries so a good rule of thumb is to take the numbers reported there and knock off 10-20% for Austin.
replies(4): >>26182742 #>>26184146 #>>26188798 #>>26188867 #
aeoleonn ◴[18 Feb 21 19:12 UTC] No.26184146[source]▶
I'd say knock off more considerably than 10-20%, at least compared to this cost of living calculator:

https://www.nerdwallet.com/cost-of-living-calculator/compare...

$150k in Austin equates to $236k in Seattle (knock off 35%)

$150k in Austin equates to $296k in SF Bay (knock off 50%)

replies(1): >>26186048 #
1. pivoter ◴[18 Feb 21 21:41 UTC] No.26186048[source]▶
Cost of living calculations are silly. Nobody earning 236k in seattle is spending their entire paycheck on cost of living. Tell me, does a share of Tesla cost more in Seattle than Austin?
replies(1): >>26186641 #
2. andrewzah ◴[18 Feb 21 22:26 UTC] No.26186641[source]▶
$236k in Columbia, South Carolina is vastly different than $236k in Seattle. Cost of living calculations are not only not silly, they're essential.

Stock market shares are the same, but things like gas prices, groceries, utilities, and rent are vastly different.

replies(1): >>26187901 #
3. pivoter ◴[19 Feb 21 00:35 UTC] No.26187901[source]▶
And who spends their $236k salary entirely on gas, groceries, utilities, and rent?

cost of living does not scale w/ salary increases. it's a silly calculation. not essential at all.

Making $236k in seattle is going to be much more fruitful than making $115k in whatever flyover place. this argument is always used by people that need to justify living in their boring towns

every cost of living calculator assumes you spend 100% of your paycheck on cost of living.

replies(1): >>26189373 #
4. andrewzah ◴[19 Feb 21 03:39 UTC] No.26189373{3}[source]▶
"And who spends their $236k salary entirely on gas, groceries, utilities, and rent?"

I don't see why the argument is about spending 100% of one's salary. We all spend a percentage of our salaries on things like rent, etc, and that percentage is going to be larger in Seattle than Columbia.

"Making $236k in seattle is going to be much more fruitful than making $115k in whatever flyover place. this argument is always used by people that need to justify living in their boring towns"

Imagine unironically calling towns that aren't Seattle, "boring". Alright, chief. Columbia certainly isn't Chicago (my birthplace), but that doesn't make it boring either. People have their reasons for electing to live in different areas, no need to be condescending about it. Yes, $236k is mathematically higher than $115k, this is no surprise to anyone. However that $115k usually goes a lot further in smaller towns than $236k might in Seattle. ...due to differences in cost of living (and the housing market).

"every cost of living calculator assumes you spend 100% of your paycheck on cost of living. "

Basic googling disproves this. Of the cost of living calculators that I looked at, they just listed basic things like school, transportation, gas, etc, and make comparisons between areas. Nothing saying that you need to spend 100% of your salary.

replies(1): >>26198222 #
5. pivoter ◴[19 Feb 21 21:25 UTC] No.26198222{4}[source]▶
In case you missed it, we are in a comment chain where a poster is using a cost of living calculator to do exactly this

"$150k in Austin equates to $236k in Seattle (knock off 35%) $150k in Austin equates to $296k in SF Bay (knock off 50%)"

That literally only makes sense if you're using 100% of your salary for cost of living. This is what you're responding to.