Why do developers who could work anywhere flock to the most expensive cities? - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/02/why-do-developers-who-could-work-anywhere-flock-to-the-worlds-most-expensive-cities/ <comment><USER5> I used to live in SF. It was exciting, but also shitty. I felt connected and alive, which was great, but also drained of resources, which really sucked. Oh, and there were 6 of us, in a 3 bedroom apartment. I had the living room. Yea.

I lasted 3 years, until I met my wife, and by then I was ready to move. We did.

Now, life in the suburbs, is slow. I feel somewhat disconnected and like I don't really belong to this community. My neighbor is a teacher, not a tech worker. I miss the buzz of the city, the energy. But, I'm saving money, and, working remotely is mostly positive (though I do yearn for office banter more and more).

Life I guess, is all about trade offs. Rarely have I found a situation that is entirely positive, or negative. Most, if you look closely enough, are a balance of good and bad. For me now in my life, the reassurance that I will be able to retire some day, is worth more to me than the excitement of the city. That may change... we shall see.

If it does change, I'll be lured back to the city for the exact reasons the article states. The city itself, is the draw. There's something about living in an urban environment, for some people, it's just a pace of life more resonant with their existence.

<comment><USER6> > Oh, and there were 6 of us, in a 3 bedroom apartment.

This is such a weird American phenomenon, the whole roommate thing. What on earth can make adults choose to share their home with a stranger? Why isn't there intense pressure for building many small apartments, rather than building larger apartments that are meant for roommates? Is it connected to the equally weird college dorm roommate system?

Why are people accepting a situation where they live together with someone they don't like? It's such an obvious recipe for misery!

Who perpetuates this system?

<comment><USER7> > This is such a weird American phenomenon, the whole roommate thing

I think you're just sheltered; in every country in Europe that I lived in or had friends live in (Poland, UK, Portugal), students and young professionals flatshare. Or live with their parents, but it comes out to the same thing. If you're not already independently rich, you can't afford a single bedroom flat on your own.

The simple fact is that a two bedroom flat split two ways is always going to be cheaper than two single-bed flats. There's obvious efficiency in using the space effectively - no point in every single person having their own kitchen, bathroom, living room. Also, it makes sense that most flats built are 2-bedroom or bigger; that way they can be used both as flatshares for young people, and flats for families.

You don't have to live with someone you don't like - you get to pick your flatmates.

<comment><USER8> Yes, but when Americans (e.g. college students) talk about "roommates" they mean they share a _bedroom_! Literal _room_ mates

<comment><USER9> As an Australian in the US, it seems that term is ambiguous.

When a college student talks about their roommate, yeah that's the freaky situation of being an adult and not having your own bedroom.

But on other contexts it just means what I would call a "housemate". You're not actually in the same room.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> LOL it is the other way around, cities become most expensive because developers flock there and spend cash.

This happens now in Limassol, Cyprus: crowds of developers, most having their own startups, started to flock there since 3 years ago from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine - it was always a country to keep offshore companies/accounts, so every rich developer in ex-USSR already been there and knew the place, but since 2014 it started to make sense to move physically as well - in Russia people escape propaganda and mass chauvinist hysteria, in Belarus economic crisis prompted government to jail IT business people to milk them on their money (then frequently releasing with no right to leave the country - in order to make them earn more, then milk again), in Ukraine they are simply leaving the unrest and crumbling infrastructure.

Since about last year it became a virtuous cycle because developers started to move in simply because it's a place with many developers already so it's easy to exchange ideas, and then investment funds joined. We are witnessing a small Silicon Valley in the making (of course, with probable limits of about a few percent of the real Valley). It already made Limassol a much more expensive place, rents on cheap apartments almost doubled in 3 years.

Developers want to be where developers are, and VCs want to be where there are many developers, and then more developers come where VCs are... and you get another 'most expensive city'.

<comment><USER11> Also very close to the thriving Israeli tech scene, which has lots of Russian- speaking developers (less Russian-speaking VCs).

<comment><USER12> Precisely. Short, one-hour flight, and pretty much the same time zone (barring differences related to when daylight savings takes effect) makes it easy to keep teams in Cyprus and Israel in sync.

Considering the massive shortage of developers in Israel, it really wouldn't surprise me to see deepening ties in the development community.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Because there is no critical mass to "work from anywhere".

Amazon/Facebook/Google/Microsoft doesn't let its workers work from home in general. A lot of tech companies don't as well. So moving to CheapSmallTown means when losing the job still having to go back to ExpensiveTechHub to network and find a new job. So might as well stay in ExpensiveTechHub just to be sure.

Imagine if all those large tech companies and others allowed working from home as a default. I think that would be a sizeable economic and cultural shift. It might revitalize various part of the country, small cities and towns. It might reduce congestion, real estate prices in coastal cities.

I work from home and love it. But yeah I am still living next to a tech hub because chances are if I switch jobs I might not necessarily have a choice of working from home.

<comment><USER14> It's worth pointing out that the "big four" tech companies aren't the only tech companies worth working at. You could very well have a higher upside working at a small, remotely friendly company, from Chiang Mai or Bali where the cost of living is 1/15th of SF, and still have a relative mass of expats doing similar things.

Speaking from experience, I'm much more relaxed working from Bali, and I get paid only 20% less than I did in SF. Instead of spending 35% of my net pay on rent, I only spend 2.9% and have a higher quality of life in general.

When all your hard earned money goes to just maintaining social status or staying in a trendy neighbourhood, what have you got to show for it?

<comment><USER15> > and I get paid only 20% less than I did in SF

Out of curiosity, did you start your current job while in SF and then moved? Or did you find the job while you were already overseas? If the latter, was the hiring process remote too?

<comment><USER16> In my case (and a couple of friends) the remote salary was slightly less than your typical SF salary but I had no "fixed location". Right now I'm in London working for a different company but the job is also remote. The point of working remotely should never be "find very cheap talent" but rather "find talent globally and remove geographical bottlenecks". Or something like that.

When negotiating a salary, don't let your current location define your salary because in a couple of months you could be in London, SF, NYC or Tokyo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If the type of development work you're doing can be easily done remotely, then there is a good chance it can be done much cheaper by a fantastic developer in Ukraine, or India, or China, or some country where wages are a lot cheaper than US or England or Canada. If, however, the type of work you're doing benefits from face-to-face interactions (i.e. quick iterations with lots of feedback from users, marketing and product managers), you're likely to demand a premium, and those types of jobs tend to be clustered in large cities.

<comment><USER18> If you're a fantastic developer in Ukraine, India or China _and_ have very limited needs (compared to a guy with a family and kids), your disposable monthly income net of taxes, rent and commute expenses is still likely to be higher in Silicon Valley than Ukraine, India or China.

A rational decision then would be to move to Silicon Valley arbitraging the costs as much as you can (living with roommates, commuting by Caltrain, BART or a plain walk, relying on company-provided lunches and dinners vs going out), until the music stops and the industry hits a headwind.

Then one can still return to comfortable living in Ukraine, India or China, but with a much nicer savings account than before.

<comment><USER19> Yep.

I moved to SF from Slovenia. The percentage of my income that I save* is smaller, but the absolute number is still bigger. Turns out the glass ceiling for "smart dirty immigrant" jobs is much higher than the ceiling for "remote dude" jobs as well.

Add the nice bonus that there's simply more to do in a megalopolis of 6mio people than a city of 300k and it's kind of a no brainer. Unless of course you're okay stagnating in your career. Then staying home is financially more sound and you can lead a cushy life then retire at 35 or 40. But meh, life's too short to limit yourself out of cushiness.

*save and/or use as disposable income

PS: one thing I've noticed is that those of my friends who couldn't get visas are the loudest opponents of moving to the US and those of us who could are the loudest proponents. It's probably all bias and it doesn't really matter where you are if you're a good engineer. Work will find you.

<comment><USER20> > Add the nice bonus that there's simply more to do in a megalopolis of 6mio > people than a city of 300k and it's kind of a no brainer.

Can you give an example? I've lived in London before and I don't think I saw a single thing available there (that I was interested in) that wasn't available in much smaller cities. I mean, why do you need thousands of restaurants and nightclubs, when in a small city you still have dozens of them, and you don't need to suffer in the tube?

<comment><USER19> "Ok, which of the 3 decent restaurants am i going to today?" Gets really boring after a while. New ones to try open every few years instead of every few weeks.

You look at Yelp or similar and you've been to everything it suggests and decided it's meh. Or your friends have been and aay it's kinda meh.

There's also that argument that Oatmeal mentioned once. In a small city you have Asian restaurants. Maybe Chinese, Japanese, and Asian. In a big city you have Cantonese, Sushi, Japanese Grill, Vietnamese, Thai, Korean, Singaporean, South Thai, North Thai, Dim Sum etc etc

Maybe SF is a special case. The city itself is only 800k people, but it's surrounded by 6mio people which makes it feel a lot bigger than it is while retaining a lot of the smaller city feel. It's basically Bay Area's lower to mid Manhattan.

PS: London is _massive_. 13mio people in the metro area. That's twice the size of the entire Bay Area so yes, law of diminishing returns definitely kicks in at some point.

<comment><USER21> I don't get this whole hang-up about restaurants. To me, "the number/type of restaurants in the area" is something I don't even consider when deciding if I want to live somewhere. Admittedly I'm not a restaurant guy. I pretty much never go to them. To me, they're just an expensive way to eat food. And they are a pain in that you need to do so much just to "enjoy" the experience. Get dressed up, drive or walk to the place, wait in line, get seated and wait again, place your order and wait again, finally you get to eat, trying not to think about how much of your life you just wasted, then when you're finally done enduring all that, drop $100 that you could have used to buy groceries for a week.

Same goes for nightclubs, museums, movie theaters, "culture". This is really why people want to live somewhere???

<comment><USER7> People like different things. What a shock!

> Same goes for nightclubs, museums, movie theaters, "culture". This is really > why people want to live somewhere???

What do you do in the afternoons? Almost every home-hobby I can think of is improved by company of people with similar interests. Rather than do DYI in a garage, I'd rather go to a hackerspace. Rather than play the same N boardgames with the same X people, I'd rather to go a boardgames meetup.

And well, while you might not be into 'culture', there's a reason why nightclubs, museums, theaters, cinemas, etc exist. People like entertainment!

> Get dressed up, drive or walk to the place, wait in line, get seated and > wait again, place your order and wait again, finally you get to eat, trying > not to think about how much of your life you just wasted, then when you're > finally done enduring all that, drop $100 that you could have used to buy > groceries for a week.

Well, here's the opposite view. I don't cook at all; I'd much rather place a delivery order at one of 20 great restaurants around, depending on whether I feel like italian, thai, vietnameese, british, american, or any other cousine. Why would I spend hours buying ingredients and preparing food, when someone else can do the same for me, but better?

Going out to restaurants is a bit different - when you go as a group, the fact that you have free time as your food is being prepared is a benefit, not a cost. That's the main reason you go, after all - to spend time together, while at the same time enjoying a good meal.

<comment><USER21> > People like different things. What a shock!

For sure, I get that. I just find it pretty amusing that restaurants, of all things, constantly get brought up in these "Why do engineers move to the city" stories. Anyway, aren't we all working 60-80 hour weeks? Even if I liked restaurants and night clubs, I'd have no opportunity between work and sleep to partake, so it would make no difference whether there were good ones around!

<comment><USER7> > Anyway, aren't we all working 60-80 hour weeks? Even if I liked restaurants > and night clubs, I'd have no opportunity between work and sleep to partake, > so it would make no difference whether there were good ones around!

And you don't think that's a problem? But no, we don't all work 60-80 hour weeks. Work shouldn't be your life, and 40-45 hours is already a lot of time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In spite of what the article claims, the vast majority of employers do NOT let you work remotely 100% of the time. They are mostly located in the big/expensive cities, so that's where developers will go. There's really no mystery there.

<comment><USER23> Yep. Network effects.

Best place to start a business is where you have easy access to a large employee pool for your specialty. Best place to locate yourself as a specialized employee is where your industry concentrates a large number of employers.

This is true if you're in software, finance, film, ....

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Just because developers can feasibly work from anywhere, especially remotely for already-established companies, do not immediately presume that it is best for developers to work from anywhere.

Working remotely is not for everyone. Some people have problems with efficiency and procrastination when working from home or when working without immediate oversight. Some people have poor communication skills which are further hampered by the long distance communication and lack of face to face interaction. Some companies and, perhaps, developers prefer human interaction and team cohesiveness, which is difficult to achieve in an all-remote development team.

In many cases, the most expensive tech cities became that way after the developers landed and earned crazy money and bonuses. Take Austin for example. A mere ten years ago, it was a very affordable city. Now, there are 800 sq. ft. homes with window-unit air conditioning selling for $600,000. Why? Austin became a tech hot spot in Texas while it was still affordable and, due to the exorbitant salaries being paid and countless millionaires being made, the demand for housing skyrocketed. With limited supply of proximate housing, the prices shot up.

<comment><USER25> Austin seems incredibly cheap to me (when considering southern California as the alternative). You can get a nice house on a large lot for less than 500k. It's not in the city center but I prefer having more space anyway. In San Diego and any reasonable commute around it you get a repair project with anything below 500k. Couple the cheaper housing with income tax savings and I see the appeal.

<comment><USER26> Yea, Austin isn't _cheap_ anymore but it's by no means expensive when compared to the coasts. It used to be something like a factor of two more expensive in SF or NYC, and I don't think it's quite that large a gap.

The Austin city center is also so much smaller than many major cities that it can be misleading. Just 1.5 miles from downtown the price of housing starts to drop substantially.

<comment><USER27> SoCal/Bay Area expats are driving up costs in Austin.

<comment><USER28> Agree. Similar thing in all Texas metros. Although expats in Austin are certainly of the CA tech majority. I feel like all of TX is turning into CA.

<comment><USER29> Well, they do have many things in common:

* Warm weather year round

* Lots of great universities

* Large hispanic population (and immigrants in general)

* 2 largest states in the contiguous US

The most glaring difference is probably the conservative politics. But that's mostly the rural areas. And the hispanic population may actually help change that.

Note: not implying that all hispanic people automatically vote democrat, just that they do in general.

<comment><USER30> As the other poster said, Hispanic people in general are extremely socially conservative and religious. They vote reliably Democrat because the GOP panders to white racists and people with anti-hispanic-immigration feelings. As soon as that changes and the GOP embraces them, they're going to be a very reliable GOP voting bloc; all the GOP has to do is promise to end abortion and pander to Catholicism, and they'll get their votes automatically.

"Progressive" liberal politics are on a strong downward trend in the US. The people having kids are mostly very conservative and religious, and the immigrants from the south are very conservative and religious. The anti- immigrant bias from the GOP is likely temporary.

<comment><USER31> Do you have any data that supports the assertion that liberal politics are on a strong downward trend? That struck me as odd and my (admittedly short) googling found a lot of evidence that the opposite is true.

<comment><USER30> Did you miss the November election? That should be proof enough.

Compare the anti-Vietnam-war protests of the early 1970s to the anti-Iraq-war protests in the 2000s... oh wait, there were no anti-war protests in the 2000s; everyone in America was all for that.

Compare the birthrates for liberal, irreligious people to conservative, religious people.

<comment><USER27> >Did you miss the November election? That should be proof enough.

Liberals won the popular vote...

> Compare the anti-Vietnam-war protests of the early 1970s to the anti-Iraq- > war protests in the 2000s... oh wait, there were no anti-war protests in the > 2000s; everyone in America was all for that.

That is a disingenuous comparison. The support for the Iraq war was so high because a _the biggest terrorist attack in US history had just happened_ and we were going after the people we thought responsible. If you compare a similar situation WWII and Pearl Harbor, there were not protests for that either. In fact support for Japanese internment was high.

> Compare the birthrates for liberal, irreligious people to conservative, > religious people.

Birth rates for people who typically "vote liberal"(minorities) in the united states are much higher than those of "conservative voters" (white people).

<comment><USER30> >Liberals won the popular vote...

Irrelevant. The Electoral College doesn't work that way, and also, Republicans won elections _across the board_ in all the other races: House, Senate, governors, state legislatures, etc.

Basically, the liberals clustered into a few coastal cities were numerous enough to win the presidential popular vote, but that doesn't affect much except the mayoral races in those cities, and the California state government (1 of 50).

>The support for the Iraq war was so high because a the biggest terrorist attack in US history had just happened and we were going after the people we thought responsible.

Only a complete moron believed at the time that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

>If you compare a similar situation WWII and Pearl Harbor, there were not protests for that either.

It was no secret that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Their planes were military planes, and had the Japanese flag on them. They even tried to send a warning first but screwed that up somehow.

Not so with Iraq. Despite what chimp Bush said, it was all too obvious to anyone with half a brain that there was no relation there, and the 9/11 hijackers were all Saudis anyway. And the Iraq war wasn't about 9/11 (that's why we invaded Afghanistan, something that wasn't really protested for pretty good reason since Osama really was there), it was about "WMD" which didn't exist. The whole thing was a giant sham and lie, and it was obvious.

>Birth rates for people who typically "vote liberal"(minorities) in the united states are much higher than those of "conservative voters" (white people).

The high-birth-rate minorities are very religious and are in favor of extremely socially conservative policies such as banning abortion. They only "vote liberal" because the GOP panders to white racists and anti-minority voters, _for now_. As soon as that changes, liberalism is dead in this country. Lots of those minorities are already voting GOP because of social policies and religion.

Moreover, you sidestepped my challenge. I said to compare the birthrates for "liberal, irreligious people" to conservative, religious people. The minorities in this country are not irreligious by a long shot; in fact, they're frequently a lot more religious that the average conservative.

<comment><USER27> Come on man, enough with the acrobatics.

>Irrelevant. The Electoral College doesn't work that way, and also, Republicans won elections across the board in all the other races: House, Senate, governors, state legislatures, etc.

Your argument was that liberalism was on a downward trend. On the US's biggest election stage, more _people_ identified with the liberal politics than the conservative ones. Those other races have much smaller turnouts on any given day than the presidential election.

> Only a complete moron believed at the time that Saddam had anything to do > with 9/11\. not the same yada...

You can say that as your opinion, but the national sentiment at the time went with that as fact. Check the history.

> Moreover, you sidestepped my challenge. I said to compare the birthrates for > "liberal, irreligious people" to conservative, religious people. The > minorities in this country are not irreligious by a long shot; in fact, > they're frequently a lot more religious that the average conservative.

Social conservatism does not imply political conservatism...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Speaking as a proponent of remote work, I think the reason is that remote workers are less productive in a _non-remote enabled culture._ And by default most companies are not remote enabled. They don't even understand what that means.

This is totally reasonable, as we still have very few examples of large, successful teams that are fully remote. Many of the ones we do have aren't actually companies, Linux kernel development being a good example. I don't think we yet have a single case we can point to of thousands of full-time employees working together remotely. Which means at the end of the day, enterprises still have to build or lease a huge box and stuff it full of people -- there is no well-understood alternative. They naturally end up building or leasing boxes that are nearby boxes built or leased by similar companies, and here we are.

The only real barriers to ever larger remote teams, though, are information, training and precedent. I doubt the tech industry will ever be more concentrated in a few megacities as it is today. Remote work in one form or another is on a 30 year upward trend.

<comment><USER33> Definitely. Companies can either "allow remote work" or be "remote first". I've worked at both types.

The ones who are "allow remote work" are entirely office-focused and view remote workers with suspicion. A remote worker is very unlikely to get promoted, be able to take on interesting projects or large responsibilities. And they'll be out of the loop as far as what is going on in the company. (Even at a large company with probably 15% of the workers remote, it was frequent that people would just forget to open up a conference line for company-wide announcement meetings.)

On the other hand, "remote first" companies structure themselves around tools to enable remote working. So meetings happen online (via phone or web conference), project discussion or just water cooler chat happens in a messaging system like Slack or IRC, and projects are documented in a system accessible to everyone. In these environments remote workers are first class citizens and are as much a part of the company as any other.

I was at a "remote first" company that grew out of the open source development world for close to 5 years. I went to a company with the "allow remote work" model and lasted barely a year before leaving for another "remote first" company. It was a painful year, but at least now I know what to look for.

<comment><USER34> where do you find these "remote first" companies? sites like weworkremotely.com? (am just starting out)

<comment><USER33> It's been luck for me, honestly. The way I found my current position was by looking for who was sponsoring meetups in cities around the world in a field I was interested in. From there I found a blog post by one of the founders explaining their "remote first" mentality, and I knew I had struck gold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> As a company owner where most work is done remotely, I believe it is just education, people have been brainwashed all his life, and it takes time and work to make people operative remotely.

Working remotely means you can life whenever you want,not just in cheap places, (in practice anywhere in the US, as living in other countries have political problems like taxes and bureaucracy) L.A or New York, but people are not conscious they can, and that is the biggest problem, the biggest limitation is the one implanted in their mind.

I love traveling and after some time I need to go met a new city.

In remote working, we have to teach the people the most basic things like they are children or even worse because children would learn it right away but people have to unlearn what they already know.

They know you go to a locked place called school when you get with other people and do what other tell them to do. Over time you don't need physical locks, the locks are already in people's heads.

This behavior has been trained for years. Anything alternative competes with this psychological training.

This model place called school was designed after 1850 in order to train people for the industrial revolution, and it worked wonders for it.

We can't really understand the consequences of improved communications like talking from the US to Japan ultra cheap, simply and fast.

This happened over my lifetime, so social structures have not adapted to the new reality.

It is such a big problem that I am seriously considering creating a company just to train other companies to work remotely.

<comment><USER36> I've worked remotely online since 2000, my preferred way to work.

You should offer training. A problem I see in a lot of businesses is old school thinking.

Some people just think "Business" means dressing up in a suit, having 3 hour meetings daily and making eye contact and shaking hands.

Like it's still the 1920's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I moved from a medium sized city that had ~5 dev shops to work at. They all sucked. I had friends from college at each one, and we all basically spent our days plugging fixes into 8 year old java or .net apps and trying to keep our brains entertained.

I did the usual and moved to "an expensive city" of portland. There's hundreds of places hiring, from "work on our inventory system in java" to healthcare to high tech to whatever.

It's a bit more expensive here (housing-wise) but my raise alone paid entirely for my housing expense for the year.

Plus it has a vibrant meetup community, tons of beer/biking, etc.

I hate that I didn't stay east to try to build this type of community myself, but I haven't regretted it in the least.

<comment><USER38> I moved away from a mid-sized city where the tech employers consisted of:

* Giant defense contractor. The kind of place you'd have to fill out paperwork to enter some of the rooms at.

* The University

* Local government

* A couple of hardware companies and like 2 software startups.

Needless to say, I am much happier with my job prospects in the Bay Area (not to mention my paycheck).

<comment><USER39> The giant defense contractor probably has amazing projects once you get past the paperwork. If you want to change the world, well there you go. You probably won't work overtime, but if you do there are federal limits before they have to pay you extra. Age discrimination is unlikely.

The university is probably interesting. Actual pay is probably terrible, but you might get free tuition for your kids.

The "couple of hardware companies" sounds promising. That might be real programming, with C or even assembly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Is it really that surprising? The cost-of-living vs. increased salary equation almost always works out in your favor if you are young, single, and don't mind a roommate.

It's essentially an arbitrage. You're being paid in the employment market where salaries are based on an average standard. Meanwhile you're happy living in the housing market at a below average standard and keeping the profits.

That profit quickly disappears though once you are no longer satisfied living like a college kid.

<comment><USER41> I wonder if sociology has anything to say on this topic. My sense is that young tech workers flocking to coastal cities are voluntarily extending their adolescent years, in the same manner as many graduate students. For many young people, 10 years working in Silicon Valley is really a form of graduate school, equivalent in earning potential to a Ph.D. at a world-class university.

The big question: after you get your tech "graduate education", are you able to put down roots and create an adult life in these places, or does it make sense to move elsewhere?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> So I live in Boston, and bought a condo in the slums as soon as I could. Not the worst slum (Green St., near Hatoff's gas station for those who know JP), but 50 yards from a halfway house, the suboxone at Arbour counseling and the needles near it, Mattapan is pretty close.

5 years later the condo is up 40%, Hatoff's gas is now being destroyed for (I assume?) more condos, a brewpub is opening pretty close, and families are moving in everywhere. And my mortgage is still $1500, and it will be for the next 25 years until it's paid off.

So why move? I can make great money and I locked into an improving neighborhood. Don't a lot of young people with useful skills do this? Buy into a hood-ish area and wait for it to develop?

I wouldn't have raised a family here before gentrification, but every month it seems more realistic...

My point is, I live an expensive city but I made the right decisions. And now it isn't so expensive, and when I'm at 10 years, 15, 25 years experience, I will still be here.

And anyone who thinks I'm bragging, you can do the same thing I did. My recommendation is Jackson Square and Roxbury Crossing, you can find quite affordable properties in Roxbury. Don't buy where things are nice _now_ , buy where things will be nice _later_.

EDIT - Hatoff's is just undergoing renovations.[0] I wish it would close! Cheapest gas in the entire city, and connected to a gambling parlor. Not quite gentrified yet...

EDIT 2 - Yes down-vote all you want, sorry me and thousands of other people make economically rational decisions regarding where we put down stakes.

[0] [http://www.jamaicaplainnews.com/2017/04/02/historic- hatoffs-...](http://www.jamaicaplainnews.com/2017/04/02/historic-hatoffs-gas- station-closed-for-weeks-getting-new-pumps/24080)

<comment><USER43> Hood can stay hood a lot longer than your personal life timeline. It's kind of like the assertion 'the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent'. Younger people who want to buy somewhere affordable get long commutes instead in boring bedroom communities.

<comment><USER42> I'm fine with it being hood, I live here after all. But it is nice when things improve.

<comment><USER44> Dude, there isn't 'hoods' or ghettos in Boston, at least none that I recognize. Plenty of places deep in the south that are much more dangerous.

<comment><USER42> Yes the entire city of Boston is perfectly safe, we have no murders here /s

<comment><USER33> Because you mentioned murder specifically

Murder rate per 100k: Boston - 6 Chicago - 20 Atlanta - 20 Washington, DC - <USER2> Detroit - <USER3>

Boston is a very safe US city.

[http://www.areavibes.com/compare- results/?place1=Boston%2C%2...](http://www.areavibes.com/compare- results/?place1=Boston%2C%20MA&place2=Chicago%2C%20IL&place3=Washington%2C%20DC&place4=Detroit%2C%20MI&place5=Atlanta%2C%20GA#cri)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> In my personal experience remote work does not work so well. At least I haven't been able to make it work for me.

For the second point, well I think expensive cities are expensive because people want to be there. If you can choose to live anywhere, why not go to the best place, specially when you can afford it?

<comment><USER46> I've worked remote for almost three years for a profitable startup. It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but not having a commute is incredibly liberating. I've also found my careeer options to not be limited by being remote.

Also, I live in Florida 20 minutes from one of the best beaches in the country. Not as "culturally fulfilling" as say the Mission or Castro districts (have been to SF more times than I can count, but have never lived there), but I sit on a quarter acre lot with a 2600 sq ft 4 bed/3 bath single family home with a backyard pool for ~$1000/month (owned, not rent).

Trade offs. Living in expensive cities doesn't necessarily translate to a higher quality of life.

<comment><USER47> I live in Brisbane, Australia. The global hub of literally nothing. What you've just described for living expenses makes me cry a bit thinking about the amount I pay in rent here for a small apartment.

<comment><USER48> Brisbane has direct flights to Singapore, Kuala Lumpar, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Taipei, Seoul, and Los Angeles.

I mean I'm not saying it's New York or Tokyo or anything, but it's hardly isolated.

Full disclaimer - I live in Provincial NZ so my perspective may be slightly skewed. Also, unrelated, what's it like to live there? Rents don't seem too bad (by NZ standards, our housing inflation is even worse than yours hooray!). My company want me to move there in a year or so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Probably an outlier, but i really enjoy my commute, because its 20 minutes by bike so I bascially get 40 minutes of workout per day for free as i cycle at a decent pace.

I also enjoy working with a team in person, many of which became my friends. If I loose my job here, there are plenty of interesting alternatives to choose from. The city also offers a lot of non-work related things that i would not want to miss at this point in my life (no, it's not clubs)

After having worked 5+ years from home I am really happy about my decision to have moved to a big city (Berlin) 2 years ago and giving up working at home, it literally changed my life.

<comment><USER50> I'm working at home now and really miss my old 20 minute bicycle commute. It's such a great way to start and finish the day, and separate work from life. Now I try to ride every morning, but it's too easy to just stay inside and start work. I'm considering moving to a co-working space full-time just to force myself to get on the bike. In my experience,

Commuting by car < Commuting by train < No commute < Commuting by bike

<comment><USER49> In theory i could work remote some days, but the cycling is actually a big driver for me to go to the office even on days where i am only there for half the time because of some appointment for example.

While the individual trip is only about 6km, this way i do 60+km per week which amounts to somewhere around 2500-2800km per year and i usually go pretty fast so that i am quite exhausted after 20 minutes. Last year i watched my eating habits and it was pretty easy to loose 10kg of weight and keep it at that level only due to cycling.

It also is a great time to think in the morning and even better to relief stress after work. The only upside to taking public transport would be being able to read, but in the usually crowded trains with 1 stop where i need to change trains, the uninterrupted reading time would be pretty small anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> This phenomenon has been fairly well studied in the academic literature, and you can sum it up to a variety of factors including productivity from co- location (Skype just won't cut it in some circumstances!), capitals flows (VC funding is only located in certain places), and other fuzzy things like quality of life and access to similar people. The emergence of "technopoles" led Richard Florida to call the globe not "flat" but "spiky." Consider also the case study of complex geographies and languages (not English!) in Brazil: [http://codingplaces.net](http://codingplaces.net) [full disclosure: Takhteyev was on my PHD committee]

</comment><comment><USER52> > there's nothing about software development that requires meatspace > interactions

This is a big claim that is not true in my experience. Dealing with highly ambiguous situations, talking people out of bad ideas and learning through collaboration works _much_ better in person.

</comment><comment><USER53> As someone living in working in a medium size city and non-tech-enclave I can tell you that there's very little non-remote SW/web dev work here. There are people who need someone to manage Wordpress or Drupal sites for SMBs, realtors, dentists, and similar. There are also a smattering of java/.Net nightmare jobs in companies that are non-tech-centric or defense related. There are exceptions, but you might come across one every six months, end even the exceptions tend to have downsides. So I think the "could work anywhere" thing isn't true. Rather, I think it you probably need the connections from a tech-enclave to swing high-paying remote work or find situations that give you the freedom to relocate.

<comment><USER54> >Rather, I think you probably need the connections from a tech-enclave

As a tech employer who has consistently hired from "non-tech-enclaves", here are some practical tips that may help people in your position "swing high- paying remote work":

\- Have a public presence: open source, stackoverflow, portfolio on your own site (bonus points for a cool site that itself shows off what you can do), etc.

\- Flesh out your profile on AngelList. Many startups do not care where you are so long as you are doing a good job, and there is plenty of room for salary/location arbitrage in between "market for SF Bay" and "way better than I can earn anywhere near where I live".

\- Actively look for remote-only stuff.

It's really not about connections. It's about showing that you are a fit for the company doing the hiring. That's why I'm taking the time to respond here -- there is a pernicious meme that "it's all about who you know". This idea is not only false, but harmful, because it encourages defeatism and fatalism among highly skilled individuals who could dramatically improve their own work situation if they were willing to take a few relatively simple steps to do so.

<comment><USER55> Great comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Here in the UK the difference between London vs the rest of the country is insane: I would love to live somewhere with a better quality of life but it's much harder to find a good job outside London. I wonder how much of the resistance to setting up offices in smaller cities is due to senior managers and engineers not wanting to move away because of kids / partners, or because at their level of income they can pretty much afford anywhere.

<comment><USER57> Hmm, there's quite a few places in the UK I think you'd be surprised. The salary's are not as high - but they're still really high and outside of london you save mega moneys.

Moved to Glasgow for a higher salary than I had in London, and where rent is 1/3 of the price.

There's Edinburgh, Manchester(home of the bbc) (ranked as two of the best cities for tech in the UK, manchester for media city), Bristol, Bath, Newcastle, Cambridge. All good salaries and likely to save more money than in London.

<comment><USER56> That does surprise me, in a good way! My concern, aside from salary, would be job security - in London it's possible to find a new job within days... I will look into Edinburgh :)

<comment><USER57> Edinburgh is a beautiful city - although to warn the rents are higher than most other cities. (I lived there for 5 years). HOWEVER the flats tend to be HUGE so it's good value for money. I had a bedroom in Edinburgh that was the size of my entire 1 bedroom flat in London.

There's some startup hubs in Edinburgh that are really friendly - i'd go put your cv in there. One is called "codebase"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I make good money. Why would you expect me to live in the middle of nowhere when I can live in the greatest cities of the world?

<comment><USER59> I'll give you a reason, although it's a reason that's personal only to me, probably.

I love road cycling as a sport. IMHO cycling for pleasure sucks in cities, even ones with great cycling infrastructure.

The cycle paths are full of slow commuters calmly pootling their way to work|shops|date|whatever.

The roads in cities are full of distracted|incompetent|psychopathic drivers in motor vehicles all wanting to "punish" me for shaving my legs and wearing lycra.

The place for people like me is haring about in the lanes and hills of the sticks. :)

<comment><USER60> In my experience, I've found the best cycling to be in the LA and SD area....bike aware culture and weather permits you to ride over 300+ days a year. I imagine California in general has great year round cycling

<comment><USER61> I work remote from central Los Angeles. The biking is incredible here. I mainly do hills and the Santa Monica/San Gabriel mountains provide some excellent climbing. There is very little traffic in the hilly parts of the city.

<comment><USER60> From central/Downtown LA, you can take Venice all the way to the beach with a dedicated bike lane. I rarely go on trails, as I only have a road bike. My favorite trip is to take the bus to somewhere north of Malibu and ride along the PCH for about 20 miles.

Off-topic, but LA really does have great public transportation. It covers nearly the entire metro area such that you can get pretty much anywhere and only have to trek a few blocks to catch a connecting metro line (whether that be bus, rail, or subway). The problem is you're not going anywhere fast.

<comment><USER61> I never do trails either since all I have also is a road bike. There is a stretch of Mulholland, where it is a dirt road, that is technically passable with road tires, but I have yet to attempt it.

I like Ventura Blvd in the Valley to make it to the beach. It is congested at points earlier on (east), but then it clears out. Venice is busy almost the entire stretch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Steven Johnson, in his recent book Where Good Ideas Come From, pointed out that cities are more innovative the bigger they are, demonstrably according to a quarter power law. Aggregates of people are more creative than individuals. [http://www.penguin.com/ajax/books/excerpt/9781594487712](http://www.penguin.com/ajax/books/excerpt/9781594487712)

But he ALSO points out that the internet has greatly reduced the need for physical proximity to get the aggregation benefits to creativity.

So, the question stands: why do people flock to the places with absurdly high rent when they could work remotely? The Sand Hill Road Shuffle (raising money for the next startup) isn't THAT much fun.

<comment><USER63> I list agglomeration benefits from my study notes (Urban economics).

* Knowledge spillovers. This core idea for information-based agglomeration economies. Robotics researcher benefits from touching randomly elbows with metallurgy expert and vice versa. Random human contact happens in internet too, but you don't form deep connections as a rule. Has anyone had a hours long beneficial discussion with random guy in the internet?

* Labor market pooling allows labor to be more efficiently allocated following productivity shocks. Changing jobs is easier. The ability to switch into a new job is first order agglomeration benefit. When large number of similar jobs are located at the same area, its easier for people to change jobs and find the job that makes them most productive.

* Marriage multiplies the effect of labor market pooling. When people marry each other and move together they must find a two jobs within working distance. If they are both highly specialized, highly educated or both, only largest cities allow best job for both without sacrifice.

* Services and more choices. Even a Pizza delivery guy can be more productive in dense city. That justifies the little higher salary for pizza delivery guy. There is more different services available. Increasing the value of the location.

* coagglomeration. The tendency of industries to colocate with other industries and form tight networks that respond fast to new demand.

* Cost of moving people. Travel time reduces productivity significantly.

* Logistics in general is and faster and more efficient. Benefit of moving goods is now considered relatively second order.

* Congestion has costs. Pollution and expensive housing are results of failing urban development. Without congestion costs the concentration of people into the best cities would be even faster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I keep hearing that I can work anywhere as a developer. I wish employers would get that message. I've had to move to expensive cities not because I want too (the exact opposite actually), but because if I don't I don't get work. Employers in Canada are hostile to remote for the most part, and working for companies outside of this country, you run into a lot of "remote....but not for you"

<comment><USER65> Employers in Canada don't actually need (or don't actually want) top developer talent. If they did, they would try to compete with US companies on salary (among other things).

I agree that "remote (US only)" is completely baffling. Hiring from a global talent pool instead of a local one is a huge advantage. Yes, such an employer has to deal with tax headaches but if they want to hire locally from a global talent pool, they will have to deal with immigration headaches which are much worse for the US.

<comment><USER39> It's also security.

That really productive remote "person" could be a whole team. Three people do the work, and another 25 are dedicated to espionage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I'm contemplating this right now. I work in London because the extra money over working elsewhere in the UK more than pays the rent and I know people here now. I if lived further out and commuted then the cost of transport would almost wipe out the rental saving and I'd have two hours+ commute everyday instead of a healthier cycle through the park.

I could get a remote job for half the money and that would be worth it for a change of scenery living somewhere cheap despite the tanking pound. Personally I think I'd be more productive living in Asia working London hours, so 3 in the afternoon until 11pm, as this suits me more especially somewhere where there is little to do in the evening. It just suits my body clock.

I know this because I did it for a while despite the financial crisis ruining it at exactly the wrong time, happening two weeks after I left the country for two years. Now I need a financial crisis to stand a chance of buying a house I figure going back to that life is my better option for now.

<comment><USER67> If there's a financial crisis:

* You're more likely to lose your job or find it difficult to switch jobs, which will impact your earnings * Banks are less likely to give easy lines of credit, making it difficult to get a mortgage

Timing the housing market is as difficult as timing any market - time in the market beats timing the market.

<comment><USER66> Maybe. 2008 to 2012 were actually the best years for me, both for life and jobs. I even managed to get a contract straight back from my travels in 2010 at a rate that I haven't beaten since. The economy didn't totally shut down. My issue was getting a mortgage but if I hadn't had a gap I could have got one even then as I had a good deposit.

It's the aftermath of QE and years of zero rates that I wasn't prepared for so it turned out to be a very expensive break.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Opinionated take about costs and benefits that doesn't make strong statements about whether remote work or onsite is better:

For context: I moved from NYC to Philadelphia, to finish my thesis and be with my wife who works at the world's best children's hospital. I have lived in Portland, Chicago, and spent extensive time in Toronto. I haven't spent much time in SF.

The change in cost of living is dramatic, and the quality of life is higher by far. I have eaten in extraordinary restaurants in my life and I don't feel Philadelphia suffers in that regard. There is a similar caliber of restaurant (with the exception of a very select few you are likely to eat at a few times a year and could honestly fly to and still save money). While I'm sure ballet and music are better in NYC, I'm not sure most consumers can tell the difference or whether it's worth living nearby.

I don't like remote work as much, and I make no arguments about remote work vs onsite. The talent pool in big areas is probably a huge plus for expensive areas (although healthcare related industry is probably great in Philadelphia, so maybe I haven't lost much there). And if you need onsite workers (again, that's maybe best, I have no argument either way), you can just hire them in SF. (You could probably pay 2x going rate adjusted for cost of living in Philadelphia and still come out ahead, but it might be harder to hire replacements). Quantity of cool jobs is definitely lower.

But if your goal is just financial independence, you could cut your rent to 20-40% of NYC and be within walking distance to work here, it's like getting a 3x pay raise.

I miss certain things about NYC, to be clear. Philadelphia is smaller, there's less of the intense artist feel, less craziness in the streets and much, much more typically dressed men and women. I miss hundreds (literally) takeout places that deliver amazing food in 30 minutes.

I do not miss the trash in the streets (piled three times a week in big bags in Manhattan ) the smell (everyone knows that returning-to-NYC smell), the rats, or the 500 sq foot apartment I was lucky to get in Williamsburg that pales in comparison to the apartment I leased in one of the top ten neighborhoods to live within North America here in Philadelphia.

<comment><USER69> I don't understand how Philadelphia gets away with being such a wonderful city. It's an incredible anomoly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> i would say this is the epitome of followers vs leaders... a significant portion of devs are introverted, and don't have a life outside work, hence being in a social setting like the office is how they make friends and communicate with the world... yes i used to be one of them...

but once you have other avenues of creativity and life, suddenly working in an office is little more than mundaneness... i've been working remote for over 5 years, and usually do my best to hang out with my team ever few months, mainly to bond on a more personal level which can only be achieved in real time. but a week or two every few months is enough to gain that perspective. working remote is blissful.

there are two major problems. most companies are scared of remote workers because they don't have the trust that remote workers can integrate into the culture, and a large portion of people just can't handle working remotely. it's an art to be able to work without a definite schedule (like being at the office for x hours).

open space work environments are bullshit, read the actual studies done and all of them point to more controlled settings, which allow devs to get into the flow which allow them to produce some of their best work and allow the to be the most fulfilled by their work.

my dollar goes way father than the devs living in sf. i can visit when i want and then bail. i'd rather invest in my family, my house, and my hobbies than paying rent in sf or nyc. and yes there are plenty of cities that offer similar awesomeness for way lower price.

</comment><comment><USER71> Hello from a cafe in Chiang Mai.

> Chiang Mai is very nice, but doesn't have the Met, or steampunk masquerade > parties or 50 foodie restaurants within a 15-minute walk.

That's true, I do miss museums, theater, and live music from my favorite bands. But there's some really fun events (Songkran is coming soon), you can find some good music, and there's a lot of really good restaurants.

If I had a lot more money, I would probably live in NYC, LA, Hong Kong, or Melbourne. But Chiang Mai is great for now.

<comment><USER47> Melbourne? Really? Is that a thing now?

Maybe I need to head south for the winter.

<comment><USER72> Melbourne like all Australian capital cities has congestion problems and very expensive housing. I've found myself wishing I was in the startup scene in Sydney instead (seems more mature and serious.)

<comment><USER73> I'm in Sydney and was under the impression the scene in Melbourne was much better! The grass is always greener...

<comment><USER74> I've lived in both, and I can assure you Sydney's startup/dev scene is far larger. For one thing, basically all the multinational IT giants (Google, Facebook, Amazon etc) have their Oz HQs in Sydney.

<comment><USER73> Fair enough, although Facebook don't have any devs here, so I'm not sure they belong on that list. I found a bunch of places are similar in that they only have sales staff here - RedHat has most of their devs in Brisbane and Cisco has more in Melbourne, for example. Looking at Amazon's jobs page it seems like there's dev roles in Sydney at least, and Google definitely have devs here.

<comment><USER72> Lots of sales offices in Melb (Google, LinkedIn...)

Losing Startcon to Sydney was one of my top reasons other than that international startups (particularly fintech) seem to gravitate towards Sydney.

Melbourne does have some noticeable startups - Carsales.com.au, realestate.com.au, envato, seek but I think there isn't enough done to phrase them. If you are in Melbourne however I'd recommend coming a Inspire9 pitch night or a SiliconBeach meetup. Finally Andrew Hyde's writing speaks of some of the strengths in Melbourne [http://andrewhy.de/why-your-startup-should- visit-melbourne/](http://andrewhy.de/why-your-startup-should-visit-melbourne/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> "Working anywhere" isn't as great as people make it sound. Being remote-only severely reduces your job pool, which is fine if you've got a good enough resume to get hired by anyone, but not so much if you're average and competing with everyone else.

Once you have the job, you find that it takes a terrifying amount of discipline to get as much work done at home, or in a coffee shop, as you could in an office. Some people can manage it; many can't.

<comment><USER76> That's not the case for me. I find being in an open-space office incredibly distracting. When I'm working at home, I can get completely absorbed in the job and work continuously all day long. Being remote is much more productive for me. It isn't for everyone though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> It's very very very simple. Politics. If you are in the Valley and making 300K, you're going to politically gang up with fellow 300Kers rather than release responsibility to people living in <100K salary areas. The truth is, remote works extremely well. Just get mature people and make sure everyone is remote so there is no ganging up (though you may get some timezone tribes..)

</comment><comment><USER78> The reality is that as long as companies keep building campuses and requiring people to come into the office in the Bay that many people can't move.

I work remotely, only because our building was shut down due to a natural disaster. And when management realized productivity actually increased for the three months all 500 of us were working remotely,they never reopened the office.

<comment><USER79> That sounds like a really interesting case. Do you or someone else in the company have a blog post about this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Most employers don't like remote employees. I go where the jobs are, and that happens to pay more because there's more companies fighting for developer talent. I'd go back to a smaller city in a heartbeat if I could find a job paying the same amount of money, or even just the same adjusting for CoL, but I doubt I'd find that. In larger cities I think pay goes up a lot faster than CoL does.

</comment><comment><USER81> I work remote, and I like living in SF. I've lived and travelled to many places, and SF is my favorite, despite how expensive it is. I live in a 40 bedroom "hacker house", where else am I gonna find somewhere like that? I can discuss the latest javascript framework in the kitchen. I learn about new cryptocoins in the common room. I like living in the Mission, where new restaurants are popping up all the time.

It's also really convenient when I'm working on something really complicated for a client and I can take a 10 minute bus ride downtown to discuss in person.

Could I save literally thousands of dollars a month living somewhere else? Totally, but it wouldn't be the same.

<comment><USER82> >I live in a 40 bedroom "hacker house", where else am I gonna find somewhere like that?

A university dorm?

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> If you really can be remote, a smaller city can be nice. I live in Cleveland, right on the lake. It is a functional city and gives me a longer runway for my startup. As more of the workforce becomes truly remote, I believe we'll see a resurgence of small towns. Some smaller cities are putting fiber in already planning for urban refugees from larger cities.

</comment><comment><USER84> We have a horde of people here who, at the first opportunity, will accuse the mass of developers of being trendy when it comes to languages or frameworks or methodologies. And yet, we have a thousand _perfectly rational_ reasons why so many of us flock to the cities that influential developers live and work in.

</comment><comment><USER85> Because some of the most expensive cities are awesome places to live, if you can afford it.

<comment><USER86> You get what you pay for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> The article assumes developers could and would build great companies working remotely if only conservative managers, VCs and others irrationally standing in the way would allow it to happen.

That day will probably come. It might even be here, but I seriously doubt it. I think it still takes a lot of personal interaction and teamwork, and the tech for it is still clumsy, incomplete and annoying enough that it's just not good enough.

Are there any great companies built from the ground this way?

<comment><USER88> Basecamp and Gitlab seem to be off to a good start. Github also is extensively remote.

<comment><USER89> I don't know about Basecamp but Gitlab's salaries are about 60% of my current base for SF, and go down for less expensive locations that I have already considered living in. These locations cost about 66% of my current situation (I commute into the City from about a 30 minutes train ride). I'd have to move to a place that resembles a rube filled backwater by comparison for break- even.

<comment><USER90> Care to give numbers? I will.

I make 125k/year with 15k bonus, good 401k/stock/health/etc. This is outside Indianapolis, where you can buy a nice 3k sq. ft. home for 250k.

To have the same size house where you live, how much would I have to make? I have done some math, it is well over 200k. Maybe you make that much?

<comment><USER89> Please note I don't contend your scenario is impossible. It's just that there isn't convincing evidence it can be considered normal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> There are successful unicorns that are distributed, remote companies today. That people haven't caught on it amuses me. It should be old news by now that remote companies are possible, that it works and doesn't impede success.

<comment><USER92> Ok but I don't want to live in a suburb or out in the middle of nowhere. I want to live in a major city. I chose this lifestyle for myself and so have many many others. Yes it's expensive but I make _a lot_ of money. Money that I _wouldn 't_ make if I lived elsewhere. So like someone else mentioned above, the economics work out at my stage of my life. If I have kids, the economics might change and make me consider something different. But I don't plan on having kids for a long time so that's not something I have to consider at all.

<comment><USER91> I don't quite understand your point. You can be remote and chose to live in a major city that's not SF/NYC/London/Toronto, or be remote from SF/NYC/London/Toronto if that's your deal. The idea is to be remote so you make the choice at your leisure.

Also there's a ton of really cool cities out there that are nowhere as expensive as SF/NYC/London/Toronto and that are just as fun, if not more (minus NYC), and way cheaper. And working remote, they're pretty much all within your reach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> The answer is simple: most people don't live intentionally.

I regularly meet miserable people in SF that could elevate their happiness by changing their life situation. But they don't, because the default path is easier.

<comment><USER94> If you're in debt or you can't break your lease, there's only ever very short windows to change your life. And it wasn't until recently that you could find FI-style communities about avoiding debt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> There's a similar issue with finance: someone anywhere in the world can execute stock market trades from a computer. But as a practical matter in the US 90% of trades are executed in a few blocks from each other.

<comment><USER96> Yes but where do you think all the _information flows_

<comment><USER95> Yeah, but really just about anyone with a Bloomberg terminal has 99% of the same info.

<comment><USER97> As we learned from the aftermath of the last major meltdown, banks do a lot of deals that require more than just a Bloomberg terminal. If anything, deals like ( [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/goldman- bet-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/goldman-bet-against- securities-it-sold-to-clients-1953406.html) ) require more physical presence, as nobody wants to leave a paper trail.

<comment><USER58> Can you elaborate on this? If you bought something from me then I think you paid too much and you think that you paid too little. That's, like, how buying things works. I wouldn't sell it to you if I thought you were paying too little and you wouldn't buy it from me if you thought you were paying too much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> Because I can't work anywhere. It may be theoretically possible but business in the UK is pretty traditional in a lot of ways and just won't consider anything else.

Fortunately I live in the East Midlands, where there's a developer talent shortage, and I'm pretty good at my job, so whenever I want to change something seems to come up.

<comment><USER99> Leicester? Why?

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> It seems to me that in economic theory, capital should move around and people should stay at places. It would be rational and also it makes sense from human perspective (you're close to your family, you don't have to deal with the logistics of moving etc.).

However, in economic reality, quite the opposite is often true. Capital doesn't flow into underdeveloped regions even if they contain great talent. And people try to migrate, in fact so much that some think it's actually a threat.

Ha-Joon Chang's "23 Things about Capitalism" has a great chapter on capital not being that international (that is, interchangeable) as people typically think.

</comment><comment><USER101> Developers are especially susceptible to groupthink, and living in places like San Francisco is trendy.

<comment><USER102> Job security (and availability), not groupthink. Groupthink is the side effect.

<comment><USER38> Surprised this is so far down. I'm here in the Bay Area because that's where the jobs are. I also don't particularly enjoy remote work, but I do like to take advantage of the occasional WFH day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> I'm not a developer, but after doing (remote) independent consulting for a year, here are my $0.02

-Human interactions: as mentioned, we are social animals and (mostly) enjoy being around others. You might not think this applies to you, but try staring at a computer and not speaking to anyone for a day. It can get old. -Similarly, being in the expensive cities means you also get to be around smart people like yourself, who are also flocking there. Sure, you could live somewhere super cheap, but then who would you share your v intelligent thoughts with? There's value in being able to bounce ideas, compare notes, etc. with real people in real life. -I've worked at companies who have employees in other geographies, but they pay these people less than they would in-house developers. If you're good at what you do and have the right connections, it can be lucrative to work remotely - but companies value face-time and might not be willing to pay as much if they know your living expenses are less. -Motivation: It can be tough to be motivated to get work done if you're living outside the confines of an office. If you can master the remote lifestyle, it offers a ton of flexibility, but a lot of people need more structure in order to be productive.

Working remotely and getting paid the same as you would in an expensive city works for some people, to be sure - and they crush it in terms of $$. But it comes down to a lot more than money - it's a certain personality type that can excel with this type of work, and without the right disposition it's not really worth the extra change.

<comment><USER104> So poor cities are all filled with dumb people? At least we're not overflowing with massive pretension. I'll stay here and leave SF for the rest of you geniuses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER105> Which leads me to learn that the 6 "Alpha Regions" of the world are SF, LA, NYC, Boston, Toronto, London, Paris. Even if it's not perceived to be at the center of the technological metamorphose, Paris is still being seen as a place where you can get stuff done.

It's also one of the places in the world where you will get the most infrastructure, meaning technological infrastructure but also political, democratic, social, medical, legal, education and even cognitive infrastructure.

Yes, you get what you pay for.

<comment><USER106> Berlin and Barcelona are way better places than Paris. Unless you're into old cities filled with pretiensious people.

<comment><USER107> Paris is also good if you're into smog. +1 for Berlin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> Is not the developers, is the business that attracts developers there.

You cannot run a business from everywhere and have all the connections totally non personal. Is not working. So you must have the business in that locations, or you don't succeed. Then the developers come. And later they want to have their own businesses too. And need the connection, have a dinner with an investor, etc.

It feels like a fission reaction out of control, start-up acceleration programs made it into a real explosion.

</comment><comment><USER89> There is an assumption that developers could work anywhere. This isn't generally true, except in the sense that it's possible to do so in a way it hasn't been in previous decades thanks to the internet speeds and collaboration technology we enjoy today. In reality remote work opportunities are still very much a rarity and they tend to offer lower compensation.

</comment><comment><USER48> I've had two jobs (including my current one) where I've been what you might call an "industrial analyst programmer". That is, I'm on site at a place that isn't service oriented or financial, the IT team is tiny, and I have to be the BA and the Programmer all in one. One involved me working at the maintenance department of an international airport, and the current one I am attached to a small factory and distribution centre.

It's a lifestyle I quite like, though I'm not sure how common such opportunities are. With the incredible wealth of information and communication options on the web I really don't feel like I'm some isolated backward village person who can't possibly know the same stuff someone in a city can.

</comment><comment><USER63> 101 urban economics.

Economies of agglomeration is a powerful thing. Expensive cities are expensive because productivity and value generation there is much higher than elsewhere.

The concentration of tech into few places is not a negative by itself. It's essential for better productivity and economic growth. Negative effects like expensive housing are failures in urban development.

Economic activity is concentrating on large cities. This is global development. Cities have better productivity than, small towns. Bigger cities have even better productivity than normal cities. High-tech industry feels the need to concentrate even more. Just handful of cities become significant technology hubs.

Currently the only way people can build a hivemind is to get together around best universities.

</comment><comment><USER109> I know someone who was a remote worker from the early 1990s until a year or two ago. He was working from home in the Bay Area for a while, and moved somewhere else to get a lower cost of living.

Well, he pulled that off for a long time, but eventually he got laid off and couldn't find remote work. It's actually harder to find remote work now than it used to be.

So, he settled for a local job with a lower salary than he was used to, because the alternative was moving at least 100 miles away.

The bottom line is that living in an area with a high concentration of tech companies gives you a much better chance of finding work (both on-premise and remote) when your current job is no longer viable. If you work remotely, you need to be aware of the risks.

<comment><USER110> I'd say the situation is quite the opposite - it's now easier to find remote work than ever before. With numerous known companies embracing remote work, it's becoming both a lot more common to work remotely and also a lot more acceptable to inquire whether remote work would be an option.

<comment><USER111> Here in Europe, it pretty hard, because companies considering remote work will rather do it with eastern or asian companies, not local people.

If you are on the same country, the expectation is that remote work is to be done occasionally, mostly between one to two days per week, if at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> I think American Tech industry's failure to invest in various American and foreign cities is what is going to eventually make a Detroit of Silicon Valley. I am not sure why Facebook or Google do not have full fledged development centers in San Antonio or Phoenix or Singapore. Facebook still does not have a development center in India.

Sooner or later the Trump driven protectionism will be make other countries like India reciprocate in similar fashion where American tech companies will be denied access to say Indian market.

</comment><comment><USER113> I've been working remote for four years in Toronto. I'm here for a few reasons:

* My partner's work is based here * It's easy to visit both of our family's from here * If the company I work for goes belly up, there's an abundance of work available here (though I'd strongly prefer to stay remote)

We've toyed with the idea of moving, but remain here for now due to combinations of the above. I can virtually assure you that we'll move if and when we decide to purchase a home.

</comment><comment><USER114> I work from home but I meet some of my customers in person at least once per month, one of them at least once per week. Living in a distant place wouldn't be as good for business.

A customer of mine is a less than ten people company. A couple of developers work from remote almost all the time, in different cities. They come to the office a few consecutive days every few months. They are employees so their relationship with the company is stronger than mine.

</comment><comment><USER115> Ok. Let's look at Mark Zuck. He and his facebook plan were going to succeed anyway. If he had said, I need 10 000 devs working right next to me in Managua, Nicaragua, that is where they would be today. He didn't do it, but Zuck could have. Doing Facebook out of Managua would have worked, just like doing Skype out of Talinn, Estonia today works perfectly-well too.

<comment><USER116> No he couldn't have. He needed Bay Area investor money, he needed Bay Area connections and he needed the Bay Area press echo chamber. That's why he moved as a college kid out west to Palo Alto and not Nicaragua.

<comment><USER117> Exactly. I'm from Cambridge, MA and as much as it pains me, I'm not convinced he could have Facebook into what it is today from here.

There was a time not that long ago when it wasn't obvious who the social winner was going to be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER118> My boss asked me the other day what my long term career goals are. I said I do not aspire to move up into management. I just want to move to a cheaper city or maybe live on the road and work from somewhere not so expensive. I used to want to live in a nice tech city but, then I had kids.

</comment><comment><USER119> you can work remote as long as it's from the bay area...

</comment><comment><USER120> What on earth is the point in working hard and earning a large salary if there is sod all to spend it on?

If I were living in a small country town I'd be choosing a far more chilled job than I currently have because there isn't anything to spend the extra income on in a small town.

<comment><USER121> Nicer house (or just a house, period), vacations, toys, earlier retirement, children...

<comment><USER122> I think it depends where you are in you life. I spent my 20s in an expensive city earning good money and 'wasting' it all on good old hedonistic fun and adventures. I'm now spending my 30s living in the suburbs as a dull respectable member the (upper)middle class. There is no way I would have wanted to live my 20s like I'm living my 30s, nor would I particularly want to live my 30s like I lived my 20s (even though I sometimes do miss it).

<comment><USER123> Nothing worse than drinking like you're in your 20s and waking up again in your 30s with your two kids crawling on you demanding breakfast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER124> I think the answer is that you have to be close to the money. The VCs in the case of SF. Hedge funds and finance HFT in the case of London and NYC (speed of light limitation). Then you get a local network effect of consolidated industries.

</comment><comment><USER125> Expensive cities are where the jobs are. The grand majority of companies want their employees to work in their offices.

I really think the "developers can work anywhere" adage is way overstated. We're still tied to location like anyone else.

</comment><comment><USER126> The best jobs positions often do not allow for remote.

Here is a map showing average tech wages in a nice way: [https://jobsquery.it/map](https://jobsquery.it/map)

You can spot cities with highest salaries quite easy

</comment><comment><USER127> Because that's where the jobs are. I'm always wondering why the most interesting and best paid sofware openings in EU are in the shithole cities cities like London, Paris, Zurich, Munich etc (I'm not talking about these "best cities to live" rankings). Try renting anything livable there - it's not only extortionate but can be very difficult in terms of required documentation, try to eat out or use any services (prices), hanging out is difficult (Germany is simply old in terms of demographics, Switzerland boring and formal), etc. Don't make me relocate there.

<comment><USER117> "No one goes there anymore; it's too crowded..."

I don't think "shithole" is a reasonable description of the concern that's in your head about those cities. Overly expensive and cramped to live in, sure. Shithole? No way...

</comment></comment><comment><USER128> I would guess that something close to 97% of the available jobs for developers in my country are NOT remote.

So where you live counts A LOT for your career.

</comment><comment><USER129> I live in NYC, but have also lived in Boston, London, Paris, Tel Aviv during my professional life. These are fun cities with lots of young professionals with many things to do. There is lots of networking and international communities. Lots of Jazz, Blues, and other cultural attractions.

The cause of the high cost of housing is not that many want to live in these cities, but rather the "rent-seeking", a market failure or market inefficiency which is caused by a politically induced scarcity of housing through the use of zoning density restrictions. The inefficient markets interfere with wealth creation and instead the use of politics transfers wealth to special interest groups, in this case wealthy landlords like President Trump from people who rent and are buying housing.

Economist David Ricardo first developed the concept in the mid-19th century and joined British Parliament just to overturn the rent-seeking which harmed the British economy. In his particular case it was the "Corn Laws" which taxed imported grains of all types with the result that bread and basic food cost more for consumers. Farmers would receive more money for their grain, but ultimately the landlords who leased the farmland to farmers simply charged the farmers more money as a result. Thus, there was a politically induced transfer of wealth (ultimately) from (often lower class) consumers to wealthy landowners.

This is analogous to what is happening in the housing market today.

Japan fixed the problem in 2002 when it passed a federal law taking zoning authority away from local municipalities. The result: in 2014 Tokyo built 140,000 housing units compared with 20,000 for all of NYC and less than 90,000 for the entire state of California.

Interested readers should consult writers of Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser, Economist and Financial Times Columnist Tim Harford (book, "The Undercover Economist"), and articles by Steve Beyer

Edward Glaeser: [http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill- article-1....](http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill- article-1.1913739)

Tokyo's Affordable Housing Strategy: Build, Build, Build [https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos- af...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-affordable- housing-strategy-build-build-build/#1dada29548d5)

What Liberals Don't Get About Affordable Housing: Filtering. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/02/19/what- libe...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/02/19/what-liberals- dont-get-about-affordable-housing-filtering/#50bd85302879)

See also "Green Belt"

</comment><comment><USER130> This is because some of the developers have children. And it is not guaranteed that their children will take the same career path.

</comment><comment><USER131> Dunno. Come move to Kansas. We love our civil liberties and we have a metric crap ton of open space.

</comment><comment><USER132> Because the expensive cities is where the work is. How can that be such a big question?

</comment><comment><USER133> I like public transport and hate driving myself.

So I'm bound to big cities

</comment><comment><USER134> (Please forgive the side-story, I believe this comment eventually forms a cohesive story.)

Once upon a time I had 7 years experience doing web development and a young friend of mine came to me and asked "Would you please teach me web development?" So I did. This was in 2006. Then she moved to New York City, and she started job hopping. She worked at Huge, she worked at Blue Ocean, she worked at Alexander Interactive. I visited New York in 2008 and had lunch with her. I was surprised that her knowledge of project management techniques was now ahead of mine, even though she had less experience. What she did have was perspective -- she'd seen the strengths and weaknesses at Huge, and she was able to compare them to the strengths of weaknesses at Alexander Interactive, and other places. I had worked at my own company for 6 years, so I had much less perspective. I realized that if I was ever going to become a technology consultant, I would need to gain her broad overview of the strengths and weaknesses of multiple companies.

I spent 5 years living in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and then 10 more years living in a Richmond, Virginia and Charlottesville, Virginia. Those were very comfortable places to live, but also a bit boring. My friends who had children described them as good places to raise children, but I had no interest in kids so I had no use for what might be the #1 best attribute of those places. If you know the joke by that NFL player "You can't do nothin in Charlotte, except live" \-- that really applies to quite a few places. I was hoping I would eventually get to a more interesting place, like New York or London or Berlin.

In 2009 I moved to New York. I really, truly love New York. I've been working as a contractor and since I've moved here I've worked with 20 different companies. I've gotten to see a great diversity of what works and what fails. I've collected a lot of stories, some of which I've written about, and some of which I am still planning to write about. There are very few places in the world that offer as exciting a scene as New York. These mega cities, that combine culture and technology and funding and startups -- there are only perhaps 100 in a the world, and of the ones where English is the dominant language there are only perhaps 10.

It was in New York that I gained that broad overview that my friend had demonstrated in 2008. Therefore, New York has been fundamental to me becoming the kind of technology consultant that I was hoping to be.

I've spent a few months in San Francisco and I love that city, but to live I would prefer New York or London, because they are so much bigger and there are so many other offerings aside from the companies that work there.

For what I want to do, offer high level technology advice, having seen what works and what fails at dozens of different companies, there are only a few places where it makes sense for me to live and work.

I've visited Costa Rica and I love it. I hope to go back many more times. But only to visit. I'm still open to someday moving to London or Berlin, but I'm not considering "move to Costa Rica and live on the beach". It's simply not the career path that I'm interested in.

For my retirement, if I'm looking for some place cheap, I will consider Krakow. That assumes that Poland some day elects a sane government and therefore remains in Europe. I certainly hope to buy real estate in Krakow, as I think investing there is a bit like investing in New York in 1982, back when everyone thought that New York was dead and without a future.

</comment><comment><USER135> > it was always a country to keep offshore companies/accounts, so every rich > developer in ex-USSR already been there and knew the place, but since 2014 > it started to make sense to move physically as well

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that since 3 years ago Cyprus (among others) 'sells' EU permanent residency permits to rich foreigners. You can imagin that an EU permanent residency permit, allowing you to live and work in all of the EU is worth more than gold for rich people in Putin's Russia, KGB Belarus and war-thorn Ukraine.

Let's not pretend Cyprus is an international tech hub for developers and start ups...

[http://gulfnews.com/business/property/cyprus-property- opens-...](http://gulfnews.com/business/property/cyprus-property-opens- avenues-to-eu-residency-1.2001249)

<comment><USER136> > _I 'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that since 3 years ago > Cyprus (among others) 'sells' EU permanent residency permits to rich > foreigners._

You know, the solution to "problems" like that is to abolish visas altogether.

A visa is essentially a permission to exist in a certain geographical area. Why exactly do you need one?

Yes I know governments won't let you in/out without one, but _what sense_ does it make?

What possible _moral justification_ is there, for preventing you from moving freely when you're not harming anyone else?

You've heard of people "misusing" their visas, right? But how crazy is the idea of "misusing" your permission to exist in an area?

How crazy is it that visas come with a list of activities you're allowed to engage in?

For example, if you're on a tourist visa, you're not allowed to work in exchange for money, nor sell your company's product to someone.

You might think it's because governments need to keep track of who owes them taxes and how much, but um.. what sense does _that_ make?

Say you were born in England and lived there all your life. Then you fly over to Thailand on a tourist visa, and you fix someone's bicycle in exchange for a small fee.

How/why is Thailand's government entitled to a cut of the money you made in doing that? If you believe in the Social Contract, does that get temporarily passed from England to Thailand, for the duration of your stay?

Or did you perhaps unwittingly sign a new one with Thailand, by entering their territory?

Would sitting on a plane that happens to cross some specific unseen line on a map constitute _agreeing_ to a binding obligation to hand over some of your income to the organization "in charge" of the area you entered?

Of course not, but that's what The Rules say. But why/how are we bound by The Rules?

Well, we're not. Not in any objective, moral sense at all. But we all obey the rules anyway.

Why is that, _besides_ to avoid being punished for disobedience?

<comment><USER137> Familiarize yourself with Chesterton's fence. It might give you some insight into one of the reasons why your rhetoric finds no traction.

<comment><USER136> Nah. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

<comment><USER138> Well that does it. I wasn't convinced before, but now I am.

<comment><USER136> I bet you found it convincing when someone evoked some Academic bullshit to hand-wavily discredit me?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER134> Have I been shadowbanned or something? Either something is wrong with the way my browser renders this page, or my comment was deleted from this page. My comment was here, I thought it was a good one:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14035764&goto=threads%...](https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14035764&goto=threads%3Fid%3Dlkrubner%2314035764)

<comment><USER134> I think maybe Hacker News is suffering some kind of glitch. I am not able to see any of my comments getting posted, but someone was able to downvote this previous comment, so I have to assume that this previous comment was being posted somewhere, even if I can't see it. It's a confusing situation where other people can see my comments, but I can not see them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER136> > _people with self-determination, i.e., a country, have decided_

You know that's just flat out false, especially considering you've personally never been asked about it.

> _countries agree to give up part of sovereignty_

Again, you were not asked. Neither was any other ordinary person affected.

> _the tourist visa explicitly has a number of terms and conditions_

I brought up the idea of the Social Contract. You're talking about something completely unrelated, and thus not addressing my point.

But whatever. You're most likely just yet another psychopath spewing your bullshit, and this account is probably shadow-banned already, because I'm.. _wrong_?

<comment><USER139> What difference does it make if someone has been asked or not? The rules apply anyway, consent or consensus is not required.

Sovereignty works not only for full democracies, but also for monarchies, dictatorships, and various kinds of representative decisionmaking.

But the main point I was trying to make is that if "you were born in England and lived there all your life. Then you fly over to Thailand on a tourist visa" then whatever social contract Thailand people have established in Thailand doesn't matter - you are not entitled to its benefits, you are not part of their social group (yet?), you don't have an inherent right to be part of that group, and it's up to them whether they will extend their social contract to you at all and if so, on what conditions. In this regard it doesn't make a meaningful difference _how_ Thailand decides it and who gets asked. Self-determination of countries is a thing even if those countries are internally governed very unfairly - coming from outside it doesn't matter, you anyway wouldn't get a say on how they're governed.

Again, it doesn't matter of all or most people there were asked on that - <USER4> they don't like their system, they're free to change it, but until then whoever or whatever rules there gets to make the rules how Thailand will handle travel across it's borders.

Unrestricted travel is not a core human right, the right of national/regional self-determination is considered more important and overrides it. There is a right to decide who visits in your territory, and there is no inherent right for a visitor to come if they're not invited.

</comment></comment><comment><USER140> Because developers are social animals too?

<comment><USER140> Did I say something wrong?

I mean that it is only natural that like minded people seeks one another, and group up in clusters.

It is human nature.

Yes, it's expensive, but there are also opportunity, and humans are opportunistic creatures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER141> Cuz, I love you all.</comment>


Coolest 3D video i've seen - <AUTHOR> http://8i.com/play/zach_1984

<comment><USER2> they don't say anything about the capturing device, the only info is that it is based on cameras.

the website is a bit misleading, it shows a phone app viewing a 3d video. it appeared to me at first that the phone was the capturing device. but after investigating, it seems to me that they at least need a camera array. if this was captured on a phone, it would be shocking

</comment><comment><USER3> what are the tech used?</comment>


Protecting vs. pissing off early adopters - <AUTHOR> http://berlinvc.com/2014/12/29/protecting-what-you-dont-have/ <comment><USER2> It's important to try to understand why your users are using your product and see if that matches your expectations - If it doesn't then you're doing something wrong and it needs to change.

</comment><comment><USER3> Good point Ciaran - data set is also small but the tendency not to want to piss off early adopters is also driven by the desire not to turn off any revenue streams (no matter how small)</comment>


Satisficing - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing <comment><USER2> See also: goal programming. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_programming))

Goal programming uses a linear programming formulation (amenable to fast optimization with the Simplex method or one of its variants) to describe a satisficing problem. The lexicographic variant is particularly powerful.</comment>


Improving HTML5 Canvas Performance - <AUTHOR> http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/canvas/performance/

<comment><USER2> Hey I was featured in this! :D

I was asked to help write it, but few of my collected performance notes made it into the article because I was too slow. On the plus side, I'll have a canvas performance chapter out in two books in the near future.

Here are a couple off the top of my head really quick:

* pre-rendering is most applicable to text, especially text that never moves (Such as buttons). In fact, any text or complex paths+text to make things like buttons should be turned into pngs. Drawing text and changing fonts is extremely slow.

* re-use your gradients as much as possible, and try to avoid creating them in loops. If you have one gradient that fills several figures you should be making it only once. The function createLinearGradient(x0, y0, x1, y1) goes from one point to another, but you can make your gradient at the origin createLinearGradient(0, 0, toX, toY) and then _translate_ it into the correct location for each figure made in the for loop.

* cache cache cache canvas properties. Never ever set any of them more than you have to, `font` especially. The setter for `font` and the fill styles can change the value so setting it to the same value twice might not be a no-op. It's up to you to make it so. And setting the font especially is really, really slow.

* Avoid save and restore, use them rarely if ever. The only time you should ever really need them is because there is no resetClip currently implemented. For transforms you can can track of them yourself, here's a simple file I made to do that:

[https://github.com/simonsarris/Canvas- tutorials/blob/master/...](https://github.com/simonsarris/Canvas- tutorials/blob/master/transform.js)

* fillRect(x,y,1,1) will always be faster than 1x1 putImageData(x,y), but 400 fillRect's will be slower than a 20x20 putImageData(x,y). How often the fillStyle changes will change that hand-wavy metric of mine. If you're placing a lot of pixels in a single frame you should definitely test both to see which is faster in your scenario.

<comment><USER3> > re-use your gradients as much as possible, and try to avoid creating them in > loops. If you have one gradient that fills several figures you should be > making it only once. The function createLinearGradient(x0, y0, x1, y1) goes > from one point to another, but you can make your gradient at the origin > createLinearGradient(0, 0, toX, toY) and then translate it into the correct > location for each figure made in the for loop.

Very true, I did exactly that for <http://www.gamesfrommars.fr/demojsv2/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It would be interesting to see these run against a "null" canvas backend to understand how much of the time is JS dispatch versus draw. Also, I think recent Chromium doesn't perform the drawing directly, but records the commands and plays them back in another process, so I'd expect any readback operations (where JS sees the raw pixels) to be slow.

</comment><comment><USER5> Why is this using such an old version of Firefox? (3 version back now, 2 when it was published.)

(This is a serious question, the author seems to have a lot of up-to-date browsers, except for FF, so presumably there is some explanation, e.g. updating process is too difficult, or something.)

<comment><USER6> The article is over a year old, so all browsers there are older.

<comment><USER5> Woah! Completely missed that it was published in August _2011_ , not 2012. Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


Gocryptfs: successor to EncFS by the EncFS co-maintainer - <AUTHOR> https://nuetzlich.net/gocryptfs/comparison/ <comment><AUTHOR> This project deserves a lot of credit, and hopefully will get enough attention that the author will be able to crowdfund a security audit.</comment>