[yesimahuman]

So far it’s working out and we’re excited about growing here. Our data says we’re competitive on compensation and I’m proud of our retention. I’m very happy about the level of our engineering talent and this team is building a successful product used around the world right here in Madison.

I’m sorry you didn’t have a great experience with your last team.

[electricEmu]

I'm glad your happy with your company's engineering output.

As an engineer, I would head for Chicago or Minneapolis. Madison doesn't have "the next job". When that time comes, I wouldn't want to uproot my family.

I'm glad your rention is stellar. I would expect increased retention due to lack of alternatives.

Most companies believe their compensation is competitive. A lot of them are wrong.

The Midwest might be a place where companies can skirt those two things fairly easy.

[ryandrake]

Is there any company out there who actually says “our compensation is NOT competitive?” That’s pretty much the lowest bar. When I hear “competitive salary” it means the company can’t think of a more positive word to describe it that is also truthful.

[yesimahuman]

I'm really not sure what your point is. If you're losing candidates based on compensation being too low, then you're not competitive.

[ryandrake]

Everyone at least says their compensation is competitive—-it’s not a way for an employer to differentiate. As a candidate, when I see the word “competitive” that tells me it’s lower than “generous,” “excellent,” “top of market,” basically lower than any other description of compensation out there.

[maccard]

Maybe not but there are plenty of companies who don’t say their company is competitive.

[pnutjam]

Yes, "Next job opportunity" is the biggest stumbling block in the midwest. It's workable, but more difficult when you become more specialized.

I've always assumed this is the same everywhere, but I've never received a competitive raise outside of my first year with a company. If you come in and make some big adjustments that save money, you might (maybe) get a bump, but after that they take it for granted. I've only ever kept up with inflation (especially health care inflation), by changing employers, so "next job" is a huge consideration.

[yesimahuman]

You certainly would be entitled to make that decision, and many do! The point of my original comment was that we have sufficient talent to build and scale tech companies here. It's certainly not going to attract every talented worker (like yourself), but not even the bay area has that going for it anymore.

For entrepreneurs thinking of building in the Midwest, you absolutely can. Let's not let that point get lost in a discussion about personal values.

[chaostheory]

> not even the bay area has that going for it anymore.

Are there definitive stats on this because I would disagree especially compared to the Midwest?

[yesimahuman]

My point was there are enough talented people who don't want to work in the bay area that other cities have enough to grow tech companies. This is kind of obvious.

[chaostheory]

That’s always been the case. The issue is quality. Outside of the valley, top caliber developers tend to congregate in big hubs like NYC or LA; or interesting places like Portland / Seattle, Austin, or Denver. The Midwest tends to be for locals only due to a combination of less agressive investors (not to mention a lack of), bad climate, and lack of stuff to do compared to everywhere else

Chicago would be an exception but crime would keep people away

Can any of this change? Of course, but it’s really hard to change culture and climate takes time (ex even after all these years CA still had a gold rush mindset)

[Fins]

Chicago didn't seem to have that great a real crime problem (as opposed to perception) when I lived there.

There probably would not be much to do in Nebraska, but then I can't see Bay Area as being exactly an epicenter of culture either.