|
|
|
|
|
|
by mattnewport
2643 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not sure about this characterization of "destination cities". The primary reason developers move to Seattle or SF is pay and career opportunities. The primary reasons for leaving are things like cost of living, commutes and lifestyle. Vancouver by contrast is more of what I'd call a "destination city" - people move there for the lifestyle and location (surrounded by ocean and mountains) and leave because of the cost of living and lack of career opportunities. Certainly for some people SF or Seattle have a lot more to offer than just career opportunities and not everyone is going to like the Vancouver lifestyle but in my experience the primary draw of SF is money and career not desire to live in the cities for other reasons. I think the story might be a little different for NY where lifestyle might be as big a draw for many people as career opportunities. |
|
|
They are mythologized in news, song, film and TV.
Try to recruit someone to Toledo, Ohio vs. SF with the same cost-of-living-adjusted-pay and there's no comparison.
California is a place where people 'want' to move. NYC has been branded as the 'centre of action' for almost a century now. Just the other day I was reading about how artists feel they need to be located there for brand purposes.
The only people who 'aspire' to move to a regular city are those in smaller towns in the immediate vicinity, i.e. in rural Ontario, Toronto is an 'aspiration' it's 'the big city'. (Also, Toronto is an aspiration for a lot of migrants worldwide but that's a different story).
SF and NYC have access to a global talent pool.
Toronto has access mostly just Ontario.
FYI I worked at a 'big name company' in Waterloo Ontario and it was really hard to bring people in, especially Americans for whom Canada it seemed may have as well been the arctic. Those few we did bring up, often kept their 'primary residence' in the US, or otherwise felt they were doing a 'tour of duty' and would otherwise want to go home.