[thatsenough]

If my company announces WFH for the rest of the year, I'll be moving out of San Francisco in a heart beat. The office has been the only thing keeping me here for a long time now.

I imagine SF natives might say, "Good riddance, don't let the door hit you on the way out," and I completely agree. I don't have issues with the city itself, but the value you get for your money here is completely abysmal if you're a renter or potential home buyer.

[echelon]

Come to Atlanta!

There are satellite offices for many of the major tech companies (some of them not so "satellite" at 200ish engineers).

The cost of living is cheap, it's not cold in the summer, and there's so much culture. Atlanta is in a forest, so if you like outdoors stuff, you'd be in the right place.

[aceperry]

What's the political situation like there? I hear about things like voter suppression by the Republicans and other shenanigans in those states.

[echelon]

The city and (most) of the suburbs are very blue. Atlanta itself is rated as one of the most LGBT-friendly cities in the country [1].

Unfortunately, the state is still red due to the population living outside of the MSA. The city and the suburbs are resoundingly blue, though [2].

The governor pulled some very shady voter suppression tactics in the last election. [3, 4] They're afraid, and they know their time is short.

We need more blue voters. We're close to turning the state, and that would be a huge victory.

[1] https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/top-places-for-lgbtq-fol...

[2] https://www.ajc.com/atlanta-neighborhood-2016-presidential-e...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/30/did-racia...

[4] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/6/18253689/vo...

[RhysU]

Why are the red suburbs red?

[chrisco255]

The reason why the cost of living is sane in Republican states is because they don't place undue restrictions on housing supply. You might acknowledge that each political party has significant trade-offs with the policies they support, and move to a red state with that in mind.

[illumin8]

Factually inaccurate. The reason the cost of living is lower in red states is simply due to location. People desire to live in coastal cities like NY, SF, LA, Seattle, etc.

Supply and demand drive prices. Do you think real estate is expensive on the upper east side in Manhattan because of an undue restriction on housing supply? Or is it just because many people want to live and work in NYC?

[erik_seaberg]

I don't know much about Manhattan, but SF is not allowing supply to meet the demand being signaled by absurd prices. Density in the neighborhoods is very low and construction that would increase it is almost never approved.

[illumin8]

The SF bay area is an outlier, and yes, I agree about the restriction of supply problems we face (I live here). But to simply paint all blue states as similar to SF is inaccurate.

[pochamago]

Doesn't Houston disprove this? Or Tokyo? Supply and demand are effected by the local regulations in place.

[chrisco255]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/slideshows/these-are...

The fastest growing region in the United States is the South. Of the top 10 fastest growing states in 2019...only 2 of them voted blue in 2016. California is growing at its slowest rate in history:

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-population-grow...

Yes, supply and demand drive prices, but if you artificially constrict supply like California does with absurdly restrictive zoning laws and inflexible housing policies that only act to protect inflationary ponzi scheme, then you get the present-day California real estate market bubble.

[ahelwer]

Sadly no mountains (I am actually moving to Atlanta in a month, for other reasons). Decent rock climbing though. And great fruit selection.

[echelon]

We do have mountains!

We're also only an hour and a half from Chattanooga, TN, which has amazing mountain climbing.

[navailable]

I love SF, but no reason to overpay for a small studio when I can't even go to a tech meetup...left March 14th.

[mleonhard]

I don't want to leave my friends here.

[mrep]

Edit: reworded.

Careful, some of my teammates and I are trying to do that and we have to get it cleared by management first as it changes what state taxes they will have to pay.

[dboreham]

Huh? People move states all the time. There are IRS rules about which state you should be deemed a resident, and you'll need to file state tax return in both states for the year in which you move. But there's no magic about needing a lease. I'm sure there are thousands of people living in their cars still paying taxes.

[cdjk]

Unemployment insurance (and family/medical leave), workers compensation, and health insurance are the biggest issues. Adding a new state for one employee can be a lot of overhead.

[hoorayimhelping]

This is common in places like New York City, so it's well understood for companies on how to make it work. It's not very common in San Francisco to have commuters from out of state.

I work for a remote company headquartered in California with employees all over the US. Every state, even states with no state income tax, have different codes and expectations when it comes to taxes. Adding a new state to our payroll system takes a significant amount of time and effort to get right.

[jldugger]

I think the bigger worry isn't that they'll fuck up filing with the IRS, but that in order for them to be compliant you'll have to notify them you moved, at which point they'll be onto your clever scheme and demand you take a cost of living pay cut.

[bdcravens]

For the employer's taxes, are there incentives for hiring in-state? Or would it impact where they are considered to have a presence, for sales tax purposes?

[ghaff]

>considered to have a presence, for sales tax purposes

Mostly irrelevant these days post-Wayfair.

>For the employer's taxes, are there incentives for hiring in-state?

I am not an accountant but there is some overhead with adding employees in different states and, especially, countries. And things like payments into unemployment pools may differ by state.

[gdulli]

Imagine living in Manhattan right now. (1) All the culture and lifestyle you're paying a high premium for is unavailable, and (2) the apartment you're trapped in is tiny. (Compared to what you'd have elsewhere for that money.)

So I agree, relocation makes sense for some people.

[twblalock]

A lot of companies in the Bay Area will cut your pay if you move to another state which has a lower cost of living. At some companies it is an official HR policy -- compensation is adjusted for cost of living.

Don't expect to continue making Bay Area money after moving to another state unless you get an official guarantee from HR that your compensation won't change. If you stay in California you will probably be fine but you should still make sure.

[znpy]

Watching the SF bubble pop is going to be funny.

[autokad]

will you move to the outskirts or somewhere else entirely?

I am trying to decide where I want to be if I have a choice. Currently I am in Seattle, dont like the city much. No offense to the city, its just not for me as I like 75+ degree days. I thought about trying California, but I'd loose so much of my income to rent and taxes. Still trying to decide

[indecisive_user]

Austin? A growing tech city, gets in the 70s nearly year round, no state income tax. I hear a lot of devs are moving there from California

[Dig1t]

Actually, in the high 90's for much of the year unfortunately with obnoxious humidity, and very chilly in the wintertime. It's a bit extreme sometimes, but it definitely is better than Seattle IMO.