I have a feeling my own "Why I Chose New Hampshire" would not have the same traction on HN, though it would bear some similarity to this post. Maybe I should write it anyway.
I live in an 1840's house that I love. I walk seven minutes to main street (and work) every day. I live a mere hour from the mountains, the ocean, boston, minutes from country. I don't have any wants, I just like programming and reading and making things. I live a simple life, I like to think.
Yet I get an email from a recruiter once a week (or a little less often, some more personal invitation) who are thrilled to talk to me until the point that they find that I have no intention of leaving New Hampshire.
Willingness to uproot one's entire life and move (to Silicon Valley), it seems, is a foregone conclusion to them and I never cease to astonish my correspondents by not wanting to go there.
I don't begrudge them. But I don't understand why in the grand game of chess I would exchange 23 years of life for a single job.
(At last one correspondent signed, "let me know if you ever decide to head west, young man :-)")
I got the same astonishment from my friends when I told them I was leaving NYC. "Why would you leave New York?" "Is there anything in Wisconsin?" One even told me if I wasn't happy in NYC, I should seek therapy, because there was clearly something wrong with me.
and douglas adams's beautiful take-off on the quote:
Ursa Minor Beta is, some say, one of the most appalling places in the known Universe.
Although it is excruciatingly rich, horrifyingly sunny and more full of wonderfully exciting people than a pomegranate is of pips, it can hardly be insignificant that when a recent edition of Playbeing magazine headlined an article with the words "When you are tired of Ursa Minor Beta you are tired of life", the suicide rate quadrupled overnight.
(from "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe")
I think it is. The trees are exactly the right height. I'm kidding :) There is a lot here, just not people, which is why I came. I wanted more trees, more rivers to canoe, more lakes to relax by. You can find that in upstate NY, too, but I already had family and friends back here, so upstate was out.
Strangely, New York and Silicon Valley are the two places that I've always eliminated when I considered moving. I, too, graduated from utexas, and then stayed in Austin for about 20 years. I never wanted to take the cut in my standard of living that either SV or NY would mean. A few years back, I did move, even further from civilization.
Back in 1994, I bought a three-bedroom townhouse for $45,000; during the dot-com boom, I realized that moving to Cali would mean living in a refrigerator box with six other people. These days, I'm paying (half of) a $1600/month mortgage on a house on 1.5 acres on the shore of the Tennessee river.
Austin is a great place to live. Great food, the best music, a very low cost of living and a thriving tech scene. Since the city is home to one of the best CS programs in the country (UT Austin) you have a plethora of fresh engineering talent for the picking.
It continually surprises me how many folks make it out to Austin for SXSW each year, and yet still go back to California. As a native Texan and Mexican food addict, I found the lack of great food options in Norcal lacking. :)
(disclaimer: I actually live in Dallas, which is a nice city, just not as nice as Austin)
Not much to say. Just really like your "grand game of chess" anology. Too many people overlook what they're giving up to get something. Especially time, or tranquility.
Anywhere particular in NH?
I seem to see a distinction between purely software-based startups (based in the Bay Area or NYC) and more hardware-based companies based in Mass (Boston) (MIT spinoffs, boston dynamics, iRobot) or New Hampshire (DEKA, Segway...) ... I wonder why?
This is great, I left NYC for many of the same reasons the OP cites as wanting to move there. Really, I should write a post on "Why I'm choosing the Midwest"
NYC has so many women. Beautiful women. But if you're looking to have kids, settle down and move away to where your kid has his own lawn to play on, your odds drop close to zero. So many people date in NYC, so few commit for the rest of their lives. I was so naive when I moved there at 26, I thought I would be married within a year. All my friends had gotten married while still in college. NYC just ain't the place.
Lack of a commute? Yes, but add in the time to get everywhere else. That party in Brooklyn? An hour. Finding somewhere, anywhere, where buildings don't dot the horizon and you feel at peace? Try a few hours. Enjoy the subway construction my friend.
I will say that NYC kills when it comes to food. Its the best, unless you're trying to find a nice cheap bratwurst, then NYC sucks it up big time. But the Midwest makes up for it. I have a canoe, a giant deck bigger than my NYC apt with a grill on it and streets that get plowed. Midwest, I think you win.
I think this gets to the point of why these debates are useless when talking on a personal level- everyone is different.
I'm 28, and I still don't want to get married. I have no problem with buildings dotting the horizon (when I want to leave the city, I fly away somewhere far, far away. Or go to Prospect Park). So, I probably wouldn't care too much for the Midwest. Everyone is different.
You're right. Funnily enough, Prospect Park was where I realized I didn't like it there. I was enjoying a good run in the park with my roommate and telling her how great it was. Then I realized the only reason I was happy was that the park was completely empty: it was 10 o'clock at night and a downpour had just happened.
Yes, I grew up in Wisconsin and lived in Los Angeles for the past ten years. Many of my friends in WI have since married and possibly had kids. Few of my friends in L.A. have done either.
Right, but the question is whether the higher fraction of women who are marriage-minded overcomes the lower absolute number (and density). Have you felt like you've made more progress?
You don't have to answer this highly personal question, of course! It's just that it's likely I'm moving to NYC for my next job, and I'm interested in the prospects.
I suspect Chicago is Wisconsin's #1 export market for brats and cheese. I love Chicago, but I also love my neighbors to the north. Keep 'em coming. I'll eat more. :-)
So many people date in NYC, so few commit for the rest of their lives
I've found that to be the case in the SF area, as well. A (female) friend moved out to DC. She was shocked at how female acquaintances behaved there. She relayed their statements like, "well, yeah, Larry has some anger problems when he's drinking, but he's a good man." Our shared opinion was that SF suffers from grass-is-always-greener syndrome, where people have been presented with so many options for so long, that they come to believe there is always something (or someone) better to be had.
As always, YMMV, and I can only speak from the experiences of myself and my pool of friends.
Not really, among my age group it was true. In the Midwest many of my friends were getting married in college. In NYC, very few of my friends under 30 were married. In fact, I met more married people under 30 living apart (because it used to be tough to get a divorce in New York) than living together.
You're right though, that maybe it should say "so few commit for the rest of their lives at an early age." Most of my friends had absolutely no desire to get married before 30 in NYC.
I should also probably add that my statement shows my cultural biases, namely that being committed means being married. There were many long-term couples in NYC who were together but not married.
I hope this doesn't spark off another round of NYC vs. SV arguments[1]- there is no empirically "right" answer. Both have strengths and weaknesses, and the choice is all about what you want as a person, and what you want for your startup.
Don't be fooled into thinking that SV will be the saviour of your dreams (the guy living out of his car comes to mind), but also don't think that NYC is an instant shortcut to making it big. I'm in New York and I wouldn't have it any other way. But I'm just one person.
[1] I think these arguments are always worse because of the time difference. As I write this, it's 10am here in NYC and the thread is 100% New Yorkers. In three hours time Californians will start logging in and be horrified at the overwhelmingly one-sided view, and start responding.
I'm the guy living from his car. I never implied that Silicon Valley will make me a success (or be my savior). I simply said that there are a lot of advantages to being there. I don't think one can argue against that.
It's only Bay vs NYC? Why not stay in Austin? Every startup here is hiring. Why not Boston, Boulder, Seattle, or Portland? Not mentioning other cities seems shortsighted. Online startups can exist anywhere. If you're not interested in groupthink considering other cities seems very reasonable.
I also don't buy your SF commute argument. There are tons of startups in downtown SF. You don't have to live in the bay area and work in the valley. If I were to move out there I'd live and work in SF, I wouldn't even consider SV.
The reason I narrowed down my selection to Bay Area v. NYC was the following:
1. I'm from the NYC area, and have a lot of friends who will be living there. I also have a lot of friends in Silicon Valley. I don't know too many people who are sticking around in Austin. While it wouldn't be the end of the world to live in a place where I didn't know a ton of people, I'd prefer to live in a place where I have a preexisting friend group. Plus, I went to college for four years here; Austin is great, but after 4 years, I need a change of pace.
2. NYC is arguably the 2nd best city for tech(behind Silicon Valley). With Bloomberg's initiative to start a tech-centric campus on Roosevelt island, and the recent influx of big tech companies (Facebook, Google, Twitter, Palantir, etc.), it's becoming a very hot city for tech in a very short period of time.
As a young person in their early 20s, I think it makes sense for him to try his luck in NYC or SF and live that life for a while when his skills are in demand there. Once he's ready to settle down, move somewhere more friendly to that way of life. Better to do it now than regret not doing it later.
Austin, Boston, Boulder, Seattle, or Portland are all towns where one can settle down and raise a family without having to settle for a corporate 9-5 gig since there's vibrant startup/tech communities in these cities too. The option is always there and is especially attractive once you've got the Bay Area or NYC experience under your belt.
I love Austin, but I think that there's a story to be told about location when it comes to Gowalla vs. Foursquare. Look at FS now- they're partnering with American Express, Bravo, Conde Nast... there is a lot to be said for the connections you can make in a city like New York.
Previously, I thought Gowalla was the only somewhat known startup in Austin, but they sold to Facebook. Are there any other somewhat known startups in Austin?
I work in an office with WP Engine and Other Inbox (recently acquired by Return Path.) There are plenty of startups here; the Capital Factory folks probably know many of them.
I moved here from the Bay Area (with a 2-year stay in San Diego in the middle) and I'm really happy with the quality of life and the tech community here in Austin. I can buy a house and live comfortably here, and the taxes are far cheaper--important when you really start earning money!
I'm going to second the reply to your comment. I thought what you think too, but it turns out the energy of a city matters. I moved from the Bay Area to San Diego. I LOVE San Diego. Still have many friends there. Unfortunately the tech community there is really small. So I moved my entire company to Austin. We are much happier here. Plus, our revenues have doubled in the three months we've been here--just from the connections we've made.
Austin feels like a "mini-Bay Area" to me. I didn't want to start my next company in the bubble, especially since we're working with a lot of "oldschool" businesses. Austin is booming, but things are still relatively inexpensive here, and there are plenty of customers. Plus, we found an amazing Python developer here--I'm not sure that would have been as possible in the Bay Area.
I'm still willing to travel to the Bay Area; I just don't want to live there again.
You're right, in one sense. Part of it is the same effect that results in four gas stations on one intersection, part of it is the presence of resources and connections, and part is that success breeds success.
On the other hand, my attempt at a point was that once you've started your business, you have to focus on it. Suddenly all that other innovation around you stops being opportunities and starts being distractions. If anyone says to you, "What you're doing is stupid, you should be doing what those guys over there are doing," you probably shouldn't listen to them. The last thing you need to be doing is chasing instead of being chased.
I second that the OP should look more into staying in Austin. Austin has plenty of women, and you don't need to have a car here if you don't want too. I have been living here a year without a car and do fine, plus your money goes farther here in Austin. I have lived in the Bay and LA, and while the weather is the best in SoCal (best in the US?) I love everything Austin has to offer and will be here a while.
car2go? I moved down in October and was lucky enough to borrow a friend's car for awhile. It feels generally necessary, but I don't have one yet either. Are you downtown/soco?
Don't forget about how expensive housing is in NYC. If you want to live in Manhattan and have ever lived anywhere else, to get an apartment that vaguely resembles what you consider an apartment, you're going to be paying $3000 a month. Recently, it seems, Brooklyn has realized that it is not very far away from Manhattan and the rents have gone up to match. In Chicago, I lived in a brand new building, downtown, and had an 820 square foot apartment for $1400 a month. In Brooklyn, I have about 500 square feet, no AC, no microwave, in a building built in 1883 for $2400 a month. And, I had to pay a broker two months rent for the privilege of renting their apartment. (Yes, Brooklyn Heights is a particularly expensive neighborhood and the commute time to Chelsea is less than from many places in Manhattan. But it's not a $1000 value-add from what I had in Chicago.)
Ultimately, I can afford this because Google pays me a lot of money and buys me three meals a day. But if you are bootstrapping a startup, you probably don't have this much money to burn, and there's really no compelling reason to live in NYC unless you spend all your time doing social things. If you're programming, buy yourself a more comfortable apartment in Kansas City, or something. $2400 a month buys you the entire city :)
Brooklyn Heights is literally the most expensive neighborhood in Brooklyn, which probably means it's the most expensive neighborhood in NYC outside Manhattan. If you cared about money you should not have moved there.
Yes, it's pretty expensive, though DUMBO is more expensive. But you can get a lot farther out in Brooklyn without saving much money. Williamsburg, Park Slope, Ft. Greene, Carroll Gardens, Downtown Brooklyn all seem about as expensive as Brooklyn Heights, while being farther away from Manhattan and without as much subway coverage. My thought is: if you want to spend less than $2000 for a one-bedroom and live in a nice neighborhood with subway service less than a half-mile away, it doesn't matter where you live. It's not going to happen.
Why don't more hackers consider Los Angeles? Cheaper and easier to find housing than the bay or NYC hands down, better weather, and plenty of single women who jump at the chance to date guys that aren't actors and/or yoga instructors!
Given, the tech scene in LA isn't great but it's not that far from SF and there are definitely some hackers around UCLA and the Westside.
I love New Yorkers but New York City is a zoo. You're constantly fighting the crowds, the street noise, and there is an extremely high cost of living. Some people thrive in this environment. I however find that my blood pressure rises to unacceptable levels.
In Los Angeles I know plenty of people with a yard and driveway living in nice walkable neighborhoods near the beach or in and around hollywood paying less than $1500-$1700/month.
Traffic isn't as bad as everyone thinks. The sprawl is desirable if you want to live in a big city but still be able to afford a place with a yard and driveway.
11 years in LA here. The traffic is awful around rush hours, worst I've seen anywhere outside of DC. But off-peak can be fine. And, honestly, you just get used to it. You take it into account, everyone else takes it into account, that's how it is.
The sprawl isn't as much of a factor as some might imagine. You tend to stay within 10-15 miles of home anyway, so it doesn't matter that there's another 50-60 miles of sprawl beyond that. Besides, it's not like SV is sprawl-free.
LA is much bigger than SF, and that's mostly a benefit. More options for most everything.
As far as dating, just avoid anyone in any way connected to entertainment and it's fine. I'm sort of kidding. Sort of not.
It's cheaper than SV, for sure. Though the upper end can compete with the upper end of SF as well. It's a city where you can spend as much as you'd like, there's not really a ceiling.
Los Angeles gets a bad rap culturally, but in reality it's second only to New York in just about any cultural way you'd care to name. There's a LOT of creative people here in just about every creative arena.
One thing I really like about LA is that there's probably more people trying to live their wildest dreams than anywhere else on earth. I think that's admirable.
Biggest downside? Weather. I hate the lack of rain. Something I hear a lot from people who are from elsewhere. Summers are quite tedious.
Lots of good pros/cons of New York mentioned in these comments, so just one thing to add I haven't seen mentioned: after 7 years living & working in Manhattan/Brooklyn, my network is saturated with people in a dozen different industries who all seem to have careers advancing at 2x speed of the people I know anywhere else.
I consistently meet people in their late 20's and early 30's who are serious players in a wide variety of business and artistic endeavors. I don't have to go more than one degree of separation to find someone at the top of any field. I know less entrepreneurs here than in SV, but the cross-pollination in NYC is a big deal.
Having lived in both San Francisco and New York (and a dozen other places), I can attest that all the OP's points sound factually correct-dating is much easier for straight men, commutes are shorter, and there is a lot more diversity when it comes to careers.
I live in the New York City area. The benefits you state are true however if you are in fact contemplating a start up your access to engineers in the Silicon Valley area are going to be far greater than in the New York City area. That may be changing but sometimes groupthink can be positive thing. It can help nurture and further develop an industry. You mentioned the finance industry being in New York however realize that the finance industry developed in New York because of groupthink.
Everything I've heard is that it is near impossible to find talent in Silicon Valley. I've heard it's also the same in NYC ... shit, it's the same everywhere.
With a quarter of the young population out of work, nevertheless the idea that it's "impossible to find talent" continues.
It's like a new blacksmith coming into town and complaining that there aren't any trained blacksmiths for him to hire, while staring at 50 strong farmboys who are holding up "will work for food" signs.
If only there was some way of teaching people new skills... but alas, no such thing exists.
If only there was some way of teaching people new skills
It's the other way around. If those farmboys you postulate don't have the initiative and aptitude to take up hacking, they're unlikely to be a great addition to a software team. The last thing you need is someone passively waiting to be told what to do and taught how to do it.
It would be great to be proven wrong about this, but I've seen lots of examples of it being a problem and not one counterexample.
If mainstream culture changes to one in which the idea of doing this work and being excited by it and making things with it becomes widespread, then one might see significant growth in the talent pool. If more creative sparks are flying around, the chance of one of your farmboys catching fire is greater. But that's a longer-term process. To become good at this stuff, people don't need training - they need inspiration.
In my experience most companies aren't interested in "initiative and aptitude". They are generally unwilling to look at people without a few years of experience already.
I moved to NYC and started job-hunting in early 2011. I didn't have a background in software development but I had programmed in VBA for 18 months (pricing insurance), used R for my statistics masters degree project and had been dabbling in Python for around 5 years (all self-taught).
Through direct applications, headhunters and networking at various meetup events I hunted for tech and tech/finance jobs for about eight months. While things would sometimes look promising, if usually came down to "we're really looking for someone with a bit more experience in X". I did manage to find some freelance work (for a Python/Django web startup) but they decided that rather than another backend programmer they needed someone who could do frontend development and system administration...
After leaving NYC my sister got a call, "is your brother still looking for a job in New York?", and I ended up back here working as an accountant. I didn't have any experience in accounting either (though I had taken some classes in the past) but my new boss was happy to bring me in on a three month contract and see how things worked out (I got a permanent offer after a month and a half).
Yeah. I think the answer there is: fuck those companies. The sooner we start new ones that get this right, the fewer their days are numbered.
But you may have missed my point by a couple degrees. It wasn't that companies should look at initiative and aptitude directly. It's that those are the things that drive you to acquire the skills that make you good. Then you can prove that you're good.
How exactly to prove you're good, or for companies to tell who's good, is a billion (trillion?) dollar question that's in flux right now. But clearly it has more to do with showing work and less with weak proxies like years of experience (which may be years of doing things badly) or resumes (a skill uncorrelated if not inversely correlated with good programming). Since startups are starved for good hackers, somebody's going to figure this out, gain a huge edge, and pave the way for the rest.
In the meantime, training/retraining programs are not going to increase the talent pool much. Something fresh like Hacker School might, though.
Edit: in my opinion the eventual answer is going to be found by reasoning backward from Christopher Alexander's great question, "What feels more alive?" But obviously that isn't much help to someone in the situation you describe right now. So how did it work out? Do you like accounting or would you rather be programming?
Thanks for the reply. I get your point that the initiative and aptitude are the starting point, but as you mentioned, looking for "proof" of ability is very tricky, particularly for people without much experience. Of course had I known I would be unemployed for 6+ months at the offset I could have planned a project that ticked lots of boxes (Django frontend, NumpPy, SQLAlchemy, PyMongo etc. etc.). I love the idea of Hacker School and wish I'd known about it at the time, I'm sure it would have helped me build a portfolio of work. While I did have some side projects I'd spend a lot of time learning to match a job spec or recruiters recommendations only to find the interviewer fixating on something else, other times I'd be strung along ("we'll be looking to hire in a month or so, why not brush up on X in the meantime?") and then the job would disappear (cash-flow issues, change in priorities, new CTO decides to scrap Python and rewrite in node.js ;)
Ultimately I'd rather be programming. My current job is OK and I'll stick at it for now, I owe my boss for taking a chance on me and they'd struggle if I left before the end of the year (we are a small team and in the middle of switching accounting systems and finalizing an acquisition). I do like the fact that I get exposed to a range of business issues, as my previous job in the insurance industry was a little more technical but very narrow in scope. Long-term it probably doesn't suit me (though it might be different at another company), I've automated some tasks in Access/VBA but there is a line between finance and IT (partially outsourced or contractors) and I'm expected to use systems rather than improve them. At least I can at least work on some longer-term programing projects in my free time, but it's frustrating to be left thinking "maybe next year", rather than living in the moment!
There is one way in which you are at an advantage. You're gaining domain knowledge, and a programmer with domain knowledge has definitely leveled up. Assuming of course that you would enjoy writing software for said domain.
That takes time. We're in an industry that is (relatively) flush with cash right now, so it makes more sense to compete with other companies on salary than to take the time to train new employees. That may not always be the case.
> With a quarter of the young population out of work
Yeah, well.. those are the untalented ones. Not everyone can do every job. Especially in technology. Sorry.
It's hard to find good auto mechanics, too. And electricians, and true salespeople. And anything that requires skills and talent and practice and learning. This is really just a perennial truism, not anything specific to today.
The hardest part about finding early stage talent in SV is that everyone is off trying to start their own company.
The best part about finding early stage talent in SV is that everyone is earning their real world MBA the hard way, and when they succeed or fail at their venture they are going to be frighteningly well equipped to help you with yours.
I think the elevator in my building is a perfect metaphor for New York city...bear with me...
When we were first shown the building, all I noticed was that the walls of the elevator were covered in graffiti! The very picture of urban blight.
A couple of months after we moved in, I took a moment to actually read the graffiti: "Bach!", "Ravel", "Beethoven sucks!", "Tchaikovsky 4 eva", and so on. Turns out, we live 2 blocks from the Manhattan school of music.
My previous team was split between Mountain View and New York. We'd travel back and forth. Don't get me wrong: I love the Bay Area. The weather for one thing is simply heaven.
We'd often get into debates about this. My argument is that it is cheaper to live in New York than the Bay Area. The main reason for this is that almost anywhere you live in the Bay Area you will have a car. Between car payment, insurance, gas and maintenance you will more than make up for any difference in rent.
Your only real option to living without a car is to live in SF. That means an hour commute minimum each way every day (on the bus). Sometimes it can double with traffic on the 101. You have to catch them when they're running (4-6 times in the morning and evening?). Or if you don't have a bus option it's Caltrain + bus. Caltrain runs every hour during the day (slightly more often in peak hours).
Even if your bus has wifi and you can allegedly do work I'd rather not waste 2-3 hours of my life on it each day.
Compare this to New York. Areas around the office (Chelsea, Meatpacking, West/Greenwich Village, Union Square) are expensive but I still have a second story (true) one bedroom walkup 7 minutes walk from work for $2000/month.
A friend lives in Crown Heights in Brooklyn. Door to door will typically take him ~35 minutes. His one bedroom is $1000/month. How far afield are you going to have to go in SV to find a one bedroom for that price (or, worse, that price including the car cost, even adjusting for spending $100/month on a monthly metro card).
And I'd much rather rely on the Subway (or the commuter trains for that matter) than anything in Norcal (although I found the combination of BART + buses fine in SF even though I knew many people who complained about them). It's like $2.25 to go anywhere in the city and it runs 24x7.
Rent in Manhattan is certainly expensive but you don't need to live in Manhattan. You can choose to (as I have) but you don't need to. You can get a pretty nice apartment in Forest Hills and have a relatively easy run in on the E train if you wish. Williamsburg is full of hipsters but is convenient (except when the L train stops running, which seems to happen all too often).
So rent aside, everything else is the same cost of cheaper. Food especially is cheaper. A Thai restaurant around the corner has $2-6 appetizer and <$10 entrees. A Malaysian place I like in Chinatown has ~$7 entrees. Why anyone cooks in this city is beyond me.
On the way to work there are 3-4 laundromats. The one I go to is open from 7am-11pm 7 days a week and as long as I get them my clothes before about 1-2pm will have them back the same day, washed, dried, folded and sealed for <$1/lb.
If you have a family you can stay in the city (expensive) or move to the commuter belt (as most people do). Long Island, upstate NY or NJ (or further afield at places like CT, PA) have good affordable options. If you're married and have kids you'll probably only need 1 car rather than 2 (since the trains will cover you during the week to go to work).
New York really is great. Although if I weren't working for Google I'm not sure who I'd want to work for. Foursquare? Maybe but you're essentially banking on them getting bought out (admittedly, this seems fairly likely). Tumblr? Maybe. Amazon? I think they're out of the city somewhere. Palantir? Maybe. SV certainly has got way more choice.
I live in Manhattan (formerly in the Village and now in TriBeCa) and I think you are exaggerating/cherry picking the lack of costs in NYC. Sure, you can find a few $2,000 1BRs here and there in Manhattan, but they are rare, tiny, and not all that nice. The average 1BR in the neighborhoods surrounding your office is more than 3k. New construction is more than $4k. In the nice areas of Brooklyn you are paying almost as much as in Manhattan.
Since I am moving out of the city (and the country) at the end of this month, I have no qualms sharing a little secret for anyone looking for a place in Manhattan...
There's an area of about 6 city blocks bordered by Columbia University on the south, 125th St. on the north, Broadway to the east, and Grant's Tomb on the west...and rent is ridiculously cheap! 2BR for $2700 or less (we're paying much less) are not unusual. The 125th St. 1 train stop is right there. I can be in Union Sq. in about 20 min during rush hour, and I can walk to Columbia and most of the UWS. On top of that, if you head to 125th St. and walk toward the water, you've got Dinosaur BBQ and a giant Fairway right there. If you're the biking type, you can go from there straight down the West-side Greenway. Add to all this the fact that Columbia is building their new campus just across 125th St., and you have a little slice of heaven.
Now, most people look at a map and immediately say, "But you're in Harlem!" Well, technically Harlem starts just north of my bedroom window, but yeah...so what? New York is a bit of a peculiar place. I used to live further north in Harlem, and there were literally patches of no more than 4 blocks square where life was perfect, and I never felt I was in any danger. Go another 2 blocks north, though, and you started to feel like you had to watch your back.
If you are going to move to New York, your best bet is to talk to someone who knows New York (hint: if they've lived in New York for less than 5 years, they probably don't know New York).
> If you are going to move to New York, your best bet is to talk to someone who knows New York
So talk to me. I grew up and live here. And your best bet is actually NJ. Hoboken or Jersey City. They're on the PATH. Your commute to Manhattan will be 15 minutes and a ticket costs $2. Less if you buy in bulk or get a pass.
Also, you pay less in taxes (income and sales tax) since you're in NJ.
> Also, you pay less in taxes (income and sales tax) since you're in NJ.
If you live in NJ but work in NY don't you pay NY taxes? And even if you want to get around that somehow, won't any normal employer payroll withhold for NY before you even see it?
This actually bit someone I know in the ass this year, somehow. His employer was withholding federal and state, but not city taxes. (I have no idea how this didn't happen to him last year, but he was shocked that suddenly he owed quite a bit.)
Yes, this area is called "Manhattan Valley". I lived there for two years while studying CS at Columbia and loved it. We had 5 guys in a 4-bedroom (actually 3BR with a walk-through room with an office that we used as a small bedroom) apartment at 108th St and Broadway. $3k/mo in rent. The location was amazing: 10 minute walk to Columbia, 3 minutes to the 1 train stop at 110th St, 2 minutes to Thai Market (my favorite Thai place in Manhattan).
Actually, Manhattan Valley is just to the south of Columbia. The area to the north where we are is called Manhattanville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattanville), though most won't know that name.
Another tip for prospective New Yorkers: find out where filming permits are being issued. Film crews will stay away from the overly expensive (stuck-up-ish, NIMBY-ish) neighborhoods, but they also won't go anywhere overly risky. As a nice added bonus, typically the area will be picturesque (though not always).
For example: "Person of Interest" was filming in front of our building on Monday, episodes of "Blue Bloods" and "Gossip Girl" have filmed within a couple blocks, and the outdoor scenes at the end of Lady Gaga's video for "Marry the Night" were shot right by the Fairway 3 blocks away.
Anywhere that's a discrete suburb (preferably cut off from where decent people live by a bridge or railway crossing) takes a long time to go from "slum" to "trendy" in the eyes of most people, despite it actually being a nice place to live. But everyone who is in on the secret gets outrageously cheap rent, a great place to buy, and funny looks from co-workers.
One of the one bedroom units here in Stuyvesant Town is listed as $2820 (http://www.stuytown.com/view-availability.aspx). And if you've been to Stuyvesant Town you know the units are HUGE. And most people convert one bedroom to a two bedroom, two to a three, etc.
Stuyvesant Town may be the biggest real-estate default in American history but it is really really nice. We have our own reading rooms, movie shows, ice-skating in winter, gym, 24-hours security with video, etc. It's just worth checking out the website http://www.stuytown.com/.
Disclaimer: I live here with roommates but have no other affiliation with Stuyvesant Town.
Another Stuy Town dweller here. It's also a pretty good options for those of us with families. We have a nice park with play area outside our door. It's fairly quiet. And don't forget free heat, water, and electricity!
Isn't that Morningside Heights? The southern boundary depends on who you talk to... can go down to 110th or so. I grew up on 119th and Riverside. LOVE that area, even thirty-odd years ago. Harlem doesn't start until 125th on the west side.
Anyway, the west side of Harlem, the other side of Morningside Park, has gentrified significantly in the last 20 years and is also by all accounts a pretty nice place to live nowadays.
Washington Heights is also "up-and-coming", up north of there.
You mean trendy rather than nice. There are plenty of nice areas of Brooklyn, and Queens for that matter, that are affordable, safe and have multiple transportation options to midtown and downtown.
Places like: Prospect Heights (A,C,2,3), Long Island City (7,N,R,Q,E,M,F), Lefferts Garden (Q,B,2,5), Astoria (N,Q), and Woodside/Jackson Heights (7,M,R & LIRR).
You may not be able to find a place to buy $6 PBRs or $5 coffees right around the corner, but I consider that a plus.
You say it's cheaper, then use the example of a $2000 apartment which is an insane amount to pay for housing. Then you (correctly) note that the cheap places are actually really far (and annoying) commutes. BART stations are much cleaner than NYC subway stations, I find the trips much more pleasant.
Your startup could also be in SF (not MV) saving you the commute, have you thought about that?
Eating fast food <$7 will quickly make you feel pretty unhealthy in NY. All that greasy pizza and chinese food. You're also not conveniently not including tax (which is high in NY) and tip. Real sustainable eating will cost double that in NY.
Good, healthy, cheap food in SF is pretty common, it's the lifestyle there.
> Door to door will typically take him ~35 minutes.
Bull. Maybe if he jumps out of his building, sprints to the stop, and the subway car just happens to be waiting for him the moment you get there. The fact is that if you work late into the night, the cars come less frequently, especially to/from places outside of Manhattan. You have to factor in average wait time (since NY Subways still don't track subway cars like any other good transit system). My closest subway stops would also be closed for days or weeks at a time randomly for upkeep. Don't forget that, during rush hour, you stand in a sardine can with a hundred other people.
Also, NY culture is a consumption culture. Even if you can possibly scrape by with less, you're in a culture that actively goes out and pays huge amounts for drinks at bars, measures class by where you live and places you shop, and you'll invariable end up paying some or a lot of money for cabs because of closed subway routes or maybe you just get sick of the dirty, cold subway.
I've done startups in both areas for years. I notice that people in New York justify the low quality of life by claiming the best possible aspect of something is the norm. It's not the norm. 35 minute commutes from Brooklyn, $2-$6 appetizers (who measures food costs in terms of appetizers??). $1000/mo one-bedrooms and 7-minute commutes have 0 correlation in NY.
Let's say you lived in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn and rented a 1600 a month 1BR apartment of decent size (entirely realistic). You have a Trader Joes that's a 10 minute walk. You have a Michelin star restaurant that's a 10 minute walk. I could go on and on, but basically, you have dozens and dozens of nice, reasonably priced bars, coffee shops, butcher shops, produce stores, movie theaters (well those aren't so reasonably priced) and restaurants that are a 10 minute walk. And you have a 35 minute commute to midtown... 20 minutes to SOHO. That's not bad at all.
However if you measure quality of life by the cleanliness of the subway or having to wait 15 minutes because you just missed the last F train or it annoys you that a lot of people commute during rush hour, then yeah, NYC probably isn't for you.
Your knock on consumption culture is overstated. I guess if you want to get a meal or have a drink in the same places that finance and law douches do, you are going to run into that, but that's your fault for not taking a look around and realizing there is so much more to be had in this city.
SF is definitely cheaper but not that much cheaper. I have friends who share a 2 bedroom for $2400 not far from Golden Gate Park in a shitty apartment. I can find any number of shitty apartments for $2400 in the city if I want.
Another point: you earn higher salaries in New York than less urban areas (this is true of SF too). If I earned even $30,000 less and lived in the Midwest, financially speaking I'd be worse off. It may even be $20,000.
> Eating fast food <$7
Who said anything about fast food?
> Bull...
During the day, that's the time. Out of hours trains are less frequent but isn't that kinda the point: they're still running. Caltrain stops at about 11. Not sure when the muni-buses and BART stop.
> Also, NY culture is a consumption culture.
Nonsense. Or, rather, only if you want it to be. If you want to keep up with the investment banker set, then that's your choice. If you want to go to expensive bars and drop $100-200 on drinks, that's your choice. You're able to do that in any number of major urban centers.
I don't feel the need to go down Fifth Avenue and do my shopping at Prada or Bergdorf Goodman (Gap/Old Navy/Urban Outfitters are just fine with me). If you do, that's your choice.
A friend of mine once took us to a noodle bar off Union Square. The music and noise was so loud you could barely hear yourself think. Me and a friend said "screw this" and went somewhere else. Later he was like "you have to put up with waiting and noise". No, you don't. If you want to hang out at the hipster joints, then sure. But again, that's a choice.
I find this with New York (and London) in particular: you either decide to like it or you don't. If you've decided not to like it, you'll notice certain streets smell like urine, the garbage smells, homeless people on the subway, homeless people defecating in trash cans or urinating in phone boots, the lack of space and so on. But that really is just a state of mind.
I know people who are addicted to their large houses, having a back yard, their cars, etc and look past their long commutes, the costs of car ownership and so on. That too is a choice.
Your post comes across as very bitter. You've decided to not like New York. You probably have your reasons. Fair enough. That's your choice. But in no way are you presenting anything remotely objective about New York.
When I lived in the city (1.5 yrs ago, I've since moved to NJ with my SO), my rent was $1000 (1 room in 2 bedroom, split with my brother), and my commute was a (mean, over a few days of sampling) 12-minutes, door to door. It's actually all pretty reasonable. The space is small, but the only thing you're really missing is a big room for a TV, which you don't need in this town.
Edit: Also, it should be noted that the dating scene in NYC is ridiculously nice for single men with good jobs.
BART stations are much cleaner than NYC subway stations, I find the trips much more pleasant.
Apples to oranges. BART is commuter rail, not transit. Compare BART to Metro North, New Jersey Transit, and the LIRR. NYCT's equivalent is Muni. (My experience is that Muni is pretty clean. But it's often faster to walk than to take Muni.)
Maybe if he jumps out of his building, sprints to the stop, and the subway car just happens to be waiting for him the moment you get there.
Trains on the same tracks run every 2:30 during rush hour. (If you are at a local/express station, then you get a train every minute.)
You have to factor in average wait time (since NY Subways still don't track subway cars like any other good transit system).
All the IRT lines do, as do the B-division lines that have been converted to communication-based train control. Admittedly, you have to be at the station to see the next-train times, which is annoying. But the trains actually do run close to their schedule. (Lately, I've been going home on the train that claims to be at 14th St. at 1:39AM. I've never waited more than four minutes past this time.)
Some of the B-division stations give you an idea of when the next train will come: announcements like "An uptown express train is now at W 4th St."
Even if you can possibly scrape by with less, you're in a culture that actively goes out and pays huge amounts for drinks at bars, measures class by where you live and places you shop
All people are judging you because of the possessions you choose to display. True in New York, true in San Francisco. The only way to overcome it is to not care. If you work for Goldman Sachs then there is probably some culture of pretending to be wealthy. At Google NYC, not so much.
and you'll invariable end up paying some or a lot of money for cabs because of closed subway routes or maybe you just get sick of the dirty, cold subway.
The subway seems about as clean as any other subway in the US. A $2.50 subway ticket buys a lot less cleaning than a $15 commuter rail ticket. Live in the suburbs if everything has to have the appearance of cleanliness. (Manhattan is a lot dirtier than Chicago, though. It's because there's no space for alleys to hide the garbage in.)
Disclaimer: I live in SF, not NYC, but I disagree with your post.
> "$2000 apartment which is an insane amount to pay for housing."
SF is at the same level now. A solid 1BR in the city proper (as opposed to say, out in Outer Richmond) will easily hit $2000. And beyond. New construction (SOMA) would be closer to $3-4K. This is in the same range as what both dev_jim and cletus claim.
> "BART stations are much cleaner than NYC subway stations, I find the trips much more pleasant."
Being someone who commutes on BART daily, no, they're really not. MTA stations are older and slightly more run-down looking, but cleanliness-wise, they're about the same. The interesting thing is that MTA subway trains are considerably cleaner than any BART train.
Hell, if we're going to talk about general city cleanliness - just about any sidewalk in Manhattan is much, much cleaner than any sidewalk in SF. I don't know about you, but I've never had to dodge human excrement in NYC, whereas it seems to be a semi-frequent occurrence here in the City.
> "Eating fast food <$7 will quickly make you feel pretty unhealthy in NY. All that greasy pizza and chinese food."
As opposed to greasy Chinese food in the Sunset? Burritos in the Mission? The food scene between the two cities are not too different - both NYC and SF have a lot of cheap, good-for-you food if you know where to find it. Both cities also have a whole lot of greasy stuff-that-will-kill-you food that's just as easily accessible. If you think eating cheaply in NYC necessitates pizza and Chinese takeout, you're sorely mistaken, just as you would be mistaken if you thinking burritos are a necessary food in SF.
> "The fact is that if you work late into the night, the cars come less frequently"
This is true in SF also. Live in Oakland and work in the city? Welp, you're fucked, frequently. BART also shuts down at midnight, which puts you in a SOL position a lot more often than it would be in NYC. I've talked to numerous cabbies/Uber drivers who laugh at the idea of doing an East Bay run on a busy night. You can't even find a cab to drive you across the bridge at exorbitant rates! :P
> "Don't forget that, during rush hour, you stand in a sardine can with a hundred other people."
Hop on a BART car at rush hour. Or worse, hop on a MUNI train at rush hour in one of the downtown stations - I've been on a NY subway car during rush, it's actually marginally emptier than, say, the N-Judah at rush.
> "$1000/mo one-bedrooms"
Have you looked at SF housing prices lately? You can't even find a studio in the Tenderloin for $1K.
I've lived in SF and Tokyo and spent time in NYC. @potatolicious is spot on with this post. NYC streets and subway cars are, generally, cleaner than the equivalent in SF. Crime's lower (per capita, not totals) in NYC than SF too. You also don't witness as much derelicts and gang bangers on an evening stroll down a NYC street as you do in SF.
@cletus was right about the job scene though. Most tech companies HQ are in SF and there's a wealth of jobs. NYC's tech scene is still up and coming. As we've seen with Austin , Seattle, and NC/Research Triangle, "up and coming" can last for a long, long time.
Sorry, but I think you're out of touch with Americans. Most of us want great transit. It's difficult to do in a country as large as the USA. It's a problem of scale, something difficult to appreciate for people living in smaller countries.
People have a huge capacity to adapt. For single people the flexibility is even more. I'd say, even if you go to Cicely, Alaska you'll get used to it and like it.
Now, if you would like to innovate, and be part of something big, your chances of realizing those are very slim if you live outside the big magnets. SV, New York, Boston are fine but the opportunities diminish very fast as the density of tech companies gets smaller. There are interesting exceptions though. For instance the Raleigh-Durham area has a good combination of schools (fresh talent), and tech companies. If you are at that point in your life that you need to choose where you will pick a home, think carefully, and do your research.
I love New York, and it definitely feels like the startup community is growing here. My only thought is that the startups in NYC may be a bit more "big payoff" driven than "creating value" driven. I honestly can't say for sure though because I haven't spent any amount of time in the Valley.
Being totally self-promotional here, but I just made a video about moving to New York for a startup. Please don't take it seriously.
You can argue that NYC is a better place to meet women than SF, but is it really because there's slightly more women than men in the general population? I think it's due to a variety of other factors:
Different mindset of people in NYC than in SF (compare NYC's finance and fashion industries to SF's technology industry)...
Better logistics in NYC than in SF (in NYC: 24/7 public transport, plenty of taxis, no car culture, and apartments nearby; in SF: BART isn't 24/7, taxis scarcer, many have their own vehicles, and people live farther)...
If the OP is at all interested in the industries he says he is, then NYC all the way. It is a better city than SF on virtually every metric except burritos and nightlife.
The reason I left NYC was that it didn't have a vibe for "technology for technology's sake." If you're a more low-level engineer (knee-deep in circuits and C) then NYC is really going to push against you; the opportunities are fewer and the culture surrounding you values that less than financial sales or 'hustling' (Adafruit being a counterexample). You'd have to specifically hang out around Columbia, drive upstate, or grab the Fung Wah to Boston to get that kind of vibe. In the Bay you're immersed in it.
One of the best places to live in New York is New Jersey. Large areas of Hoboken and Jersey City are just as easy for a Manhattan commute via the PATH subway or bus or even a ferry. Rent goes roughly 25% cheaper for similar digs, everything from basement studios to ultramodern luxury towers. Bonus: you don't pay NYC income tax, and NJ sales tax is less too.
I've lived in NJ and commuted to Manhattan for essentially my entire professional life, and quite satisfied with it. I currently commute by ferry which is insanely pleasant compared to a subway.
I haven't travelled as much as some, but I've travelled enough to learn that nowhere has the monopoly on the best way of life. Australia has great weather and a relaxed outdoors lifestyle, but few opportunities in technology, not much cultural life, and an over-reliance on cars. London has amazing energy and cultural institutions, but it is crowded and expensive. Then consider that things which are important now might not be important in ten years time.
There is no best place to live. There is just the best place to live for you right now.
Michael, it is very interesting that you chose New York and I wish you all the best. I say that it is interesting because I chose to move from New York to San Francisco at the end of last year. One of the main reasons is the attitude of each respective city.
New York will always have a special place in my heart as I grew up in lower part of brooklyn until I moved to Jersey in 7th grade. It was one of the greatest times of my life. I only returned to the city after I graduated college two years ago. Maybe it was a personal experience but after working in NYC(manhattan) I thought it was one of the coldest and most distant places I have ever experienced. It was the feeling of the city, for all the "if you can make it here you can make it anywhere" there is a lack of collaboration, it is selfish, it feels like people are only out for #1. There is this aura of being better than others, almost snobbishness, which is something I have yet to find in San Francisco.
San Fran is also incredible in terms of the level of intellectual curiosity that you see in most people. Individuals and groups are building,creating, innovating. I don't remember who said it(maybe it was Paul Graham in Hackers and Painters) but there was a comparison of modern day San Francisco to Florence during the Renaissance. I tried to look for resources in New York, but it felt like I was always meeting the same kind of people. I found that people were just living, going to restaurants, talking celebrity gossip. There was no ambition to better oneself, there was no ambition to learn. There is ambition to make money though.
Your point about groupthink is well noted. I would like to point out that artistically, culturally, and musically NYC and SF are not that different. SF is the city of free thinking and has spawned many radical movements (Summer of Love, Beatniks, LGBT social movement), and continues to be ripe with underground/subculture movements. I cannot say NYC doesn't have the Village, but it is a remnant of what it once was as it has undergone extensive gentrification.
Either way these I think are two of the more open cities in the United States and have an environment where one in theory can succeed. Personally I believe that San Fran simply has a different mindset which is embodied in the people.
You can be as successful as you want to be, just be wary of the environmental factors that may sway you into a lifestyle that makes you feel as if you are running in place
Try Vegas. You can get a luxury 1 bedroom high rise condo on the strip for $1,500/month. Off strip a great 1 bedroom is $800-900 and it comes with an attached garage. The entire Vegas valley is only about 20 miles in diameter so you are never far from anywhere. Commute times are short and off strip, traffic is not bad at all.
$65,000 in Vegas buys you the same quality of life as $100,000 in SF.
That said, NY is really hot in the summer and really cold in the winter. I've been to SF and the weather seems too cold and gloomy (50 and overcast in August!!!!)
Don't forget the cost of living in NYC - a cost that will be significantly increased by your networking and socializing habits. I live and work in the city and love it and the employment opportunity is enormous here. Your LinkedIn account will explode if it hasn't already.
I would be extremely surprised if that was true. Even if you count not having to own a car or commute as long-distance in New York. I live in a 1 bedroom apartment that is 2550/month and _everything_ is more expensive here. A bottle of wine that might cost $9 in most places is $14 here. Bars and restaurants are far more expensive than they are elsewhere in the states, and city tax kills me to the tune of around $800/month.
Rent prices have reached about par according to padmapper.com. Mountain View, a somewhat shabby and boring suburb, that wouldn't be costly if it wasn't for SV, is the same price as brooklyn.
Amazon Prime pretty much removes most of the price and sales tax inequality.
The tax difference is real. But then again, the tax difference compared to austin or seattle is also very real too.
1h 30m commute is only if you insist on busing down to Apple or Google every day. There are plenty of companies you can work for in SF that you can reach in much less time.
And if you think it's going to be affordable to live five minutes walk from your office in NYC, think again.
I agree with you on SF. There are certainly a bunch of great companies to work for there. However, at the risk of angering a lot of people, the majority of promising startups are in the South Bay.
NYC is expensive, but not unbelievably so, especially when put next to SF. To live within a 5-10m walk of Palantir's office in the West Village is roughly $4k for a 2BR(so I'll be paying $2k/month). Certainly not low rent by any stretch of the imagination, but it is definitely affordable with an engineer's salary. Also, the difference in salary compensates for this cost.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information that the majority of promising startups are in the South Bay.
The energy in Silicon Valley has been shifting northwards for the last 10 years. The majority of large companies are in the South Bay, but among companies less than 5 years old, there are as many great ones in SF as in PA/MV.
And you're right about one thing - if I ever found myself suddenly single, I would move back to NYC in a hot second. As a (somewhat) sane straight guy with a bit of money, that dating scene can't be beat. Hands down.
What you need to do if you want to live in San Francisco and work in Silicon Valley: get a (stupidly expensive!) apartment near Caltrain, take an express train down (30-45 minutes, and work on the train), then get the rest of the way to work quickly (helps if your startup is near the train - mine is ~20 minutes' ride, not the greatest).
It's probably not as good as you're getting in New York, but it's significantly better than 90 minutes.
When I think of dating in New York as a straight male, my experience has been "the odds are good, but the goods are odd." I've lived there twice. If you are at the top of your game you can find whatever relationship you want anywhere.
There's a lot of reasons to move to LA / Santa Monica, but I'd say for the women isn't one of them. The girls in NY are much friendlier, probably due to the fact that they outnumber men and most of them aren't from NY.
In LA the men still outnumber the women (all you need to do is walk into a crowded bar to see this - it's almost as bad as SF, though not quite) and most of the women are originally from southern CA. Take that as you will.
Having said all that, if you're married/relationshipped/gay?, you can't really beat it if you can afford it!
This article reads like a rationalization by a college student who is basing all of his knowledge of these places on second-hand accounts and stereotypes. Does this guy really think that San Francisco isn't diverse? Does he really not understand that he's going to be around engineers (the vast majority of whom are white dudes) all day anyway and that the diversity of the area has little to do with that? Does he really believe that all anyone talks about in SF is social media and daily deals?
How about come back in 6 months after you've moved and list the preconceived notions you had that were wrong, and the ones you had that were right and how you like living in NYC? Because this kind of reads like it's going to be this way because this is how I expect it to be.
Disclaimer: I'm moving to New York City in less than two weeks
I have to agree with you. I'm a texas grad finishing up in May but moving to SF and this sounds like a kid who is going purely off of word of mouth.
But he did say he has only stayed in the South Bay area, it's worlds apart from SF. Palo Alto to Sf is like Fredericksburg to Austin.
What I found funniest was the stat about more women in NYC. The ratio is not really important, I've dated tons of girls in both and have found that it is easier in SF. SF has a diverse female population, and minimal competition as most of the guys are “window shoppers” with no game (read shy engineers) which makes a lot bigger difference than raw numbers.
Thanks for the feedback! To be clear, I'm not critiquing SF. When I refer to Silicon Valley, I am talking about the south bay. My experiences are based on my anecdotal experience over the past 3 summers living in the south bay. Admittedly, I haven't lived in SF(only gone up for day trips), so I have no place to critique it.
I will absolutely write up another blog post after 6 months of being in NYC, and let HN know how it went.
It seems like NYC just seems like a hub, because people are already there and don't want to move.
Very few people who decide to uproot to start their startup elsewhere actually choose NYC over SV.
Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, lets face it, most programmers are more or less geeks, so all this talk about the better night life and clubs, dating/mingling opportunities etc probably doesn't even apply.
It's all about the person really.
Someone outgoing, will find all of those even in the middle of nowhere in Kansas. And someone with social anxiety will have problems no matter where they are.
I live in an 1840's house that I love. I walk seven minutes to main street (and work) every day. I live a mere hour from the mountains, the ocean, boston, minutes from country. I don't have any wants, I just like programming and reading and making things. I live a simple life, I like to think.
Yet I get an email from a recruiter once a week (or a little less often, some more personal invitation) who are thrilled to talk to me until the point that they find that I have no intention of leaving New Hampshire.
Willingness to uproot one's entire life and move (to Silicon Valley), it seems, is a foregone conclusion to them and I never cease to astonish my correspondents by not wanting to go there.
I don't begrudge them. But I don't understand why in the grand game of chess I would exchange 23 years of life for a single job.
(At last one correspondent signed, "let me know if you ever decide to head west, young man :-)")