Why I Love Being A Programmer in Louisville

The single biggest problem with working remotely is that you have to be excellent at a lot of things that don't matter when you're on site. And since your energy is a zero sum game, being excellent at these things steals energy from building.<p>You need to expend time and energy on:<p>- preparing precise specs instead of explaining and interacting<p>- interpretting imprecise specs instead of questioning and interacting<p>- writing precise emails<p>- interpretting imprecise emails<p>- guessing body language and tonality from written communication<p>- dealing with conference calls and web-based meetings<p>- building relationships without benefit of breaks and meals<p>- understanding the human terrain without benefit of gossip and the water cooler<p>- being noticed and recognized for who you really are by new people<p>- being included when you're "out of sight, out of mind"<p>You kinda get the idea. If you can be excellent at these things, great. Otherwise, be prepared to see your work suffer.

There will always be dogma associated with the belief that in-person interaction is more valuable than remote interaction, much like the same dogma people some people have about preferring physical books to e-book readers. People aren't able to truly quantify the benefit of working on-site, but they will flail their hands vigorously in an attempt to qualify it.<p>On the other hand, it's very easy to quantify the benefit of remote workers. You increase your potential labor force if you remove geographic restrictions, which cuts costs and improves productivity. I personally was able to quantify the benefit of working remotely in terms of distractions. I work remotely on a medium sized team and I occasionally travel to the headquarters to work on-site. My productivity always drops when I'm on-site because of the constant interruptions and meetings, both initiated by others and myself.

Well said.<p>It's not that your city isn't fun and exciting. It's that your office is in a building in that city, whereas my office is anyplace I feel like being at the moment.<p>Now I might feel like being in your city for a while. Possibly even in your cool office. But for half the year I'll probably be someplace completely different. Because I can.<p>The author hit the nail on the head when he explained why this gig is so great: we can do it from <i>anywhere</i>.<p>The good companies have figured this out and are encouraging their people to do just that. Since that's now a viable option, it's tough to understand why people are still working for companies that don't give that option.

The OP is not willing to move to work for your startup. That's fine. You may not hire him because of that. That's also fine. Another company may be more than happy to hire him. Great.<p>There isn't a right and wrong answer here, IMO. In my experience, working in the same location and working in different locations <i>are</i> very different working experiences. For some companies and employees, one will work. For others, it will not. I will be very hesitant to ever enter into a remote working situation again- I did not like it at all. But that's just me.<p>All that is required is for you to make sure you work for a company that matches you- don't get angry if a company/prospective employee doesn't match what you want. That's where the article's complaints about recruiters ring true- they don't know/care. But they don't know/care about <i>anything</i> other than the buzzwords on your resume, so this shouldn't be anything new.<p>(Ironically, just this morning I got a LinkedIn spam message from "CultureFit Staffing". Anything but, folks...)

There are a few HNers who live in Louisville, myself included (want to grab a beer some time Ernie?). 1 major downside: probably 85+% of local programming jobs are .NET. Maybe another 10% are Java, 4% are Ruby, and the remaining 1% is hard to come by.<p>Working remote is awesome, I hope to do it again some day (Clojure or JavaScript for me, if anyone is hiring) but its very important that everyone is on the same table about expectations. You get into the habit of working long hours for a couple of reasons: first because you are home anyways and might not have anything else to do (not a terrible reason), and secondly because you want to show the company that you're working hard -- something that isn't an issue when working locally.<p>I've turned down a couple of good opportunities because I didn't want to relocate. Of all of the reasons to relocate to a new city, I think doing so for work is possibly the work reason. It's too easy to fall into a trap where work becomes your life.

This post missed one of the biggest reasons to not relocate for a startup:<p>A lot of smaller startups lack long-term capital. You could be relocating for a job that isn't there in seven months. Relocating to join an established company that will honor your multi-year contract? That's one thing. But relocating for a company that may not be in great financial shape (and may have never even made profit) is another thing entirely. Uprooting your entire family for what could be a massive risk is a lot to ask, especially when employees can remote work to see if the job is a good fit for a year or two. Startups really should be offering more remote employment if they want to be able to attract more established talent.<p>I would also quibble with his cost of living calculations. He doesn't say whether or not these short trips involve walking or driving a car. Based on my knowledge of Louisville and the tenor of his post, many of them may in fact be car trips, which are much more expensive than walking or public transportation trips -- both financially and physically. If you live in a truly walkable area, you don't need a gym membership. Exercise is called living your daily life.<p>Old cost of living indexes just factored in housing and some other data, leaving out transportation. When you factor in transportation, often a households second highest cost (and highest in rural areas), many of these areas become much cheaper. We live in the DC area right on the Red Line and only need one car because of it. All of our trips this past weekend -- going to parties, to the movies, to stores, to get pizza -- either involved walking or public transportation. While my housing is assuredly more expensive than someone living in Louisville, my families transportation costs are incredibly low.<p>So when we talk about cost of living, we have to factor in everything. I'd still bet that Louisville is cheaper than NYC, but it's a lot closer when you apply an apples-to-apples comparison. This is particularly true when you compare housing in the same metro. Much of that exurban housing is suddenly a lot more expensive when you factor in transportation.

This topic is like discussing watching television or religion. If you think a well written and logical essay will change the opinion of an addict, you have another thing coming. Some of the more ridiculous rationalizations are pretty hilarious to read. You really can do almost anything abusive to a human being, and at least a fraction of the victims will thank you and take their oppressor's side.<p>I also live in a non-tech center area, where my tech job household income is approximately 4.5 times the median wage. Needless to say the odds of my getting $472K per year in Mountain View are extremely low. Laughably I had a conversation with HR at a well known employer in the area and their pay rate was something absolutely ridiculous compared to the $472K I'd need to live an equivalent lifestyle in CA, barely 10% more. I have no interest in a massive terrifying downgrade in the standard of living for myself and my family. I have no interest in moving from "CEO neighborhood" to "cardboard box under the overpass". Sorry HR.<p>(edit: whoops I crossed household and individual income. Doesn't change the overall outcome, I need 100% to 200% pay raise to move and live an equivalent lifestyle and they offer 10% to 20%... its not going to happen)

As one of those "Highlands Hipsters", I couldn't agree with you more. I've relocated a couple times for jobs in TX and CA, but found myself missing Louisville enough that I was spending a significant portion of my income flying back here. Before leaving SF I was absolutely terrified I wouldn't be able to find a local job doing the kind of work I enjoy, and it turns out even though I was right about being able to find something local that really interested me it didn't really matter -- within a month of beginning my job search I had 3 competing offers for remote work. This experience has helped me realize that far more companies are open to remote employees than recruiters would initially have you believe, particularly if you're willing to make a 2-3 day trip to one of the coasts every month.

I like having co-workers and actually going in to the office, but you'd have to start talking MASSIVE salary increase to get me to go NY or SF with the cost of living so high, commutes so awful, and onerous laws so numerous.<p>Concur with author 100%. There are lots of nice cities in the US that are way cheaper and more livable than the big 2, and moving from one of them to effectively make less, commute more, and have less personal time, even after taking a hit on the cost of living adjustment is pretty questionable.<p>If I were to move to SF I don't see how I could afford a place that was both close to work and had a garage where I could tinker unless I felt like commuting 2 hours each way. But I'm also spoiled by a real estate market where you can a decent house for under 200k, sometimes close to 100k, where I'm living now.

I've worked remotely off and on for the last 10 years. I'd say at least half the time I have been out of the office. I have managed remote teams in Mexico, Ukraine, India, Arizona, Switzerland and even randomly dispersed developers/artists all over the world. Remote teams can work very well.<p>What doesn't work very well is having a few remote people and a large mass of people in an office all working together on the same project. There is significant high bandwidth communication that happens when people are together physically. This leaves remote workers out to pasture. Things get missed. Tension builds.<p>The same effect occurs when you have multiple offices working on the same projects. I've been in the middle of this first hand as well. You can quickly end up with teams doing a lot of internal communication without talking to the teams in other offices. Rivalries will build. It will probably become an "Us vs Them" situation as animosity over small things snowballs.<p>This can be combated largely by explicit written communication. Use chat rooms. Use good issue tracking. Use internal social networking.

I agree with the bulk of the article, with one exception:<p>"Don’t take (or keep) a job because you like the people. If you’re a decent person, you’ll find people you like (and who like you) at any job you take."<p>This is patently NOT true. The people you work with, in my experience, matter far more than any other factor.

Great, thoughtful article. As someone whose office is in Mountain View, but lives and works from home in Annapolis, MD (the entirely opposite coast,) I definitely relate.<p>The compromise that I've made is that in spending a few days in Mountain View every 6 weeks or so. It's not terribly inconvenient for me, allows me to pad my frequent flyer miles, and I generally enjoy California. I think that the cost of living between California and Maryland are a lot closer than Louisville would be, so I've always got my eye open to possibly relocating somewhere even cheaper than here -- my home town is Memphis, TN, which is damn near free to live in comparatively, but I really like Annapolis, its proximity to DC and Baltimore, and the knowledge that almost everything is within a couple of hours.<p>The biggest trouble I have is that I really like the bigger cities. I love the time I spend in and around San Francisco, and on occasion I'll spend time in NY, which I also enjoy. I can't ever tell though if it's just because I'm effectively a tourist, or how much I would enjoy it as a permanent residence. Ultimately, I think I'm plenty happy anywhere with a temperate climate and the ability to work from home, so I'm occasionally torn on job offers I receive to work in sexier locales. Grats to Ernie for having found his ideal place. The spot I'd move to to maximize dollar value (Memphis) is too hot to be perfectly happy, and all the places I've found with better climates tend to be more expensive -- so perhaps I'm still searching for my idyllic setting, or perhaps it's just a matter of the grass being greener.

Based on several experiences doing startups with remote people versus local, I would now be extremely hesitant to hire someone who would not relocate or work locally.<p>Companies—especially small ones—are defined by their culture, and I really think culture is best developed and maintained in person. We recently had three of our team members move away for various reasons, and they're now working remotely. It has been a shake-up. I won't say it's a bad thing, because I truly want them to be happy, and I'm truly willing help them make it work, but it has been a surprising culture shift for our entire company. At this point, I think we'll make it work, but the day-to-day work experience for all our employees has changed dramatically and that's not something to take lightly.<p>Find a place you truly want to live (which definitely doesn't have to be in the Bay Area) and find a company that you want to work for locally. Go into the office every day. Talk with people about more than work. Connect and develop relationships. Work toward a true culture that exemplifies what the company stands for both internally and externally, and make it meaningful to everyone involved.<p>That's what makes me happy, and that's what I'm optimizing for. Am I in the absolute number one place that I want to be in, period? Maybe not. If I had my say I'd be living and working on the east side of the Sierra Nevada within 1 hour each of Mammoth mountain and the Yosemite highlands—and that may be my eventual destination.<p>But right now, location is far less important to me than the people I spend each day with, the people with whom I work, and the company culture that I'm helping to generate and preserve. That's what moves me forward each day, and I truly believe that will make my company more successful and sustainable.<p>I understand you though. I went through a time in my life where I was more attached to places than people. Turns out I was in the right place all along, but I just hadn't run into the right people. That changed for me, and now I truly believe that location is a small price to pay. It's complicated—it is of course better to have a great employee working remotely than a poor one in the office, but I think it's even better—perhaps exponentially so and especially to a startup—to have that great employee in the same room.<p>*Edit: I'd like to add, that part of this is the "who moved my cheese" problem, of going from a 100% local company to a significantly dispersed company. We are adapting as a whole and each week we improve our process and culture. The challenge has become "how do we maintain a culture and coherence remotely?" I think in time we will be successful at that, and continue to be a strong group, but it's still a challenge, and one that you'll have to weigh against other challenges if you so choose.

It's funny that this article is even necessary.<p>Not wanting to move for a job is the default for 99% of the world.

I have been working remotely for 3 years now, full time &#38; would find it very hard to go back to commuting full time.<p>I can get more work done, experience less distractions - to be honest I don't really give a dam what a companies culture is like to a large extent, tell me what you need done &#38; when you need it done by, if I think its achievable then I'll make it happen. I don't want to play xboxes, get free lunches or any of that nonsense - I want time with my family &#38; lots of money for future security - that &#38; working from a location of my choosing is all that really matters to me, in return I'll work my ass off, remain loyal &#38; ensure my employer is getting value for their $

I really enjoyed this, especially the line "Life’s too short to spend so much of it in between the places you truly want to be." So, so true.

Any tech company that doesn't want to hire remote workers will simply lose out on a pool of great talent that others will be smart enough to utilize.<p>Employers will avoid remote workers at their own loss.

I completely understand where the author is coming from and then some.<p>I am also on the receiving end of many of those same emails. However, I actually live in California, in beautiful Monterey. Every single Silicon Valley recruiter does not think it is a big deal for me to move two hours away. I am so close, why not? If I wanted to live in Silicon Valley, I would live in Silicon Valley.<p>BTW, I do not believe in working remote. Working locally has numerous benefits for both the employer and employee.

Hello, inexplicable title change. I picked the latter part for the purpose of it being relevant to more than Louisville. Ah well.

It works for 37 signals. It shows you that companies that treat their devs as people (like 37 signals) instead of resources or head count can develop superior software and somehow have their people happy without the need to make fake enthusiasm.<p>I would say startups are probably most likely to be able to take advantage of this.<p>BTW, this post makes me want to move to Louisville and join Ernie :) (not really, Chicago is really nice).

I absolutely agree with this. I recently moved across the country to a city where there is very little tech work, but this move wasn't for work. I moved to support my local church, and not as a pastor or worker, but as another member. I can't imagine a better reason to move. Because of this I wouldn't consider moving even 2hrs north to DC for triple the income. Through this experience I've realized how little value money really has in terms of true peace in my heart. Living month to month, contract to contract even gives me a richer experience of life that I wouldn't trade for the world. Working 9-5 making 100k+/year would certainly be easy, but I don't live for money.

Thanks for this Ernie. I've been considering a job far from home because I like the people and the organization. The job role is a step down from where I am in my "career path" and leaving all of my family, separating my son from his extended family, are real issues for me.<p>Optimizing for happiness, put in the context of actual real-world happiness, is a strong point. I'll keep praying about it...

After living in Florida (Orlando, Naples), CA (Santa Clara), Boston and DC, I like to apply "The Efficient Frontier" to locations I choose.<p>Essentially the efficient frontier is a finance concept that says that combinations of assets can be graphed and form a line called "The Efficient Frontier" where only portfolios of assets on that line should be considered.<p>Sorry for the link to wiki, but this is a really short article. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_frontier" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_frontier</a><p>When I consider where I live, I want to optimize to make sure I am on that frontier. Instead of risk and return on the axises, I think of a multivariant optimization, but essentially what I am saying is that many cities do not make it on the efficient frontier when looking logically.<p>For example, is there anyway that Louisville has as rich of a history as NYC, or DC, Boston or even SF?<p>Does Louisville have better night life than any other big city (DC, NYC, SF, Boston?)<p>Does Louisville have better skyline than any other big city (DC, NYC, SF, Boston?)<p>Does Louisville have better live performances than any other big city (DC, NYC, SF, Boston?)<p>Does Louisville have better museums than any other big city (DC, NYC, SF, Boston?)<p>Does Louisville have a better hipster scene than any other big city (DC, NYC, SF, Boston?). Its probably better than Boston's, but I don't care whether hipsters are part of the culture or not.<p>And the OP's biggest point, that he likes to drive to rural areas in 15 minutes. Its more like 20 minutes from SF, but some of the best mountain biking, trails etc. is right there. Boston has the same thing 20 minutes away. IMO DC and NYC are harder to get to rurual areas.<p>Liking Louisville is completely understandable if you just like being familar and don't want to move and have to make new friends etc. but it should be 100% understandable why a recruiter cannot imagine someone wanting to stay when viewing the opportunity as an outsider.<p>[ADDED] I reread what I wrote and it seems like I'm bashing Louisville, more my intention was to put out the efficient frontier concept for selecting a location.<p>[To unalone and the OP] Sorry for coming off as pompous. It does read a little that way, but I used the OP's criteria, not my own. The OP could have made a much better arugument by specifying what he likes about the criteria, but he didn't do that so I just asked the questions rather than making an assertion about them. Notice that I didn't specify whether DC does have better nightlife than Louisville? I instead just asked the question which the reader can answer on their own.

Glad you said this and glad it was voted to the top. Sometimes, while lost in the feedback loop of HN and startup news in general, its easy to lose sight of the fact that our world exists in a layer that shouldn't tie one down to a physical location.<p>I've been living in a small coastal town now for 4 years, not close to much of anything related to my field, yet I am working and happier than I could ever be in some metropolis.

Well, this morning was spent shredding powder in the mountains. This afternoon I am coding. Why wouldn't everyone <i>demand</i> to live where they want? Revolt and make these companies wake up &#38; realize that remote workers produce equal or better than those who are local. There is 0 benefit for local devs and I have been doing this for 5+ years. Sure, a recent college grad might be worth to have local, but folks with legitimate experience and who contribute, who cares any more?<p>As for salary? I demand Bay Area pay wherever I live. I also demand to watch my daughter grow up and not suffer through any more BS commutes on 85/101.

Louisville's general awesomeness makes me embarrassed for Indianapolis. It really blows us out of the water. I wouldn't expect someone to relo out of Louisville either.

I definitely agree with the OP. If I could work remotely I would in a heartbeat. Be that as it may, I do understand how a lot of companies/startups would be hesitant to offer a remote worker a full time job plus benefits. In all honesty, if I owned a company, I would most likely prefer on location workers than remote workers.<p>Also, I didn't see anything in the post about the great local coffeeshop scene in Louisville :)

I agree, but don't a lot of new opportunities arise from the people you meet (by change, via friends or whatever) IRL?

I am not terribly sure why this needs to be an article. If you don't want to work somewhere or for someone, be respectful. Kindly pass. Being declarative, boastful, and at times a bit cocky is not a good quality to broadcast to all employers.

Hey to each his own. Not everyone has the same circumstances and I can completely relate. I moved to NYC to get involved in the startup scene but only after my daughter had graduated high school and I was free to do my own thing. It's not for everyone that's for sure. I can't even get some people to visit NYC let alone live here. So I get it. But to see it how I see it let me give you this analogy - I see NYC as a gold mine. It's not all bad but it's not all good. The money that can be made here is astronomical. But it comes with sacrifice. Some people are not willing or simply can't sacrifice their current lifestyle to move here.

Lower Florida Keys here, haven't had a job within 300 miles of my home since 2003. Although I've lived in a few large cities with decent job markets, I settled here for reasons of personal choice and sanity. Like the author of this piece, I'm utterly unwilling to move (I'd sooner change professions; I'll be a USCG licensed boat captain soon). I understand the tradeoffs involved, and I work in a partnership of like-minded individuals around the country. The partnership gives us healthcare and retirement benefits, while the senior partner in LA has physical access to a large job market to keep us stocked with contracts, if we need more work.<p>Yes, there are tradeoffs. I probably won't advance in your company or have a prestigious resume, even though I've been working on Internet technologies since the early 1990s. I don't want to be a founder or first employee, I want to be your first contractor. You can even meet me, too; I've been known to fly out to conferences and company meetings.<p>For my part, I use the partnership's Redmine ticket system religiously, and the customer can see the solid results I deliver by working for the agreed-upon amount of hours (or more!) per day/week/month, and if the customer doesn't like the results (experience suggests most do, but some are better suited to cheap stuff from India), then they do not renew the contract.<p>Besides my zipcode, I get an interesting choice of working situations. I've been on conference calls while I had two divers in the water getting lobster. A week ago, my office was on the tailgate of the truck as my wife and I worked blue crab fishing holes. I may even be on the sailboat moored near a coral patch reef, a few miles out to sea (there is LTE up to 5nm out to sea generally, around here). I don't tell all clients about this; Some are cool with it, others would prefer to think I sit in an office all day. It doesn't matter, because in the end I'm serious about productivity, regardless of my surroundings (and this is why you won't generally find me trying to work from the countless bars down here, experience suggests it's bad for productivity, to put it mildly).<p>It isn't for every company, and it isn't for every developer. But it certainly works very well for some companies and some developers.

100% agree, I moved from Switzerland back to Spain for similar reasons. Now I'm freelancing for a couple of companies in NYC and my quality of life and productivity improve a lot, the only drawback it's the 6 hours of difference.

Good article but I would quibble on the point about "time ≠ money". To me, one has a finite amout of time, that must be "spent" no matter what you do, the goal is to maximize the "trade" value for your time. With my job, I trade my time for money – which I can then turn around and trade money for someone else's time. With my hobbies, I trade my time for for skills/knowledge. When I'm relaxing, I'm trading for my own sanity. You can't really "waste" time; instead of you simply trade it for something of little or no value.<p>In that sense, money <i>is</i> time... and time can be represented as money.

Sorry but this comes off as really pompous. Essentially what you're saying is that I am so good, you will be hired on your terms.<p>If you had gone in with the mind set, "I want to work locally, and relocating isn't something that works for me." I can respect that, but when you say I wont locate for YOU, comes off as saying, hey I make the decisions not you. Or an attention grabbing title for a post.<p>For a full time employee, remote work is like a long distance relationship, more often than not, they just do not work. Heck contract remote work is already difficult as is.

Kudos on the "frind a way to make workouts work into your schedule" - I used to work at a company that serviced the health club industry, so we all got a free membership to one of our customer's gyms just down the road. All the developers would go work out over lunch (and contrary to stereotypes, a lot of them were jacked). That routine was fantastic and is the thing I miss most about that job. It also made everyone more productive in the afternoon.

&#62; The cost of living in Louisville is 7.6% below national average. The cost of living in NYC is 123.8% above national average. In other words, I’d need to earn over twice as much money to maintain the same quality of life in NYC.<p>This is false. You only need to make twice as much as you are spending. I don't think anyone making something like $100k in Louisville would be spending all their money and then would need to make $220k in New York.

God, this is so annoying! Literally 100% of the recruiter emails I get are for locations far from my home of Kansas City.

But... how do you deal with living in a deeply red state? ;)

I'm not so sure about the claim of working anywhere in the world. Decent internet connectivity is not that widespread.

Where did you find stats on average cost of living above national average?

Awesome article.

There's no way I'd live anywhere outside of the bay area. I love being in a city and not having to worry about the policies of a red state government.

bourbon... that's all i need to know ...

I like this idea a lot, but here's the issue that I find. For most projects, I get to a point where I actually care (sometimes that happens <i>way</i> too fast) about the health of the project, which means that I want to be in a decision-making role-- not necessarily "management" but some sort of creative or technical leadership. Getting that seems to require in-person contact. It requires trust so it rarely happens when people haven't shared physical space.<p>What you're paying when you suffer Manhattan or Bay Area rent is the career benefit (?) that it confers to live in such a place. You may be overpaying; you probably are. I don't think anyone has good data on this, which is why the extortionist mega-landlords who set prices (by limiting supply through NIMBY regulations) can get away with so much. No one has a good handle on what it's actually worth to live and work in a star city. I think a lot of people pile into star cities because they're driven by FUD and FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out).<p>I don't know what "the right answer" is but I can see the appeal of living in these high-rent areas. It really sucks, though, because we're in an uncanny valley where people are just mobile enough to stratify by ambition (with a lot of noise in the mix; I am not saying that people who don't live in expensive places aren't ambitious, but the correlation exists) in their 20s, but not enough to render location obsolete.