Nowadays, you could just hire from the flyover states, find all the good techies that didn't make the pilgrimage to one of the traditional hotspots, and train them on the last bits on the job for not very much more money than an international team, when all costs are accounted.
It'll be interesting seeing the trajectory of tech salaries over the next however long though. That part didn't happen either but probably will now.
I can't imagine why someone would pay a Bay Area FAANG salary for any job that could be fulfilled at Arkansas costs. That makes it a really positive outlook for Arkansas techies, maybe a little less so for us in San Jose. I'm sure there are special cases and vanity teams, and culture moves slowly sometimes, but if things truly spread across so will the comp.
Why just the "good" or "perfect" techies?
They need to be less picky about who they hire. One could even go with the less desirable, "diamonds in the rough" candidates and still do well. If it worked passably with guest workers, it can work with flyover candidates.
As for my personal situation, I'd be happy to have options that were more than just government or healthcare.
The fact that the people doing the hiring probably enjoy those salaries too is maybe the biggest counterargument I'd have to my own prediction and the reason I think it'll take a bit to change. I'm firmly convinced that's one of the phenomena that have kept college degrees inflating--cognitive dissonance around admitting you shouldn't perpetuate your own experience.
FWIW, I think a lot of techies would probably love to have the freedom to live wherever they want and make a decent living. The comp gold rush has been fun, but the industry will arguably be better when it's gone. But the transition period--especially for those of us already at FAANGs or similar--that gets spicy.
Personally I'm hoping it means in a decade or so I can pseudo-retire to an easy remote job somewhere cheap enough to be happy on what an easy remote job pays. Given how hard actual early retirement can be to swing nowadays, that'd be a great holdover strategy to have available.
How many are there, though, really?
And what happens when you now have to compete with _every_other_company_ that also wants to hire them?
They'll make more money, good for them. But the majority of companies will just have to settle for hiring C-level talent.
Speaking specifically of my own lane, tech, I think you might underestimate how many people--particularly people of color--never make it into the "industry pipeline" because of lack of local opportunities. Those of us who came into the tech industry from the side in the 90s know the school doesn't make much difference at all in most jobs, it's just a predictor of whether you've otherwise prepared. The initial preparation tends to be self-driven, in the best employees, and they exist everywhere. The biggest differentiator comes down to whether someone gives you a shot, and that’s almost entirely about contacts and location for name-brand-company SWE positions.
However much competition there will be then, there's more now with everything chunked up. We're talking about an existing situation. Widening the applicant pool to cheaper applicants can't do anything but help an employer.
Yet somehow firms do OK with the people they manage to hire.
So maybe firms could just be less fearful of hiring, attract equal talent, and get on with life.
I doubt that I'd be considered an A player. My employer already makes productive use of talent in the Midwest, but we are not predominantly a software company.
Also, there's plenty of C-level talent in the bay. You can pay the same and get B+ or better in an inland state.
