Very interesting article. I've actually been kicking around the idea that the midwest will see a braindrain-reversal in the next 20 years, similar to China + India + etc. (where elite educated foreign professionals/entrepreneurs who historically sought the US market are actually realizing equal/better opportunity back home, and also a more comfortable/familiar lifestyle).
Cities like Minneapolis, Cleveland, St. Louis and Pittsburgh still can't necessarily compete with tier 1 finance/law/tech opportunities and gross compensation in NY/SF/LA/etc., but more and more they are offering a solid job market (particularly within the healthcare industry) and more affordable living to the point where net compensation may be the same, if not greater than in the "elite" coastal markets (corporate lawyers in Manhattan feel less rich than corporate lawyers in Cleveland, I'm pretty sure - who knows).
I think the other key is that these cities not only offer good jobs and affordable housing, but also offer a true "city culture", including a good food/bar scene, farmers markets, art galleries, a strong local music scene + music venues that are on the national act rotation, all with a more casual vibe than NY or SF offers (subjective statement: last time I was in Cleveland it felt more like Brooklyn than Brooklyn). Whether it's better or worse is a matter of opinion, but I guess my point is that those factors exist in many mid-western cities, and these are the things that professionals moving into cities really want (and pay higher rent for) and really miss when they move to the suburbs.
Unlike the folks returning back to China or India however (who often times work even harder for an even greater potential upside back in their motherland), the choice to return/remain in a more regional city may often be driven by a lifestyle choice - a mid-level manager working in Pittsburgh will likely work less, make the same/more and, in the immediate social environment, hold higher status than the mid-level manager in Silicon Valley who is slaving away 80 hours a week to make an IPO happen for a 35 year old soon-to-be billionaire founder (the big/small fish/pond concept) - of course the big draw in SF is that YOU could be that founder, and there's less of those opportunities in Pittsburgh (at least in theory, and for now). I think this also ties into the relative wealth equality and socioeconomic integration when compared to NY/SF/etc., which was well-described in the article.
Anyhow, just a thought - to be honest, much of my conjecture is driven by my own desire to move to Cleveland for a lot of the reasons above, but at the end of the day I have not and probably won't (I tell myself it has at least a large part to do with the fact that I was born/raised in the Bay Area and all my family/friends live here, but I have to admit that part of me still wants to be in the big pond at the end of the day, as chill as it looks in a smaller one - of course that could change haha).
Cities like Minneapolis, Cleveland, St. Louis and Pittsburgh still can't necessarily compete with tier 1 finance/law/tech opportunities and gross compensation in NY/SF/LA/etc., but more and more they are offering a solid job market (particularly within the healthcare industry) and more affordable living to the point where net compensation may be the same, if not greater than in the "elite" coastal markets (corporate lawyers in Manhattan feel less rich than corporate lawyers in Cleveland, I'm pretty sure - who knows).
I think the other key is that these cities not only offer good jobs and affordable housing, but also offer a true "city culture", including a good food/bar scene, farmers markets, art galleries, a strong local music scene + music venues that are on the national act rotation, all with a more casual vibe than NY or SF offers (subjective statement: last time I was in Cleveland it felt more like Brooklyn than Brooklyn). Whether it's better or worse is a matter of opinion, but I guess my point is that those factors exist in many mid-western cities, and these are the things that professionals moving into cities really want (and pay higher rent for) and really miss when they move to the suburbs.
Unlike the folks returning back to China or India however (who often times work even harder for an even greater potential upside back in their motherland), the choice to return/remain in a more regional city may often be driven by a lifestyle choice - a mid-level manager working in Pittsburgh will likely work less, make the same/more and, in the immediate social environment, hold higher status than the mid-level manager in Silicon Valley who is slaving away 80 hours a week to make an IPO happen for a 35 year old soon-to-be billionaire founder (the big/small fish/pond concept) - of course the big draw in SF is that YOU could be that founder, and there's less of those opportunities in Pittsburgh (at least in theory, and for now). I think this also ties into the relative wealth equality and socioeconomic integration when compared to NY/SF/etc., which was well-described in the article.
Anyhow, just a thought - to be honest, much of my conjecture is driven by my own desire to move to Cleveland for a lot of the reasons above, but at the end of the day I have not and probably won't (I tell myself it has at least a large part to do with the fact that I was born/raised in the Bay Area and all my family/friends live here, but I have to admit that part of me still wants to be in the big pond at the end of the day, as chill as it looks in a smaller one - of course that could change haha).