I think you just argued against a straw man. The article didn't even really talk about salaries. This is about where people are moving from and to.

This is about tracking "business formation as well as employment and education in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics"

There was no call to move there, or statement that they are better places. But surely there is something interesting and possibly something to learn about by looking at migrations of people, especially STEM companies and employees.

Good! Part of the beauty of our chosen career is that we can work from pretty much anywhere in the world with an Internet connection. If you're happy where you're at, you're doing it right.

Personally, as a software engineer in Colorado, I wouldn't trade locations either. But that's because of the things CO has to offer - incredible outdoor recreation, 300 days of sunshine, mild winters, decently competitive salaries, affordable cost of living (on an engineer salary at least), and a culture where people prioritize being well-rounded as individuals instead of allowing work to dominate their lives.

Now, the article's headline "The Smartest Americans Are Heading West" is definitely a generalization, but the migration patterns of people shouldn't be dismissed as simple "money-seeking" - one reason trumping all the others fails to address the complexity innate to big personal decisions like choosing where to live.

What we should be asking is WHY people who fit the "smartness" criteria described in the article are deciding to move West - and then using that information to make informed policy decisions elsewhere.

> I get to use the technologies that I like, some of which aren't very mainstream, and also I really like the developers I work with.

So in other states, people have to use technologies they dislike, and work with people they dislike? Sounds dreadful.

Why so defensive?