It's "very possible" to have a "successful career" in lots of places, doing lots of sub-optimal things. But if your goal is to optimize your tech career, that narrows down your options significantly.
That really depends on what you define as "optimal". Having worked at the Google's, FB, and Apple's of the world is something to put on a resume. 9/10 the job isn't fulfilling.
I'm not telling anyone what their life goals should be, or what they should optimize for. Just pointing out that if someone highly prioritizes career success, they would find themselves having to move to SF (or one of the few other hubs). I don't think it's anyone's role to lecture others on the internet about what their life goals should or should not be.
Define "career success." I live 3+ hours out of LA. I work with scaling distributed back end systems. I make well into 6 figures (admittedly with a 1 in front). Bay area companies try to recruit me often enough but tend to not be able to afford me (and I really like where I work). I'm not trying to toot my own horn, and I may be in a minority; however I don't find myself "having" to move to a tech hub, and I feel successful thus far in my career. Tangentially, I avoid SF like prices: my mortgage in my mountain community is about $800/mo. Sorry to be pedantic, but the correction I'd make to your statement: one can likely incease their chances for career progression (or starting their career) by moving to a tech hub.
> "one can likely incease their chances for career progression (or starting their career) by moving to a tech hub."
That's neither pedantic, nor a correction. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. Career success isn't a 0/1 boolean, and no matter how successful someone currently is, there's always the potential for even greater career success. Optimizing for career success includes optimizing your chances for career progression.
