Someone who is reading this conversation will benefit from being told that moving to the Bay Area, New York, Berlin, Sydney, Amsterdam etc. for a couple of years is possible. Maybe it's not you, and that's fine. In general, though, helpful advice is about choosing the right side of a trade-off, not a panacea.
It's more than "maybe it's not you": it's not most people outside the HN bubble where SV is the mecca and everyone wants to join a US startup. Yes, there are trade-offs involved in every choice (except age, of course: that's not a trade-off, you cannot choose to become younger and be picked for low-wage trainee job positions that are only offered to young people), but I don't get why we're so fixated in such specific trade-off options.
In the spirit of the article, which warns about optimistic people arguing for unrealistic paths, I'm just warning that "move to SV" is not, for most people, reasonable advice.
Now, you may argue that for people reading HN, there is a larger subset which do aspire and would benefit from moving to SV. I won't argue against that. But I thought the spirit of the article was not about providing career advice for such a small subset of tech-minded people.
To sum up, this proposition is false for most people (and not just me): "everyone passionate about technology should, all else being equal, strive to move to Silicon Valley and work there, because that's the best place there is".
