There Are 4,000 Cities Hiring. You Are Applying to Five.

The job market isn't the bottleneck. The map in your head is. Praxy's own job-postings data spans 4,105 cities across 19 countries, but most people search in five of them. You aren't competing against every job seeker. You're competing against the subset who, like you, decided opportunity lives in a handful of zip codes. Open the map and you walk out of the crowd.

That last line is the whole argument, so let me make it uncomfortable. The places you think of as the gateway to good work are, by the numbers, the hardest places to get hired. San Jose averaged 153.77 applicants per LinkedIn job ad in July 2024, the second-most competitive city on the planet. Seattle's competition rate jumped 445% in a single year, from 7.5 applicants per job to 40.9. Meanwhile Jacksonville sat at 10.8 applicants per posting. Same country. Same year. Roughly fourteen times the competition, depending on which dot on the map you picked. The dot is the decision. Most people don't know they're making it.

Why does the job market feel so much harder than the openings suggest?

Run the math nobody runs. In the first half of 2024, job applications grew 31% year over year while new openings grew just 7%. In raw terms that's 173 million applications chasing 19 million new requisitions, roughly a 4-to-1 disparity. On the employer side, Greenhouse customers went from 116 applications per opening in 2022 to 223 in 2024, a 111% jump, and the figure kept climbing.

So yes, it's harder, and part of that openings count is inflated by ghost jobs and stale listings that were never really open. But here's the part that matters: that crush isn't evenly spread. The 4-to-1 ratio is a national average. The lived experience for any one applicant depends almost entirely on where they choose to compete. If you and most of the other applicants funnel into the same five metros, you don't feel the average. You feel the worst tail of it. The market didn't single you out. You walked into the densest room and shut the door behind you.

Where are the hidden jobs actually hiding?

They aren't hidden. They're just somewhere you stopped looking. The structural argument for hub cities is real: McKinsey found that 25 US cities held more than two-thirds of all job growth in the decade to 2019 while holding only about 44% of the population. But flip that finding over and read the application implication. If you're one of the many chasing that two-thirds, your odds are worse than if you pursue the rest with a fraction of the rivals.

And the geography of growth keeps shifting underneath the old mental map. CBRE's 2025 analysis named Huntsville, Halifax, and Colorado Springs as top emerging tech talent markets, alongside roughly 25 emerging US and Canadian markets and 11 in Latin America. The flow of people followed: the number of workers relocating to San Francisco had already dropped 41.7% as talent spread to Seattle, Denver, Austin, and lower-cost metros. In India the same pattern shows up: during the 2024 festive season, tier 2 and tier 3 cities posted about 25% hiring growth against 20% in the metros, with Bhubaneswar up 45% year over year in October 2024. Praxy's job-postings data tells the same story at scale: spread across thousands of cities, not five.

Isn't remote the obvious escape from all this?

It would be, if everyone hadn't had that same thought already. Remote is the most crowded lane on the road. Back in February 2022, remote roles pulled 50.1% of all LinkedIn applications while making up just 19.4% of paid postings, a demand-to-supply gap of roughly 2.5x. Since then the supply has collapsed while the demand held. Indeed tracked the squeeze on the supply side: remote postings peaked at 10.4% in February 2022 and slid to 7.8% by October 2024. On LinkedIn, the share of jobs members applied to that offered remote flexibility fell from 27% in early 2022 to 16% by late 2024, even as over one in five US job seekers kept applying to remote roles exclusively.

The effect is brutal and easy to miss. On one nonprofit board, remote roles drew 4.5 times as many applications as hybrid ones in 2023. On Handshake in 2024, only 4% of full-time postings were fully remote, yet 21% of student searches filtered for remote. Going remote-only doesn't widen your map. It pours your whole search into the single most contested channel on it.

What does widening the map actually look like?

It's a different search behavior, not a different person. Here's the contrast.

Weak move: A software engineer applies exclusively to FAANG and SF-area startups, walking straight into a pool where San Jose averages 154 applicants per posting.

Strong move: The same engineer keeps a couple of those reach applications but also targets Raleigh-Durham, Huntsville, and Jacksonville at 10.8 applicants per posting. Same compensation band for the role, a fraction of the rivals.

Weak move: A product manager in Pune applies only to Bangalore and Hyderabad companies, competing against the bulk of India's PM talent.

Strong move: The same PM adds Kochi, Bhubaneswar at 45% year-over-year growth, and a few remote-eligible roles at Bangalore firms. Three competitive arenas instead of one.

The pattern beneath both: diversify the arena, don't relocate your whole life. Treat the cities you've never considered as a track to test, not a verdict to accept.

Your search	Applicants you're fighting	What it costs you
Five hub cities only	150+ per posting in the hottest metros	Crushing odds, hidden behind a "good" market
Remote-only	A shrinking ~8% of postings, with demand still far outpacing supply	The most contested lane, disguised as freedom
Hubs + secondary cities + selective remote	10-40 per posting in growth markets	A bit of unfamiliarity, far better odds

Why does the map stay so narrow if widening it is this obvious?

Because the radius is psychological before it's practical. People consistently treat distance as a wall long before it becomes a real constraint. The five-city map isn't handed down by the market. It's built from habit, from where your peers went, from the quiet assumption that prestige clusters at a few addresses. You inherit a mental list of "real" places to work and never audit it.

That narrowness has a cost you can't see while you're inside it. You experience a brutal search and conclude the market is broken. The market isn't broken. You're sampling the worst slice of it and calling that the whole. Agency lives in the gap between the map you inherited and the map that's actually true. Almost nothing here is fixed by luck. It's fixed by deciding to look somewhere you'd ruled out without ever checking.

When is the five-city map the right call?

When the work genuinely lives there, name it and own it. For some roles the geographic argument collapses, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest. The San Francisco Bay Area hosts one-sixth of all US AI-specialty talent and pulled in 70% of national AI VC funding since 2019, with AI-related roles reaching a 42% share of postings there by mid-2025. If you're at the frontier of a specialization where the work, the capital, and the network are physically clustered, the hub is the rational choice. Same for senior roles in finance, law, and parts of government where location is baked into the ladder.

Two more honest caveats. Thin competition can mean thin opportunity: a city with 10 applicants per posting and three openings in your specialty is a harder search than one with 150 applicants and 800 openings. And secondary-market cash compensation often runs lower in absolute terms even when cost-of-living math looks attractive, which matters if you're optimizing for wealth, not lifestyle, because the same job can pay several times more depending on which market it's anchored to. Geographic diversification is a calibration, not a commandment. The trade-off you're making is comfort and familiarity against odds. Name which one you're buying, and buy it on purpose.

What to do this week

Three moves, none of which require quitting anything.

1. Search your exact role title in two cities you've never considered. Not "would I move there." Just: how many openings, how many applicants, what comp band. You're collecting evidence, not booking a U-Haul.
2. Check whether your top-target companies have offices or remote-friendly policies in lower-competition markets. The same employer, the same role, a thinner pool. That's the cleanest arbitrage there is.
3. Treat remote as one track, not the strategy. Add it. Don't pour everything into the channel where, back in early 2022, half of all applications chased under a fifth of postings and the supply has only thinned since.

The point was never "move to a cheaper city." It's that your sense of where opportunity lives is almost certainly narrower than the truth, and that narrowness is quietly costing you offers. Run on evidence, not assumption.

Want to see your real competitive map instead of the imagined one? Tell Praxy your role on WhatsApp and we'll show you where your skills match with the thinnest competition, not just the five cities everyone else is fighting over.