This seems counter-intuitive, I thought the competition for hiring in the valley was already too high.
Isn't the benefit of being outside the valley cost of living and human capital?
Isn't the benefit of being outside the valley cost of living and human capital?
I'd suggest they go to the east coast instead.
My startup is in SFBA. I'd love to be in Seattle or Austin instead (I like guns; taxes are secondary consideration; and I'd love a 5k ft2 house), but from a hiring perspective, it's easier to find people who have already done something successful in the bay area.
Maybe set up a second US office for development in one of those two later, but initially, it's hard to beat SFBA. (I guess I'm in the "boring enterprise software" space, at least more so than Facebook, but less so than SAP).
Recruiting from elsewhere (especially Boston/Cambridge) makes a lot of sense, but people are generally more willing to relo to SF than to either Seattle or Austin, at least from my experience.
Admittedly, I may be slightly biased here because I wonder why much of the east coast tends to get marginalized when talking about startup activity. (I'm in Philly)
There are way more of those people in the bay area (although, many more jobs, too) than in Philly (I am from suburban philadelphia myself). Recruiting from enterprises might be ok for employees 20+, but not as good on the cultural fit issues for #1-10.
NYC is basically out (they are a net importer); Boston is a major source; philadelphia, atlanta, north carolina, etc. might be minor sources, and DC is probably a net importer.
I'd relo candidates from places like that (we can't really do remote yet), but wouldn't personally want to set up an office anywhere but SFBA, Seattle, Austin, a few non-US places, or unfortunately DC-Metro (I hate DC Metro myself, but in the long run, it's necessary; not sure if MD, VA, DC makes the most sense).