Hacker News Reader

Comment by TylerE | Hacker News Reader

It it were me and I was truly starting a start up, I would do it in person, at least while we’re in the single digit employees, but it sure as hell wouldn’t be anywhere close to SF, where costs are just insane.

It’s be somewhere with a reasonable CoL but still nice to live in… Charlotte/RTP, Nashville, maybe Chicago or Philly if you really wanted to be in a big metro.

Alternative would be remote, but try to cluster the employees so you could get together in person a few times a month with no one (ideally) having to drive much more than an hour or so round trip.

View on HN

> It’s be somewhere with a reasonable CoL but still nice to live in…

The funny thing is, this is why companies were in San Francisco. Back when the tech industry was far less than it is now, San Francisco was "a reasonable CoL but still nice to live in" even though it was all the way over there in California.

Then San Francisco got expensive so people tried Seattle...then Denver...then Austin...and so the wheel turns. And each time, we fail to learn the lessons of what made those places get more expensive as more people wanted to move there. Then we try again somewhere else, expecting that new people won't have the back story and existing people will happily move.

I've been working on computers for a job for decades and we still haven't gotten it right.

> And each time, we fail to learn the lessons of what made those places get more expensive as more people wanted to move there

I don't understand what you're saying. Most people want to have bought California property 30-40 years ago. "Don't do that or you'll retire in an inflation adjusted $5MM home!" is a strange pitch to get people to do what you want.

To say nothing of the fact that all the other interests (city planners, developers, etc.) also want that outcome.

I thought things got started in silicon valley because it was cheap with Stanford nearby. Then hardware slowly changed to software. As things grew people moved to San Francisco to enjoy life of the big city and still be close silicon valley. Microsoft moved to Seattle because it was Gates's home. And Nintendo was there because Seattle was closer to Japan. Microsoft grew and created a mini silicon effect in Seattle. The growth of Seattle had nothing to do with the prices in San Francisco. I think prices have very little bearing on this kind of things.

> San Francisco was "a reasonable CoL but still nice to live in" even though it was all the way over there in California.

Can you provide some citations on this? I've been told San Francisco has always been expensive.

You are correct, SF and coastal California has been the most expensive real estate in the US many decades. The price premium has widened quite a bit though.

I am starting one in person. It’s so much more efficient when it comes to getting things done. I’m sorry quality of life folks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com