3 ms·
Every time something like this comes up I keep asking.. which will happen first: 1) People with ideas will start refusing to move to that area, because of expen
by supergeek133 11y ago
Every time something like this comes up I keep asking.. which will happen first:
1) People with ideas will start refusing to move to that area, because of expense.
2) The capital will FINALLY start seeking other locations where they get more output for their funding.
3) With #2 the capital can come from SF, but allow the company to 'live' outside the valley, or even outside the state.
I've been seeing recent articles comparing the dying/aging VC scenes of Austin, Seattle, etc.
I just don't get why the head isn't being removed from the sand on this. It feels like when a founder gets funded their first concern is living expenses and food, not "how many people can I hire".
It's getting crazy, it's a race to the bottom it feels like.
- eldavido 11y agoI think the endgame here is having the business end of your company near capital/partners/customers and the operational/R&D end in a lower-cost area. I'm all for moving to a lower-cost area, but you can't deny the huge benefits that come from being near hundreds of funding sources and partners that SF/SV of today offers. In time I believe innovation will follow the innovators (not the money guys) but that day isn't today.
- Maro 11y agoThis is already happening for SV startups founded by foreigners/1st gen. It's much cheaper to keep engineering in India or E.Europe, save about 50-75%. I worked at Prezi, founded by Hungarians, and 2/3 of the company is in Budapest, with a smaller office with mngmnt/marketing/finance in SF. I believe GoodData (founder is from Czech Rep. I believe) is doing something similar.