5 ms·

Where would you start one then?

by dynofuz 10y ago

dynofuz 10y ago
Atlanta maybe? the south east has a disproportionately low number of tech companies relative to number of people (whether that's equivalent to talent, who knows?)
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Quite a few of the tech jobs in the SE US are clustered around military bases. If you want to start a military-industrial complex contractor, and for some bizarre reason you cannot do it in the DC Sprawl, what you can do is find a {choose 1 or more: disabled, native American, veteran, female, or other lawfully preferred minority} figurehead to own 51% of your business, grab some office space near a base, and start submitting bids, which you then subcontract to someone with actual employees. Then you start hiring employees and have them work on-site. Then you get acquired by a giant like SAIC or CSC or Raytheon or Boeing. That makes the local labor pool employed by a company that is probably headquartered elsewhere. The downside of this model is that you never get to actually build anything cool, so you either can't attract top talent, or they hate working for you and your neurotic government customer. So you have to slap on the silver handcuffs (high salary) to keep them from moving away. It sort of poisons the well for other kinds of tech businesses. Top talent either doesn't want to be there or costs more than you might expect. Mediocre talent is happy to warm a chair to pad out a contract for the same salary you would pay to do actual work. And the dregs are the same there as everywhere else.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Lousy healthcare options and lousy schools: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-best-schools/5335/ https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-best-schools/5335/
jakozaur 10y ago
In a place in which you live right now? I don't think there is universal answer. It depends a lot on your personal situation (connections/resources available/citizenship/lifestyle preferences).
godzillabrennus 10y ago
Chicago. Highest returns of any startup city. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160609/BLOGS11/160609806/best-city-for-monster-returns-in-venture-capital-chicago http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160609/BLOGS11/1606...
- dangerlibrary 10y ago
  Not really... > Chicago had just 31 total exits during the period, equal to Raleigh. Austin, Texas, had 86; Washington, D.C., saw 87; New York posted 98; and the San Francisco Bay Area recorded 613. While Chicago had 14 deals that produced returns of more than 10-fold, San Francisco had 153 such deals.
  - hugs 10y ago
    If your goal is to start an enduring & profitable business, number of exits is the wrong metric. I get annoyed when total number of exits is assumed to be the only metric that counts. It's clearly a metric VCs care about, though.
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      If you're a founder, not a VC, you would probably want another metric for the rate of return on your sweat from founding to exit. There's a TVM calculation in there, to normalize the dollars you got paid on exit to the years that you did the work. And there's an opportunity cost for not being a salaried employee of an existing business while your were building your new business. In the end, you probably want to reduce it to $X/week, run the calculation for all founders, and then aggregate by metropolitan area to see which city is best. If your business becomes self-sustaining without a buyout, merger, or IPO, you can probably run the calculation using a TVM for a presumed perpetuity after the day you finally start paying regular dividends, along with your equity value as a lump sum. And if it goes bankrupt, you could end up with a negative value if you chose to pay yourself a salary lower than you could have earned elsewhere.
- st3v3r 10y ago
BjoernKW 10y ago
Wherever you live right now (unless the country you live in is completely hostile towards free market business). Moving somewhere just to found a company is a waste of resources. You can always move later if another location is more appropriate for some reason.
joeguilmette 10y ago
I think a remote, distributed company is by far the best option. There are drawbacks, but the increased size of the labor pool, opportunity to hire talented folks with lower salary requirements, lower overhead costs, and (arguably) higher productivity/ work life balance just to name a few.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
amyjess 10y ago
If you're doing anything related to telecom, then Richardson, TX hands down. Actually, Richardson is a pretty good place for other industries, too, but our specialty is telecom.
antidaily 10y ago
Detroit. Or Chicago.

Where would you start one then?

by dynofuz 10y ago

Where would you start one then?

Atlanta maybe? the south east has a disproportionately low number of tech companies relative to number of people (whether that's equivalent to talent, who knows?)

logfromblammo 10y ago
Quite a few of the tech jobs in the SE US are clustered around military bases. If you want to start a military-industrial complex contractor, and for some bizarre reason you cannot do it in the DC Sprawl, what you can do is find a {choose 1 or more: disabled, native American, veteran, female, or other lawfully preferred minority} figurehead to own 51% of your business, grab some office space near a base, and start submitting bids, which you then subcontract to someone with actual employees. Then you start hiring employees and have them work on-site. Then you get acquired by a giant like SAIC or CSC or Raytheon or Boeing. That makes the local labor pool employed by a company that is probably headquartered elsewhere. The downside of this model is that you never get to actually build anything cool, so you either can't attract top talent, or they hate working for you and your neurotic government customer. So you have to slap on the silver handcuffs (high salary) to keep them from moving away. It sort of poisons the well for other kinds of tech businesses. Top talent either doesn't want to be there or costs more than you might expect. Mediocre talent is happy to warm a chair to pad out a contract for the same salary you would pay to do actual work. And the dregs are the same there as everywhere else.
Spooky23 10y ago
Lousy healthcare options and lousy schools: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-best-schools/5335/ https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-best-schools/5335/

jakozaur 10y ago

In a place in which you live right now? I don't think there is universal answer. It depends a lot on your personal situation (connections/resources available/citizenship/lifestyle preferences).

godzillabrennus 10y ago

Chicago. Highest returns of any startup city. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160609/BLOGS11/160609806/best-city-for-monster-returns-in-venture-capital-chicago http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160609/BLOGS11/1606...

dangerlibrary 10y ago
Not really... > Chicago had just 31 total exits during the period, equal to Raleigh. Austin, Texas, had 86; Washington, D.C., saw 87; New York posted 98; and the San Francisco Bay Area recorded 613. While Chicago had 14 deals that produced returns of more than 10-fold, San Francisco had 153 such deals.
- hugs 10y ago
  If your goal is to start an enduring & profitable business, number of exits is the wrong metric. I get annoyed when total number of exits is assumed to be the only metric that counts. It's clearly a metric VCs care about, though.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    If you're a founder, not a VC, you would probably want another metric for the rate of return on your sweat from founding to exit. There's a TVM calculation in there, to normalize the dollars you got paid on exit to the years that you did the work. And there's an opportunity cost for not being a salaried employee of an existing business while your were building your new business. In the end, you probably want to reduce it to $X/week, run the calculation for all founders, and then aggregate by metropolitan area to see which city is best. If your business becomes self-sustaining without a buyout, merger, or IPO, you can probably run the calculation using a TVM for a presumed perpetuity after the day you finally start paying regular dividends, along with your equity value as a lump sum. And if it goes bankrupt, you could end up with a negative value if you chose to pay yourself a salary lower than you could have earned elsewhere.
st3v3r 10y ago

BjoernKW 10y ago

Wherever you live right now (unless the country you live in is completely hostile towards free market business). Moving somewhere just to found a company is a waste of resources. You can always move later if another location is more appropriate for some reason.

joeguilmette 10y ago

I think a remote, distributed company is by far the best option. There are drawbacks, but the increased size of the labor pool, opportunity to hire talented folks with lower salary requirements, lower overhead costs, and (arguably) higher productivity/ work life balance just to name a few.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

amyjess 10y ago

If you're doing anything related to telecom, then Richardson, TX hands down. Actually, Richardson is a pretty good place for other industries, too, but our specialty is telecom.

antidaily 10y ago

Detroit. Or Chicago.