3 ms·
Nah. The second thing is the main thing. Your first point is just the typical SF exceptionalism narrative that has been touted by the Bay VC startup ideology fo
by zzbzq 9y ago
Nah. The second thing is the main thing. Your first point is just the typical SF exceptionalism narrative that has been touted by the Bay VC startup ideology for the last 20 years.
The sad truth is, it's not a coincidence that so many of the biggest economies in the world are built inside of self-perpetuated real estate bubbles. Pockets of land trapped in by ocean and mountains. There's a feedback loop involved in companies that get big enough to own their own buildings, their companies' continued growth drives up the value of their real estate which they can re-finance for easy loans.
There's plenty of people who think it makes sense to take the startup culture to cheaper areas like the midwest or Austin. And they "succeed" in founding profitable startups. But they'll never create the next great thing, specifically because the big companies in big cities didn't succeed in spite of their higher costs, but because of them.
I think if I wanted to move silicon valley I'd look for some cheap semi-peninsular coastal city which is currently priced like a midwest city. Then I would drive up that price. I've eyed Charleston SC as a potential target but I've never actually been there to know if that makes sense.
- exolymph 9y agoSilicon Valley exceptionalism has proved itself out pretty well, I'd say.
- typomatic 9y agoThis is an error called survivorship bias. You cannot evaluate the strength of a strategy post hoc based on its success.
- empthought 9y agoYep, just like Detroit in 1950.
- mlevental 9y agowhat you're claiming is plausible but how many successful companies are actually refinancing real estate they own in order to get capital (for further growth?)? do you have proof this happens as regularly as would have to happen to be the largest component of sv success, as you claim?