4 ms·

I think that makes sense. Always seemed strange that you wouldn't want to break the strange-hold on "setting up your company where the talent/expense" is. I'd h

by goldcd 6y ago

I think that makes sense. Always seemed strange that you wouldn't want to break the strange-hold on "setting up your company where the talent/expense" is. I'd have thought a decent model for something leaving incubation would be to almost build a campus/kibbutz somewhere nice and cheap. You're leaving education, we'll give you a nice house, a salary that leaves you better off once rent deducted - and base yourself somewhere nice. For starting out, gives you an opportunity to build up some cash. For the employer your staff are less likely to quit on you. For wherever you choose to base the company, you're providing infrastructure, young/educated tax-payers etc. Plus as people do eventually leave, they're reasonably likely to remain in the area to start their own startup.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Many companies do break that strangle-hold, deciding that saving money is more important than finding good talent. It's a perfectly reasonable and very common business model. There are niches that generate $5m per year and require exactly 5 talented engineers but have no use for more; if you find one, you can just settle yourself into it and there's no reason to locate yourself based on talent availability. There are even niches where it just doesn't matter whether any of your engineers are talented. You don't hear very much about those companies on most discussion forums because they're not very exciting.
nabla9 6y ago
That's the common sense reasoning before you start studying urban economics. The idea that you just hire good people, then place them somewhere chap but nice separated from others kills all the subtle agglomeration effects.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Always seemed strange that you wouldn't want to break the strange-hold on "setting up your company where the talent/expense" is Places that are economically successful cities aren't just talent centers. They have access to freshwater supplies, natural trade routes, and established infrastructure, not just local but the connections to trade, energy, etc. networks. And in many cases of in-demand locations, have climate and/or natural physical recreation sites that people want to be near. Replacing these things or doing without them adds cost.

by goldcd 6y ago

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Many companies do break that strangle-hold, deciding that saving money is more important than finding good talent. It's a perfectly reasonable and very common business model. There are niches that generate $5m per year and require exactly 5 talented engineers but have no use for more; if you find one, you can just settle yourself into it and there's no reason to locate yourself based on talent availability. There are even niches where it just doesn't matter whether any of your engineers are talented. You don't hear very much about those companies on most discussion forums because they're not very exciting.

nabla9 6y ago

That's the common sense reasoning before you start studying urban economics. The idea that you just hire good people, then place them somewhere chap but nice separated from others kills all the subtle agglomeration effects.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Always seemed strange that you wouldn't want to break the strange-hold on "setting up your company where the talent/expense" is Places that are economically successful cities aren't just talent centers. They have access to freshwater supplies, natural trade routes, and established infrastructure, not just local but the connections to trade, energy, etc. networks. And in many cases of in-demand locations, have climate and/or natural physical recreation sites that people want to be near. Replacing these things or doing without them adds cost.