3 ms·
Perhaps not true any more. I came across this article yesterday: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227436 http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227436 "Austin
by ericabiz 13y ago
Perhaps not true any more. I came across this article yesterday: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227436 http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227436
"Austin ranks as the No. 1 place to launch your business, according to a new ranking by GoodApril, a San Francisco-based tax-planning startup. The ranking compares the seven hottest startup scenes in the U.S. across measures that matter most to new entrepreneurs: median tech-employee earnings, maximum personal income tax, property tax, the cost of housing and the cost of office space. Perhaps surprisingly, San Francisco, the longtime Silicon Valley startup mecca, ranks as the worst place to launch, due to high costs and taxes."
- muzz 13y ago"the way things should be" (according to low taxes, etc) is not the same as "the way things are" It is instructive to understand the difference, i.e. why entrepreneurs start businesses that thrive and succeed in San Francisco when the pundit's supposed "climate for business" is better in other places.
- mikeash 13y agoIt's hard to imagine the stereotypical tech startup caring about any of those measures very much. I mean, cost of office space? I don't get the impression that VC-funded "IPO or bust" startups care about that at all.
- muzz 13y agoI think the distinction is not about "VC-funded IPO-or-bust" startups, but rather whether the startup creates significant value add Low-value-add businesses are affected strongly by those factors. If value add is high, those factors matter much less.