3 ms·

Living in one room with your founders and working in that same room (essentially staying in one place with no privacy 24/7) sounds horrible. I understand that t

Living in one room with your founders and working in that same room (essentially staying in one place with no privacy 24/7) sounds horrible. I understand that there are benefits to being in SF but surely they can't be worth enough to make you want to live that way. It sounds like the artist who thinks he won't be good unless he starves first. There are other ways and for most people it's unnecessary. How about living 2-3 hours away so that you can still travel in for investor meetings - probably the biggest benefit of being in SF? Or doing some freelance work on the side?

jonnathanson 12y ago
Psychologically, I think it's a lot easier for the very young. If you're 21 or 22, fresh out of college, this living situation wouldn't be dramatically different from the setup you've dealt with for the last four years of your life. I imagine it would be much harder to tolerate if you were a bit older, and you'd had a taste or two of life in your own place.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Very true but should you tolerate it? If it's unnecessary it seems like 'suffering' just to say you did.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    Well, if we're getting into the realm of should and shouldn't, that's a different story. :) No, I don't think anyone should have to put up with that sort of living arrangement. At the same time, I don't begrudge people that choice if they want to make it. While I wouldn't make the same choice, I respect it. I would never advocate miserliness without necessity. There's no reason to torture oneself, just for the sake of living hard. But I respect the decision to live as frugally as possible, especially while bootstrapping a company. If that means living in one place with three buddies, then so long as all four people are cool with the living arrangement, so be it. It's far from ideal, but it's a legitimate choice. There are plenty of alternatives to crashing with a bunch of people in one tiny place in SF. But if you've done the cost/benefit analysis, and you truly believe you need to be in SF, then, well, SF is expensive. Deal with that as best you are able. If you are willing to make some significant sacrifices, that's great. You shouldn't have to, but there's a difference between the world of "shouldn't" and the world as it is. Case in point: I know of two co-founders who moved out to SF, couldn't afford an apartment, and instead, lived on a boat in the marina for half a year. Would I have the grit to do that? Not at my age, at any rate. But I respect it. We shouldn't glamorize it, but we shouldn't rush to cast aspersions on it.

jonnathanson 12y ago

Psychologically, I think it's a lot easier for the very young. If you're 21 or 22, fresh out of college, this living situation wouldn't be dramatically different from the setup you've dealt with for the last four years of your life. I imagine it would be much harder to tolerate if you were a bit older, and you'd had a taste or two of life in your own place.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
Very true but should you tolerate it? If it's unnecessary it seems like 'suffering' just to say you did.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Well, if we're getting into the realm of should and shouldn't, that's a different story. :) No, I don't think anyone should have to put up with that sort of living arrangement. At the same time, I don't begrudge people that choice if they want to make it. While I wouldn't make the same choice, I respect it. I would never advocate miserliness without necessity. There's no reason to torture oneself, just for the sake of living hard. But I respect the decision to live as frugally as possible, especially while bootstrapping a company. If that means living in one place with three buddies, then so long as all four people are cool with the living arrangement, so be it. It's far from ideal, but it's a legitimate choice. There are plenty of alternatives to crashing with a bunch of people in one tiny place in SF. But if you've done the cost/benefit analysis, and you truly believe you need to be in SF, then, well, SF is expensive. Deal with that as best you are able. If you are willing to make some significant sacrifices, that's great. You shouldn't have to, but there's a difference between the world of "shouldn't" and the world as it is. Case in point: I know of two co-founders who moved out to SF, couldn't afford an apartment, and instead, lived on a boat in the marina for half a year. Would I have the grit to do that? Not at my age, at any rate. But I respect it. We shouldn't glamorize it, but we shouldn't rush to cast aspersions on it.