Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 263 posts

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#241

Post by jaggederest »

newman8r wrote: post #232
jaggederest wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that already exists, it's basically just an RV park, right? Without the philosophical bent and off-grid aspects, you can already find those things. I spent a big chunk of my childhood bumming around the country on vacation in an RV, and I think that's ultimately the source of my wanderlust, but it doesn't really build a community for the longer term.

There are similarities. It would be more spread out and have far fewer residents than an RV park. People could build what they want (tiny homes, earthbag houses, etc). It would also be more of a co-op compared to a commercial RV park. RV parks cost millions to build, this would be more than an order of magnitude cheaper. I've spent time in RV parks too, I like them. Even the crappiest ones are ~$450/mo in California…

I'm chuckling because you're right on the same path I was, though I never bought any land.

I think you're dead on when you say "a group of 10 people", and that's where you have to get into building community dynamics, even for a group of hermits :)

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#242

Post by DoreenMichele »

jaggederest wrote: post #75
newman8r wrote: post #15

I've been interested in the idea of semi-off-grid live/work communities for remote workers and startups. It's inexpensive and not a bad lifestyle.

I've been working on the logistics of this and it's pretty tough. If everyone at your "semi off grid" live/work community works in tech, you have plenty of money but little free time, and end up bringing in most of the maintenance of the environment, which is expensive and alienating. It's much the same kind of way that it's unaffordable to live in SF if you're a janitor. If you have some residents working in tech an…

I have read about off-gridders who live in the middle-of-nowhere in Southern California near the Mexico border because it's possible to live on next to nothing. Like they support themselves on as little as $600/month (or did, whenever the piece in question was written). They also do stupid stuff like reclaim ordinance as a means to make money and sometimes get blown up that way.

It's possible this was mentioned in the book "Salt Dreams," a book about water issues in Southern California. But I couldn't swear to that.

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#243

Post by techslave »

randomacct3847 wrote: post #94
enra wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for many people it comes down to go exactly where and do exactly what there. Once lived in Bay Area for while, you have certain expectations on compensation, services, things to do, career growth etc. If you are used to a city like SF and enjoy the level of things in there, in the world and US there only few cities similar. Like nyc, la, London, Tokyo etc. Portland, Seattle, Austin, Berlin are all good but no…

It’s not just cost of living but taxes. Living in a state with no income tax is an automatic 10-12% bump in take home pay. Agree though if you’re single your living situation is more flexible and you can find a place for less than market rate here pretty easily. It’s once you get married and want kids that SF makes no sense for most people. Someone making 200k in Austin has a much much better quality of life than som…

taxes don’t drive it. the 10% income tax savings is made up by prop tax and other costs.

yes austin is cheaper but not because of taxes

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#244

Post by randomacct3847 »

techslave wrote: post #243
randomacct3847 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just cost of living but taxes. Living in a state with no income tax is an automatic 10-12% bump in take home pay. Agree though if you’re single your living situation is more flexible and you can find a place for less than market rate here pretty easily. It’s once you get married and want kids that SF makes no sense for most people. Someone making 200k in Austin has a much much better quality of life than som…

taxes don’t drive it. the 10% income tax savings is made up by prop tax and other costs. yes austin is cheaper but not because of taxes

What? Yes TX has higher property taxes as % property value than CA but, again, if you’re buying a 300k place in Austin your annual property taxes are going to be And because TX does not have income tax it also means for a 300k place your state and local taxes won’t hit the $10k limit for fed deductions which you will easily hit if you earn and have property in CA.

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#245

Post by zeckalpha »

ummonk wrote: post #195
zeckalpha wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems tautological. Do you have a source?

How is that tautological? It's clearly an empirical statement. My source is my own observations of decacorns as well as IPOs during the last year. That said, feel free to skim through this (slightly outdated) list and note how a large fraction of the US-based companies are based in SF or SV: http://fortune.com/unicorns/

There are many billion dollar private companies that meet the strict definition but do not get included in lists of “unicorns”: https://www.forbes.com/largest-private-companies/list/

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#246

Post by pm90 »

mv4 wrote: post #209
freddie_mercury wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some friends created a startup a few years ago. It is now profitable and never took VC. The two founders pull down $1,000,000 a year and they give staff $50,000+ annual bonuses from profit sharing. They also work four day weeks and spent every night and weekend with their kids. What's the upside of trying to make it into a unicorn?

what type of business/service, if you don't mind sharing? I've always found "no VC" stories incredibly inspiring.

"no VC" is the majority of businesses in the US (and possibly the world)

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#247

Post by techslave »

randomacct3847 wrote: post #244
techslave wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

taxes don’t drive it. the 10% income tax savings is made up by prop tax and other costs. yes austin is cheaper but not because of taxes

What? Yes TX has higher property taxes as % property value than CA but, again, if you’re buying a 300k place in Austin your annual property taxes are going to be And because TX does not have income tax it also means for a 300k place your state and local taxes won’t hit the $10k limit for fed deductions which you will easily hit if you earn and have property in CA.

a 300k place in austin is not comparable to a 1.5m place in sf bay.

the 10k limit is irrelevant because most people will be in the 200k-500k AMT range where prop tax is not deductible anyway.

please compare apples to apples.

why picking on austin? it was just an example. wyoming has no income tax. you think living in jackson, WY is cheaper than cupertino? and that the reason is taxes???

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#248

Post by freddie_mercury »

mv4 wrote: post #209
freddie_mercury wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some friends created a startup a few years ago. It is now profitable and never took VC. The two founders pull down $1,000,000 a year and they give staff $50,000+ annual bonuses from profit sharing. They also work four day weeks and spent every night and weekend with their kids. What's the upside of trying to make it into a unicorn?

what type of business/service, if you don't mind sharing? I've always found "no VC" stories incredibly inspiring.

They worked in a field for 10+ years, understood the underserved needs of customers in that field, and built a product that addressed those underserved needs for customers.

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#249

Post by debaserab2 »

techslave wrote: post #240
debaserab2 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not prioritizing growth at all costs != lifestyle business Nor does not taking VC money mean you're a lifestyle business

you’re responding to the converse of GP’s statement, which yes, is not true. but he said none of those things. you have projected a false dichotomy which wasn’t proposed.

Uh, okay. So in what way was GP responding to my post then?

Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups

#250

Post by newman8r »

jaggederest wrote: post #241
newman8r wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are similarities. It would be more spread out and have far fewer residents than an RV park. People could build what they want (tiny homes, earthbag houses, etc). It would also be more of a co-op compared to a commercial RV park. RV parks cost millions to build, this would be more than an order of magnitude cheaper. I've spent time in RV parks too, I like them. Even the crappiest ones are ~$450/mo in California…

I'm chuckling because you're right on the same path I was, though I never bought any land. I think you're dead on when you say "a group of 10 people", and that's where you have to get into building community dynamics, even for a group of hermits :)

you're probably right about that being a number where things start getting more complicated. Starting with 5 people might make even more sense, and add members later to raise additional funds.
Post reply on HN