Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
thisisgoingtobebig.com
Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
1–10 of 76 posts
Re: Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
#2Probably going against the grain here, but that was spot-on. PG's analysis of NYC in that article made me wince, especially that nonsense about restaurants and jackets. I also snorted at the notion that NYC is all about money. It is such a large and diverse city that I find it difficult to suggest that it is all about ANY one thing.
Re: Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
#3You know I was cleaning this weekend and apparently I missed the start of "Put the smack-down on PG" week. Any way I can catch up by Friday? Suggestions PG? I have a tentative work entitled "Why PG is wrong about the color of the HN menubar," but I'm not sure it has the same pizzaz as this other stuff we're seeing.
Re: Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
#4Probably going against the grain here, but that was spot-on. PG's analysis of NYC in that article made me wince, especially that nonsense about restaurants and jackets. I also snorted at the notion that NYC is all about money. It is such a large and diverse city that I find it difficult to suggest that it is all about ANY one thing.
Maybe its not all about money, but its definitely more about money. Coming from Wisconsin and working in Manhattan, I find my midwestern frugalness is completely alien to people. Time is money here, there is no doubt about it. Walking three blocks and taking a subway ride gets thrown out the window in favor of a $20 cab ride. Its the small stuff but it adds up. When a city suffers a shortage of BMWs after Wall Street bonuses come out, its hard to say its not about money.
Re: Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
#5You know I was cleaning this weekend and apparently I missed the start of "Put the smack-down on PG" week. Any way I can catch up by Friday? Suggestions PG? I have a tentative work entitled "Why PG is wrong about the color of the HN menubar," but I'm not sure it has the same pizzaz as this other stuff we're seeing.
The point of submitting this wasn't to pick on pg -- it's a thoughtful piece, and adds a new voice to the discussion. Interesting conversations have two sides.
Re: Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
#6Frankly, it's almost impossible to find good engineers in NYC. The banks do take them all, that doesn't mean that it's impossible to start up in the city, it is just harder.
On the west coasts, startups compete with other startups and employees bounce around making similar amounts of money. In New York, startups compete with financial institutions which can and do throw enormous amounts of cash at employees without a second thought, hence the startups can't compete.
I have to agree with the echo chamber part of things though, startups in NYC are doing different things than startups on the west coast, but maybe that's because there's just fewer startups here that there's more ideas to go around...
Re: Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
#7Probably going against the grain here, but that was spot-on. PG's analysis of NYC in that article made me wince, especially that nonsense about restaurants and jackets. I also snorted at the notion that NYC is all about money. It is such a large and diverse city that I find it difficult to suggest that it is all about ANY one thing.
Maybe its not all about money, but its definitely more about money. Coming from Wisconsin and working in Manhattan, I find my midwestern frugalness is completely alien to people. Time is money here, there is no doubt about it. Walking three blocks and taking a subway ride gets thrown out the window in favor of a $20 cab ride. Its the small stuff but it adds up. When a city suffers a shortage of BMWs after Wall Street…
Maybe it's a Manhattan thing. I live in Brooklyn, and I encounter some awesomely frugal people.
Also, it may be an Alchian-Allen thing: if you're paying a fixed cost just to live in the city, luxury is comparably less of an indulgence. See: http://www.nationalpost.com/loveandsex/story.html?id=296085
Re: Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
#8I've not spent enough time in NYC to judge for myself but based on what I've read and seen (e.g. http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/07/02/2/an-appreciatio...) I've come to think that NYC is really all about ambition.
Re: Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
#9Probably going against the grain here, but that was spot-on. PG's analysis of NYC in that article made me wince, especially that nonsense about restaurants and jackets. I also snorted at the notion that NYC is all about money. It is such a large and diverse city that I find it difficult to suggest that it is all about ANY one thing.
Maybe its not all about money, but its definitely more about money. Coming from Wisconsin and working in Manhattan, I find my midwestern frugalness is completely alien to people. Time is money here, there is no doubt about it. Walking three blocks and taking a subway ride gets thrown out the window in favor of a $20 cab ride. Its the small stuff but it adds up. When a city suffers a shortage of BMWs after Wall Street…
In NYC, they have laws that a renter must earn an annual income that is 52x the monthly rent to qualify to rent the apartment (yes, subletting from someone is one way around it).
In NYC, a 1BR apartment that you live in by yourself is a status symbol. The average monthly rent is north of $2,500. Spending $2k+ on rent just to live in the city, maybe that's more about ego than it is about money..
Re: Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
#10Frankly, it's almost impossible to find good engineers in NYC. The banks do take them all, that doesn't mean that it's impossible to start up in the city, it is just harder. On the west coasts, startups compete with other startups and employees bounce around making similar amounts of money. In New York, startups compete with financial institutions which can and do throw enormous amounts of cash at employees without a…
I wonder if the banking thing isn't as much of a problem as it seems. I work as a financial recruiter, and one of the patterns I see is an on/off relationship with startups and banks, e.g. working two years at Goldman, then one year at a new search engine, then a year at Credit Suisse, then three years starting up a new wiki-based whatsit.
If you know you can quit and -- within a few months -- be earning a great living writing trading algorithms in C++ or reporting systems in Java, a startup is a much saner risk. This also applies to quants and physics majors: many smart folks are lured into the private sector, but many many more smart people can consider a Physics PhD because of the money they can make (if they need it).