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

How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

wlimdo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#71

Post by jonnathanson »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #54

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…

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.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#72

Post by tedchs »

No thanks. This is how the stereotypical "starving artist", but it also sounds like a great way to burn out quickly. I'd rather work at an actual job for ~2 years and stockpile 20-30k in cash, then live like a normal (but still frugal) person during the initial startup build.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#73

Post by k-mcgrady »

jonnathanson wrote: post #71
k-mcgrady wrote: post #54

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…

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.

Very true but should you tolerate it? If it's unnecessary it seems like 'suffering' just to say you did.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#74

Post by disputin »

schoolixer wrote: post #43
sfjailbird wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you seem to assume that the description of the neighborhood given was also the reason why it is cheaper The OP wrote: "Sure, it’s 80% Chinese American, but [it's cheaper]". That made me wonder too why the ethnicity would be a drawback.

All he is saying is that the demographics are heavily skewed, which is typically considered unusual. The ideal being an area that is representative of the population at large.

"typically considered unusual" - In SF specifically? Certainly not unusual elsewhere eg London where there is clear cultural clustering.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#75

Post by schoolixer »

disputin wrote: post #74
schoolixer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All he is saying is that the demographics are heavily skewed, which is typically considered unusual. The ideal being an area that is representative of the population at large.

"typically considered unusual" - In SF specifically? Certainly not unusual elsewhere eg London where there is clear cultural clustering.

Yes, 80% is considered a bit extreme. We have cultural clustering in the US but you won't find people advocating for it or describing this scenario as ideal. The initial poster was asking why he was getting downvoted.

An example of how this plays out is demonstrated in the article itself. The author says '80% asian-american' rather than 'asian neighborhood.'

From a political correctness perspective, people in the US don't want to be seen perpetuating anything that could be considered a form of segregation. Simultaneously it is considered negative to be seen as 'gentrifying' a neighborhood, i.e. disrupting the traditional demographics of a neighborhood.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#76

Post by jonnathanson »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #73
jonnathanson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Very true but should you tolerate it? If it's unnecessary it seems like 'suffering' just to say you did.

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.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#77

Post by disputin »

schoolixer wrote: post #43
sfjailbird wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you seem to assume that the description of the neighborhood given was also the reason why it is cheaper The OP wrote: "Sure, it’s 80% Chinese American, but [it's cheaper]". That made me wonder too why the ethnicity would be a drawback.

All he is saying is that the demographics are heavily skewed, which is typically considered unusual. The ideal being an area that is representative of the population at large.

I can't reply to your reply, so replying here. What about Little Italys and Chinatowns?

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#78

Post by downandout »

junto wrote: post #64

It often strikes me as ironic that the very people who build the connected applications that live in the virtual world of the internet are so obsessed about the physical location requirement of San Francisco (and Silicon Valley), in order to become successful in delivering that virtual offering. That being said I have never worked in or worked for a company in "the valley". I've also been a remote freelancer for 15 y…

I commented this exact same thing on the last article about living broke in SF that made the front page. It's incredibly ironic. People often talk about talent pool and access to capital as being the main advantages of being in the Valley. These advantages exist to some degree, but are vastly overblown, and you will only be in a position to use them if you are already successful.

Further, even if you are funded and successful, moving to the Valley probably doesn't make sense in your early stages (and for most, it will never make financial sense). Most people would rather work remotely than go into your early-stage startup office in a bad part of town anyway. The tools to make scattered teams very productive and cohesive have existed for a long time. As far as access to capital, if you get funded by a major VC firm that wants you to move to the Valley, you'll have millions of dollars with which to do it properly.

There are exactly zero legitimate reasons to move to the Valley in the initial stages of a startup, and many legitimate reasons not to. In fact I would think that most investors would look at the irrationality of such a poor decision for the financial health of a company and decide against funding it. It's indicative of bad, emotional decision making. Being in the Valley doesn't make your startup any more credible or valuable than it would be anywhere else. Developing a great product that delivers value to customers is the only way to have a successful startup - regardless of where you start. Begin with that, then move wherever you want.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#79

Post by dyeje »

dpe82 wrote: post #65
junto wrote: post #64

It often strikes me as ironic that the very people who build the connected applications that live in the virtual world of the internet are so obsessed about the physical location requirement of San Francisco (and Silicon Valley), in order to become successful in delivering that virtual offering. That being said I have never worked in or worked for a company in "the valley". I've also been a remote freelancer for 15 y…

When you're in the ideation stage of a startup it's hugely valuable to be in the same room arguing over the same whiteboard. There's no higher bandwidth way of communicating, learning and building consensus. Once you've decided what to do remote can totally work, but most startups are in that first phase for quite a while. There are lots of other reasons for being in the bay area in particular, but that's the primary…

I agree that being in the same room helps move things along, but why not do it in a city with a sane cost of living?

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#80

Post by at-fates-hands »

downandout wrote: post #56

If you really want to be rational about your company (no personal or business income tax), live cheaply relative to San Francisco, and yet be close to it, start your company in Reno, NV. Rents are 1/2 to 1/3rd of what they are in SF. There is a relatively large and growing tech scene (Gigafactory is being built in Reno, there are several drone startups, SNC does space/military stuff, IGT and Bally Technologies are al…

This.

Great advice. I often wonder why people never associate "start-ups" with "small business". There are plenty of states who talk about having very favorable tax structures for small businesses, none of which include California.

Reno is a great example of being able to leverage favorable tax structures and still being close to "the action" so to speak. This is such an obvious win-win on so many levels, I'm not sure why more people talk about utilizing states like Nevada for these advantages.

If you look at this map, Nevada has one of the best business climates, which is right next to California, which has one of the worst:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/2015-state-business-tax-cli...

Post reply on HN