Live data from Hacker News

How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

wlimdo.com

91–100 of 120 posts

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#91
post #88
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…

>Do these talented people really need to be in an office in Silicon Valley, sitting opposite you, tapping away on their keybosrds with their headphones on to as productive or better than me or you? It really depends on the person. I know for me? I'm vastly more productive when I'm trying to ignore the other people in the room and work. For me? It's at least in part about immediate and constant social pressure. That,…

I understand this too. I prefer to rent a desk in a co-working space rather than work from home. Hence I'm still remote, but I don't work in "THE office" nor "at home".

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#92

Why not just move somewhere else? To me, the best part of an internet company is that you can work from anywhere. Also, the money you make is usually made online, meaning it doesn't scale to your cost of living. If you make $1000/mo in ad revenue from your website, it doesn't matter if you live in SF or Portland. It's not like a wage, which changes drastically on your location. Why not move to an awesome, affordable…

> Why not move to an awesome, affordable city, live the lifestyle you want, and still make the same product?

I agree completely... Now for my plug:

For people that like small towns, good beer and outdoor lifestyle, I recommend Bozeman, MT. If you don't mind snow, it simply cannot be beat.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#93
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 s…

> 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.

The comical part of this is that YC does just this [force/strongly encourage] their tech startups to be located in one of these locations.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#94
post #91
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do these talented people really need to be in an office in Silicon Valley, sitting opposite you, tapping away on their keybosrds with their headphones on to as productive or better than me or you? It really depends on the person. I know for me? I'm vastly more productive when I'm trying to ignore the other people in the room and work. For me? It's at least in part about immediate and constant social pressure. That,…

I understand this too. I prefer to rent a desk in a co-working space rather than work from home. Hence I'm still remote, but I don't work in "THE office" nor "at home".

How has the co-working space worked for you as far as social pressure goes? Being the only person from my company in a co-working space hasn't worked well for me, but I've mostly only used the hacker dojo, which is perhaps a little bit too social for what I need?

As far as I can tell, I need people that are working on the same project as I am. I need that feeling that I'm betraying or failing those people if I'm not working on the thing I'm supposed to be working on. (why don't I get this with remote work? I should. it's irrational, but those feelings seem to only "work" in person.)

On a more rational level, I can, and will say "Hey, I'm distracted. Can someone put me back on track?" and that seems to work better in person than doing the same in IRC.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#95
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Need? No. But Silicon Valley is where the talent is and is easiest to find. It's where growth is easier than anywhere else. The financial price is generally worth it.

Sure, but it would make sense to found somewhere else and then move once you see traction.

As I understand it, most startups are founded wherever the founders happen to be. Once you have a concentration of talent in one spot, that's going to tend to be that wherever. It's rare to move away from the Valley to found a startup so you can move back later.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#96
post #87
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you get past the very early stage and start needing to scale in terms of staff, you're going to want to have an office in the Valley.

Plenty of companies have 1,000+ developers and zero presence in the valley. It's ridiculously overpriced and only really useful for fundraising. Which is why most successful companies mostly grow outside of the valley.

Yes, there are lots of companies outside the Bay. Yes, lots of them have lots of people.

And yet there's a disproportionate number of companies in the Bay. So perhaps it should be seriously considered that there are rational reasons for that. Ease of access to talent is one I hear a lot from founders and hiring managers.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#97
post #90

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…

The thing is, the tax rates only matter if you are successful. Well, mostly. You mostly only pay taxes on profit. (there are exceptions, like payroll taxes, but those are mostly federal.) I'd be happy to promise to pay a billion dollars if my company ever has more than two billion dollars on hand, if paying that billion makes it even slightly more likely that my company will become that successful in the future. Face…

>>> Face facts, as a friend used to say, your company will probably fail before it makes enough money to pay significant taxes.

I have a freelance business I'm working on getting off the ground. I have to pay quarterly taxes on the revenue I bring in. I just wrote a check for close to $900 on around $2500 of revenue I had taken in for two clients.

To me, that's a significant amount of money coming out of my pocket for taxes.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> 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. The comical part of this is that YC does just this [force/strongly encourage] their tech startups to be located in one of these locations.

True, although YC is a pretty special case where they actually leverage that physical proximity extremely well. They have office hours with powerhouse investors and entrepreneurs, dinners with special guest speakers, access to a large number of angel investors with whom they can have meetings, etc. These are resources that startups living in crack motels in SF aren't going to have access to. So for those privileged few lucky enough to be accepted to YC, being in SF at least for the duration of the program certainly makes sense.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#99
post #19

Interesting. To live here in South Africa on those numbers you'd have to make similar sacrifices, in an economy which I normally regard as 10x cheaper than (what I've heard of) SF. Some questions: 1. When I hear people on this site talking about "low" startup engineer wages in SF, the numbers I see are 60k - 80k / year. But this article makes that number look like glorious riches by comparison. Living in the dining r…

(Before anything, let's be clear, the premise of the OP is completely wrong. Secondly, the cheapness of Sunset has nothing to do with whatever Asian-American community lives there, and by extension the whole analysis of 'wanting to live near Asians' is off base and is not only misguided but also disturbing. I digress. )

As an SF native, I'm not so enamored with being "in the city" like a lot of people who move here from other places; it's laughable how irrational some people (and businesses) are about being in SF. Frankly, there are only really a handful of 'nice' places to live and be in the city -- but the niceness is quickly lost by the huge inconveniences of monstrous traffic, overcrowding, parking tickets, relentless fog, gentrifying hipsters, and various other things.

In fact, there are a number of locations in the Bay that are much more cost effective, convenient, and in good earshot of anyplace you need to get investor/talent attention. San Jose comes to mind, but it can skew a little rough and has a 'mini Los Angeles' feel to it not to mention warmer. You can also take the light rail from SJ to Mountain View, which in terms of start-up connectedness is probably more well-connected than even San Francisco. MOST tech companies are still in the Valley; you get a lot of them clustered in Redwood City (Oracle, Facebook, EA), Palo Alto/Menlo Park, and Mountain View (Google, Microsoft). More high-tech companies are in Santa Clara (Intel), Sunnyvale (Yahoo) and San Jose (Cisco). Which is why southbound traffic out of the city is always worse than inbound traffic -- everyone wants to live in the city but a large majority of people work in the Peninsula/South Bay. Why not live closer to work? Well because there are so many 'hip' bars, restaurants, and events in SF -- urban living!

All things considered, I wanted to chime in on the Sunset thing. You're under the impression that the Sunset is some super Chinese/Asian neighborhood -- which first and foremost is more likely an exaggeration or a skewed cultural bias on the author's part.

Considering the makeup of other neighborhoods, and despite there being a handful of asian-y shops on Judah and Taraval streets (main commerce areas in the Sunset) it's not as "Asian" as Japantown, Chinatown or even Daly City. The Sunset is full of older "white people", Persians, Mexicans, Russians, Indians and a number of SFSU and UCSF medical students (especially being that UCSF is right on what you might consider the edge of the Sunset).

In reality, you see a mix of people walking around the street and nothing to really give you a sense that 'oh! this is a Chinese neighborhood'... IT'S NOT! The author, as I mentioned, grossly exaggerated from his own perspective bias.

No, the REAL reason why the Sunset is "undesirable" (cheaper) vs other parts of the city -- and to be clear that statement is very thin -- has more to do with its geography than anything else. Sunset is super suburban and not nearly as "hip" as downtown with its sea of rolling houses. There isn't as much to do and it generally takes at least 30-45 minutes to get downtown on public transportation. (This by its very nature goes against the whole point of being in the hip-urban-center-of-the-universe that is SF, this part of SF doesn't feel very sexy)

If you want to drive there's usually too much traffic on the main streets in and out and when you do make it out the only immediately interesting things to do get old very fast and are still hard-ish to get to.

Finally, throw in the fact that it's easily the coldest area in SF to live (see Microclimates http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Weather-as-varied-as-t...). There is fog almost all day long, all year long, and temps occasionally get above 60F but are closer to sub 60F even in the summer! The beach is usually too cold to deeply enjoy, and the water is consistently icy. (Ironically, I often ask myself why it's even called the Sunset without it ever having very much sun... we should rename it to the Fogset.)

So, there is no solid draw to the Sunset. It's mostly Blah! That's a good way to put it: blah! July in the Sunset often feels like it does in January.

While the Sunset is not the most desirable place to live it isn't one of the worst either. No, The Richmond District, Tenderloin, Silver, Crocker-Amazon, and Hunter's Point easily snatch that crown away from Sunset faster than you can blink. They have much deeper problems -- mostly crime, inaccessibility, and general remoteness. Living in these areas is much cheaper than living in the Sunset, so if you are all about living in SF on a dime consider those rougher neighborhoods.

Despite the inconveniences of Sunset it is still mostly safe and suburbia-quiet. It is probably a better 'value' in terms of what you get for your money.

But I'm all down for moving somewhere else, starting-up and living better. I'll be back for the next down; this up is killer.

Sidenote: I can't think of ANY place that I have ever been to where people avoid a neighborhood because of the culture there. The nice thing about California is that it really is a diverse place, moreso than you'll se in a lot of other parts of the country. While not all cultures mesh well together, it is generally inacceptable to avoid cultures. It's usually things like crime, blight, weather and inaccessibility that make neighborhoods undesirable.

Re: How to Survive in SF as a Broke Startup

#100
post #26
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this site works (had this account for years but only commented a few times). It looks like my comment was downvoted, can someone explain why? Is thinking about stereotypes offensive? Or it was deemed irrelevant?

sometimes people downvote for no reason. the reason you're not getting replies is likely because the US are asleep though. I think it's a valid question- although it's probably more about causation; Asian-Americans are less snobbish when it comes to areas to live, my assumption is that they live in area's that Americans wouldn't want to live anyway.

> Asian-Americans are...

> my assumption is that they live in area's that Americans wouldn't want to live anyway.

yeah, real americans wouldn't want to live there, amirite? trustworthy, dependable, high standards having white americans, not like those filthy asian americans who are only pretending to be citizens.

after all we all know where they're really from wink wink nudge nudge

i've got news for you, pal. "Americans" (i.e. "white people") have been moving into black and latino neighborhoods in SF for decades, pushing them out systematically (see soma, mission) the asians are the only ones with enough money to resist it.

in fact, asians as a demographic have the highest income in the entire country, so that might explain a few things that your shitty conclusions don't cover, like why white people don't seem to be able to displace them.

Post reply on HN