Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, many landlords seem to feel like the trouble is a mere few months away, although often any attempt at getting them to discuss how they arrived at that conclusion gets something like "I just know it." So one wonders about the whole "wisdom of the crowds" or "herd" in this case, and whether or not they can sense something that isn't showing up in other indicators. I've been looking but other than the extensivel…
Everyone I've been talking with seems to say "less than 24 months".
Landlords are trying not to rent to startups in San Francisco
141–150 of 308 posts
Re: Landlords are trying not to rent to startups in San Francisco
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood why investors need to be 'close.' I also don't understand why most startups need an office. Basecamp is entirely remote with an office just for show. They only use it a few times a year. Unless you build hardware, an office is unnecessary. A dumb waste of money, especially early in a startup's life. I do some side work for a major international medical lab and their entire Dev team is remote -- and…
>Making $140k per year is the San Fran equivalent of minimum wage Is this really true? Seems far-fetched. Isn't that $20-30k higher than the Google base starting salary?
Re: Landlords are trying not to rent to startups in San Francisco
#143Re: Landlords are trying not to rent to startups in San Francisco
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the advantage of a massive skilled labor pool and investors within walking distance is a nearly insurmountable advantage. For a small company, I'd say the time/cost of hiring a few good engineers is way more than a few months rent. You'll certainly pay a respectable headhunter quite a bit.
I never understood why investors need to be 'close.' I also don't understand why most startups need an office. Basecamp is entirely remote with an office just for show. They only use it a few times a year. Unless you build hardware, an office is unnecessary. A dumb waste of money, especially early in a startup's life. I do some side work for a major international medical lab and their entire Dev team is remote -- and…
Many of them want to "influence' the companies they invest in, to give them the best chance of seeing a return. They feel they can't do that as effectively if they can't hop in a car and drive to the office quickly.
"I also don't understand why most startups need an office."
Many managers, startup or not, are afraid of remote work, and feel that not being able to see butts in seats means that people are slacking off.
"As far as 'access to talent,' that's a bullshit metric as well. Remote workers can be anywhere. "
But as we've established, most of these companies are not set up for remote work. As such, remote workers being anywhere isn't relevant.
"As far as investors, who cares? If you have a product people want to buy, investors will come to you."
Ahh yes, the old "meritocracy" myth. As it turns out, simply having a good product isn't enough to succeed.
"It's a myth that proximity matters."
Except reality has not followed your logic.
"There were investors long before Silicon Valley startups were a thing. Plenty of billion dollar companies founded everywhere else."
Yes there were. But it's significantly harder to do it elsewhere given the realities of the situation.
Feel free to start your company wherever you want and show us that we're wrong. I'd be happy to have the pool of startup locations be more diverse.
Re: Landlords are trying not to rent to startups in San Francisco
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood why investors need to be 'close.' I also don't understand why most startups need an office. Basecamp is entirely remote with an office just for show. They only use it a few times a year. Unless you build hardware, an office is unnecessary. A dumb waste of money, especially early in a startup's life. I do some side work for a major international medical lab and their entire Dev team is remote -- and…
We've tried and found that remote engineers are less effective, they miss out a lot from group whiteboard discussions, overhearing office chatter "Hey bill, service XX crashed again because of YY (and Mike overhears and says "Oh yeah, I saw YY in service ZZ too and fixed it"), and just general team cohesiveness. In theory we could hire more people for less salary if we had a remote workforce, but we're still a small…
I honestly do not believe for one second that this is a thing, or that it's a significant thing.
Re: Landlords are trying not to rent to startups in San Francisco
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did they move to SF?
They have 7 people in SF and 45 in Utah
Re: Landlords are trying not to rent to startups in San Francisco
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood why investors need to be 'close.' I also don't understand why most startups need an office. Basecamp is entirely remote with an office just for show. They only use it a few times a year. Unless you build hardware, an office is unnecessary. A dumb waste of money, especially early in a startup's life. I do some side work for a major international medical lab and their entire Dev team is remote -- and…
> I never understood why investors need to be 'close.' It's particularly jarring given how many of the same investors are arguing we should tear town universities and replace them with MOOCs, demolish shops for Amazon, and so on and so forth. Apparently face time and interpersonal interaction is an irrelevant artefact of the old world except when it comes to their own industry.
Re: Landlords are trying not to rent to startups in San Francisco
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood why investors need to be 'close.' I also don't understand why most startups need an office. Basecamp is entirely remote with an office just for show. They only use it a few times a year. Unless you build hardware, an office is unnecessary. A dumb waste of money, especially early in a startup's life. I do some side work for a major international medical lab and their entire Dev team is remote -- and…
>Making $140k per year is the San Fran equivalent of minimum wage Is this really true? Seems far-fetched. Isn't that $20-30k higher than the Google base starting salary?
Re: Landlords are trying not to rent to startups in San Francisco
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood why investors need to be 'close.' I also don't understand why most startups need an office. Basecamp is entirely remote with an office just for show. They only use it a few times a year. Unless you build hardware, an office is unnecessary. A dumb waste of money, especially early in a startup's life. I do some side work for a major international medical lab and their entire Dev team is remote -- and…
>Making $140k per year is the San Fran equivalent of minimum wage Is this really true? Seems far-fetched. Isn't that $20-30k higher than the Google base starting salary?
Re: Landlords are trying not to rent to startups in San Francisco
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
i agree, but it does remove the landlord ;-)
Just start in a garage I'd say. It's cheap and the darkness, the damp and the oil fumes are a motivator to success.