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

211–220 of 263 posts

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

#211

Post by wool_gather »

iovrthoughtthis wrote: post #132
chillacy wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it could happen if the incentives are set up differently, otherwise right now you spend time and effort training people only to have them change jobs in 2 years at a better company.

Bigger raises. People move because the paybump is often whole multiples of pay rises. Also better managers. We don’t quit jobs as often as we quit managers.

Yep. We just did yearly reviews and I got a raise, after a year of hard work leading a project that is now bringing in a bunch of revenue, that was...underwhelming. Doubly so when I compare to the two offers that I turned down last year. They were both rather more than my post-raise salary. I like working for this company for a bunch of reasons, but come on...

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

#212

Post by toomuchtodo »

wool_gather wrote: post #211
iovrthoughtthis wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bigger raises. People move because the paybump is often whole multiples of pay rises. Also better managers. We don’t quit jobs as often as we quit managers.

Yep. We just did yearly reviews and I got a raise, after a year of hard work leading a project that is now bringing in a bunch of revenue, that was...underwhelming. Doubly so when I compare to the two offers that I turned down last year. They were both rather more than my post-raise salary. I like working for this company for a bunch of reasons, but come on...

Time to start interviewing!

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

#214

Post by temp1928384 »

Johnny555 wrote: post #115
temp1928384 wrote: post #4

And 50% of people living in SF want to leave https://sf.curbed.com/2019/2/20/18233498/poll-2019-leaving-s...

I'd take that with a big grain of salt, I spent over a decade of my 20 years living in SF looking elsewhere to move to since I couldn't afford the real estate. So I'd be counted as one of the ones that want to leave, but I never left until finally I moved down the Peninsula.

I'm confused by your logic. Isn't the median home price in the Peninsula a multiple of the median home price in SF or OAK?

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

#215

Post by nojvek »

sytelus wrote: post #109
Cyclone_ wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I see the general public wanting to invest in startups, the success rate is just too low.

What if YC or 500startups were allowed to go public and people can buy their stock? Returns on YC model far exceeds S&P. I think pg has created an incredible framework which can be further evolved in open markets. I can absolutely see S&P index dominated by company-aggregators as opposed to individual companies. That seems to be the natural evolution.

YC should IPO. They can make a much bigger impact with bigger funding

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

#216

Post by jaggederest »

newman8r wrote: post #86
jaggederest wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'd probably go the opposite direction of East Wind: not require people to buy into a philosophy or make any community commitments. My biggest goal would be to use group buying power to buy good land and put in a sizeable well, some very minimal facilities (shower/ restrooms/septic), etc. Maybe a few RV pads. I've actually got some land in the desert and spent some time working out of a camper. If anyone's ever inter…

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.

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

#217

Post by robgibbons »

di4na wrote: post #141
dbish wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but quite a few people get lonely working remotely and not having a proper office to go into, and software won't solve that (at least not until VR presence or something of the sort is really good). I've managed great engineers who have complained about this and I haven't seen a good solution.

Uhm just a random thing here, but people should look at how online gaming communities work. They solved that problem nearly 15 years ago...

Can you elaborate? Curious as to what aspect of online gaming you're referring to.

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

#218

Post by tptacek »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #175
dmode wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only a small portion of SF is matches the dystopian vision you claim. Even those portions are not any worse than other urban areas. There is a reason why housing here is extremely expensive. People want to live here.

> Only a small portion of SF is matches the dystopian vision you claim. Even those portions are not any worse than other urban areas. If you believe that you either live an extremely sheltered existence in SF or you've not visited recently. San Francisco is pretty bad no matter where you go (except, perhaps, for the affluent areas like Sea Cliff and St Francis Woods). Out in the Outer Sunset I saw what looked like so…

The overwhelming majority of homeless San Franciscans became homeless as California residents; the notion that they're "deported" from other states (or somehow migratory) is mostly a myth.

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

#219

Post by dmode »

kristianc wrote: post #161
dmode wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only a small portion of SF is matches the dystopian vision you claim. Even those portions are not any worse than other urban areas. There is a reason why housing here is extremely expensive. People want to live here.

> Only a small portion of SF is matches the dystopian vision you claim. My impression of SF having spent time there is that it hits the nail on the head. Sure, I doubt you get junkies asking you for money for heroin in Marin County, but it certainly happens in Union Sq.

Union Sq is right next to the worst neighborhood in SF, so not surprising. But overall, people tend to forget how life was prior to the boom. Oakland was facing homicide epidemic. East Palo Alto was gang central. Redwood City was sketchy as hell. Dublin was a blue collar town. Now crime has virtually disappeared from the stretch of land between SF and San Jose

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

#220

Post by mrnobody_67 »

BadassFractal wrote: post #116
vincentmarle wrote: post #79

> I still expect a significant % of the $10B+ startups will get created here, so it makes sense for investors to still focus here. But I bet a lot of the ~$100M startups will happen elsewhere. > There are still some things—e.g great startup executive talent, particular kinds of engineering talent—that are much harder to find outside the bay area. This is spot on and it becomes a real bottle neck if you want to scale…

Your likelihood of being in the 500M+ valuation bracket is so infinitesimally slim, that optimizing for that case is almost pointless.

the odds of getting to 500m+ probably increase when salaries (and burn rate) are lower and employees aren't cycling through every 18 months...
Post reply on HN