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

Our Startup Would Probably Die If We Were In San Francisco

needwant.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Our Startup Would Probably Die If We Were In San Francisco

#51

Post by josephjrobison »

sayemm wrote: post #48

I think this all depends if you're really a "startup" or not. As per Paul Graham's definition: http://paulgraham.com/growth.html . Just because you're starting something up doesn't mean you're really swinging for the fences for a big home run. But if you are, your survival depends on deal-making and hardcore talent, so you're at a huge disadvantage by not being in a major tech hub. But if you're focused on building a…

Agreed that the word startup is highly overused to apply to everything from Pinterest to a new marketing company in town - small business is what usually applies to companies not swinging for the fences trying to quickly acquire millions of users.

Re: Our Startup Would Probably Die If We Were In San Francisco

#54

Post by rjurney »

vonmoltke wrote: post #49
rjurney wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. There are so many early adopter, visionary customers here you can sign up on spec to pay you to develop your product.

Assuming your product appeals to the type of consumers or businesses that inhabit San Francisco.

What kind of businesses aren't in the Bay Area that you'd want to target?

Re: Our Startup Would Probably Die If We Were In San Francisco

#55

Post by rjurney »

seanflyon wrote: post #47
rjurney wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How ironic, when California has the most pro-entrepreneur labor laws. Non-competes aren't enforceable and California 2870 has the entrepreneur's back. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr... Every company has to give you a piece of paper that says, "If you develop something unrelated without using company resources, you own it." California is an entrepreneur's wet dream. The tax liability is c…

My first contract out of college specifically stated that they owned everything I make on my own time unless I live/work in CA.

Would you give this up to save a few points on taxes? Penny wise, pound foolish.

Re: Our Startup Would Probably Die If We Were In San Francisco

#56

Post by bane »

seanflyon wrote: post #45
bane wrote: post #7

I've known a few businesses who "HQ" out of a big city, but usually just with a small sales office. Then they hire almost all of the rest of their staff in very cheap, but talent filled areas. One mistake I've seen over and over again, don't hire your customer facing staff in those cheaper areas. You really want sales staff/etc. To be in the same area as your customer base

What areas do you consider to be very cheap and talent filled? I always assumed that the expensive areas are expensive because well paid talent is driving up the cost of living (though city attitude towards construction plays a large role as well).

Well, depends on what you consider cheap and talented I suppose. For example, there are loads of people in Portland and the surrounding area that are employable for far less than you'd get in the Bay Area (by about 35%). You have to work at it though, it's not as bad as offshoring, but you can't half-ass it. The talent won't go as high as the Bay Area, but you'll probably be able to find folks good enough to make the kind of CRUD apps most of us are making anyways.

Here's a list and the cost of living delta vs. San Francisco (which translates into direct salary costs for your business).

   Portland, OR - 35% cheaper
   Nashville, TN - 80% cheaper
   Atlanta, GA - 70%
   Miami, FL - 50%
   Tampa, FL - 70%
   Huntsville, AL - 70%
   Northern, VA - 20%
   Blacksburg, VA - 60%
   Charlottesville, VA - 50%
   Virginia Beach, VA - 60%
   Fredericksburg - 40% 
   Richmond - 60%
   Williamsburg - 50%
   Phoenix, AZ - 70%
   Columbus, OH - 80%
   Tri-cities area, WA - 70%
   Boston, MA - 20%
   Newark, NJ - 25%
   Austin, TX - 70%
   San Antonio, TX - 80%
   Ft Meade, MD - 30%
   Chicago, IL - 40%
   Minneapolis, MN - 50%
   Las Vegas, NV - 60%
Off the top of my head, if you can't hire people in Austin, Nashville, or Las Vegas, you're doing it wrong. All of those have large tech industries and/or are near large cities with big populations. Nashville is near both a big city and a major national lab. They're also cheap enough that you can basically hire two people for the price of one in San Francisco.

Re: Our Startup Would Probably Die If We Were In San Francisco

#57

Post by kasey_junk »

rjurney wrote: post #53
josephjrobison wrote: post #52

SF vs Austin, COL vs salary difference - deciding between the two in the next few weeks - please help me choose!

If you want to be an entrepreneur, there's no choice at all. You have to move to the bay area.

Correction, if you want to be a bay area VC backed entrepreneur. Oddly there are businesses started in other parts of the world.

Re: Our Startup Would Probably Die If We Were In San Francisco

#58

Post by rhc2104 »

JPKab wrote: post #12
arohner wrote: post #8

Counterfactuals are very hard to know. At CircleCI, being in SF gave numerous advantages early on. We had multiple paying customers in the first two office buildings. We had multiple customers within walking distance, and many more within cycling distance. Being able to talk to real customers using the app was extremely valuable. Customers aside, there are tons of people willing to help, either through advice or intr…

"Not every developer in SF is as mercenary as you make it sound. For your first employee hire, you might find a single person living in an apartment in SF vs. a family man in St. Louis who has to pay for day care and save for college. Their salary requirements might be comparable." This is based on a ridiculous premise: 1) That a highly paid professional in a city BRIMMING with recruiters and cool new companies throw…

CircleCI allows their software developers to work remotely, so that's kind of the best of both worlds.

Re: Our Startup Would Probably Die If We Were In San Francisco

#59

Post by parennoob »

sayemm wrote: post #48

I think this all depends if you're really a "startup" or not. As per Paul Graham's definition: http://paulgraham.com/growth.html . Just because you're starting something up doesn't mean you're really swinging for the fences for a big home run. But if you are, your survival depends on deal-making and hardcore talent, so you're at a huge disadvantage by not being in a major tech hub. But if you're focused on building a…

Wow, this comment really stopped and made me think. I honestly used to think "startup" was used for any new business with an unusual, efficient way of doing business.

Now that I know how HN people define it, I guess my inclinations are way more towards small business than startup.

Re: Our Startup Would Probably Die If We Were In San Francisco

#60

Post by JPKab »

glitch003 wrote: post #22
JPKab wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not every developer in SF is as mercenary as you make it sound. For your first employee hire, you might find a single person living in an apartment in SF vs. a family man in St. Louis who has to pay for day care and save for college. Their salary requirements might be comparable." This is based on a ridiculous premise: 1) That a highly paid professional in a city BRIMMING with recruiters and cool new companies throw…

There is some quantitative truth to what he said, actually. San Francisco does have more single people than other cities, and in fact has almost 12% more single people than St. Louis does. So probabilistically speaking, there is a higher chance that someone you hire in SF will be single (and therefore more likely to put in looong hours) than someone you hire in St. Louis (who may be strict in going home at 5pm to be…

Good point, but I think we all know that long hours aren't sustainable day after day after day.

As a guy who has worked 13 hour days while having a kid when it was required (as well as 2 night binges on the weekends prior to a Monday launch), I do get sick of the "less likely to work late when its needed" stigma against married people. I'll work late when its needed, in bursts. What I won't do is work 80 hours a week for 3 months so my boss can continue on with the delusion that I'm being as productive as 2 people working 40. We all know that's bullshit, and science says so.

Its funny, because the 20 something single guys I work with (anecdotal of course) don't seem to be willing to sacrifice personal time. They'll work late on a Tuesday, but getting them to work late on a Friday or come in on a Saturday? Not happening.

Post reply on HN