I knew about the Denver area’s potential at the time but the high real estate prices were a problem. Part of my objective was to get years ahead of a big boom and save money before it got too bad, and I managed to do that fine in Asheville. The region has a lot of the same issues as smaller towns in the US without any industries to accelerate its growth besides craft beer and tourism. The healthcare industry is entirely because of the massive retiree population that are typically snowbirds that don’t contribute to state and county taxes besides property taxes, so its everyday population is starved for government resources relative to its size while it has the highest property values in NC (well, it was until 2016 last I saw). So basically Buncombe County was the lowest earning but most expensive part of NC to live in - this is not a recipe for sustainable growth. I really liked the community and it was a really good place to live if you could afford it. Chattanooga is much better off in comparison although I’m curious about how it’s done at attracting a sustained tech industry almost a decade after its investments.
I was in Atlanta for a few years afterward (not my choice honestly) and wound up back in a much better situation and same location than I started before my move to Asheville. It was a humbling experience that I may not have gotten if I had stayed in the DC region, which also was never my preference either.
Didn't read the article because, paywall. But Austin, Denver, Portland have all had significant price increases. RiNo in Denver is really cool but homes are $700k+. It's a big discount from LA, but I wouldn't call it life-changing, especially when you consider what you give up.
Art, culture, and diversity of people are what make a city so interesting to me. In LA, we have so many friends who are working on interesting projects and are very intelligent. Every time we discuss moving to a smaller town, we are concerned that we might have difficulty finding social circles that fit us. The average American and I just don't have a ton in common. I know that sounds super snobby, but people are different. I'm not saying one is right or wrong.
I always think about what will be the next tier of cities where remote work and satellite offices will be popular? To me, Asheville, Greenville, and to a lesser extent Chattanooga will be popular locations. CoL and an urban core are requirements, but also access to nature, transplants and local universities seem to help. A good airport is also big, as we love to travel.
After parsing the comments, I have not seen one person mention management or leadership. Someone with 20 years experience hiring and leading teams is going to be much better than someone doing it for the first time in their life. The ability to know your weaknesses, surround yourself with good people who fit your vision/culture and address those weaknesses, is not something most 25 year olds can do. Most at 25 have no idea what their weaknesses are. which makes it all the more impressive when people like Zuck, Spiegel can scale into massive companies.
But I also understand why you would want to invest in a 20-something. On average, they are going to be more aware of emerging tech, and guided with the right advisors can get a company off the ground and then supported with the necessary pieces.
I think the talent pool is getting smarter about how much their equity will likely be worth (hint, it's $0). Those who are joining startups now, are either naive to that fact (not good once they discover the data), or they care more about working on the problem than they do the compensation (which is the perfect employee if you can find it - but the cost of living in SF has made that nearly impossible).
So when the company you are going to work for is going to pay you less in cash, likely require you to work harder, and not offer any guarantee that they will be in existence in two years, you are taking a ton more risk for less reward. Financially it does not make sense, so you better be in it because you enjoy the work that much more than a big company.
Bottom line is that startups are going to need to pay more money to attract talent. The secret is out on common shares and what happens with liquidation preferences.
As for how YC could solve this, perhaps they offer an unemployment supplement to those who are laid off. Help talented folks reduce their risk and you will find it easier to recruit.
Just another thought, but perhaps YC can explore more options for building startups in secondary markets where the cost of living is more manageable. I know the shop is famously SV-centric, but certain companies may have a better chance at success in markets like Salt Lake City, Austin, Des Moines, Nashville, etc.
I know a few who have, but its not ideal. I think if you already have businesses that you are attracted to and the risk/reward for starting that business becomes greater than the risk/reward of what your job prospects are then it needs to be explored. The challenge is that most investors can easily sniff out someone who is starting this biz because they can't get a job, and that isn't a pattern they typically fund.
I think a good mix is to start working on the business while continuing to look for a new job. Then if you get traction, you will likely have a better story to sell. It also helps you minimize your risk on the business.
This is really an exercise in speaking diplomatically. Often we leave jobs because we can't be as productive in the current environment. That's usually code word for other failures in the company. I think at the executive level it can be helpful to have the discussion on what you would do differently. Most adults in my experience will appreciate a candid discussion as long as you are sharing your experiences in a humble and respectful manner.
I'll follow your unpopular opinion with another unpopular opinion... since the focus is typically on technical founders, you are essentially starting a business with individuals who have little to no business training. Not understanding the basics of finance to manage cash flows and allocate resources makes it much more difficult to get to profitability. But that is fine for VCs, as they really don't care about profitability.
Thanks, I'll take a look. Funny that the stories have changed so much. I feel like its never been easier to start a company. Perhaps comp is so high that most folks have no incentive to leave BigTechCo.
Big Tech is more visible precisely because it's big. But everything I have read suggests it is the tip of the iceberg. The majority of businesses are small and fly below the radar, so to speak.
In LA, I would say its 100 to 1 that I meet that are building a business that requires outside capital. You make a good point on the industry that surrounds venture-backed companies, and the accompanying noise, but it just feels like there is a massive segment of the market that is getting overlooked.
Its not just devs that get these assignments. I've seen startups use BD folks for interviews to research and structure potential deals as a "homework" assignment. They dangle a fancy job in hopes of generating leads, which they do, and then they never end up filling the position. Candidates put in weeks of work setting up an actual deal for a fictitious job.
I think these tactics are a lazy way to interview. If you truly want to build a great company, you need to spend significant time with someone to understand 1) can they do this job, and 2) are they a fit with the culture, and 3) are they passionate about the mission. There are no shortcuts, yet so many companies try to hack the process.
Everyone is busy and looking for ways to steal time but this seems to be one of the most short-sighted. The best companies don't look at labor as just an input.
