News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:As venture capital dries up, tech startups discover fruga... by mgkimsal on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @08:26AM (#11619918)
Optionally, consider actual co-located teams in cheaper areas. I fully support expanded virtual teams, but there are some benefits to co-location as well, and investing in long-term co-location areas, even in other parts of the US, would be a step towards getting the benefits of both co-location and lower costs. You might even be expanding the labor pool to include some culture that isn't an SV echo chamber (potentially cheap-shot, I know).
Re:As venture capital dries up, tech startups discover fruga... by morgante on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @10:50AM (#11621160)
The problem with co-locating teams in cheaper areas is that it drastically reduces your supply of labor. A lot of developers already live in the Bay Area and even more are willing to move there.

Relatively few live in Dayton, Ohio (random example) and even fewer are willing to live there.

The advantage of remote working is you can draw from talent all over the world (or at least all over the US) without having to worry about the fact that a lot of people would be unwilling to live in your particular LCOL area.

Re:As venture capital dries up, tech startups discover fruga... by vonmoltke on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:08AM (#11621303)
> The problem with co-locating teams in cheaper areas is that it drastically reduces your supply of labor. A lot of developers already live in the Bay Area and even more are willing to move there.

You say this, but others say there is a chronic shortage of talent in the area. Having the largest concentration of X does no good if local demand is X+Y.

I personally will not go near the Bay Area for less than $200k base. Considering the Bay Area exodus story posted yesterday, it sounds like there are thousands of people with similar opinions.

> Relatively few live in Dayton, Ohio (random example) and even fewer are willing to live there.

Fortunately Dayton is one of hundreds of decent-sized metro areas that are not the Bay Area. Every one has negatives and every one has people not willing to move there. So does the Bay Area.

> The advantage of remote working is you can draw from talent all over the world (or at least all over the US) without having to worry about the fact that a lot of people would be unwilling to live in your particular LCOL area.

I think the idea is to do clusters. Do light offices in any metro area where you hire more than one person. It provides the flexibility of a distributed team with the benefits of having some people colocated.

Re:As venture capital dries up, tech startups discover fruga... by morgante on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:23AM (#11621443)
> You say this, but others say there is a chronic shortage of talent in the area. Having the largest concentration of X does no good if local demand is X+Y.

There's a shortage in the market, but at least there is a market.

If I wanted to hire a team of 20 Go engineers, I could do it in SV. It might be expensive but I could do it relatively easily. I'm unconvinced I could hire the same team for less in Dayton.

> I personally will not go near the Bay Area for less than $200k base. Considering the Bay Area exodus story posted yesterday, it sounds like there are thousands of people with similar opinions.

Neither would I. The problem is that the alternatives to SV are different for everyone. For example, I'd be happy to live in Vermont or Minnesota. But you'd have to pay me even more than $200k to get me to live in the South. Meanwhile, there are thousands of other people who would never live in Vermont.

Remote working lets everyone live in their personal "best value" city. If you're insistent on having people colocated, you're still going to be better off having your offices in a place which enough people are attracted to that it's not hard to convince people to live there.

> Do light offices in any metro area where you hire more than one person.

I don't really see the benefit of this. You're incurring all the costs of having a distributed team but not gaining some of the biggest benefits (letting people work from wherever they want).

Re:As venture capital dries up, tech startups discover fruga... by rebekah-aimee on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @12:45PM (#11622230)
There are cities that are trying actively to become startup hubs to compete with SV, which are currently cheap but probably won't stay so. Kansas City will stay cheap long enough for a startup to take off.

Also, if we're talking about being frugal rather than relying on VC money, why not pick an area with a good university but not so much of a "city scene"/VC-land-ness, and hire college students? For example, Urbana-Champaign, IL. That way you're drawing from a pool where not all the talent has been snapped up yet, and the rent is usually reasonable because students have to live there.

Re:As venture capital dries up, tech startups discover fruga... by cloudjacker on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @08:27PM (#11625326)
right, and the company is Dayton Ohio doesn't understand that I'm not interested in flying out to their office party every month.

just go remote all in

Re:As venture capital dries up, tech startups discover fruga... by beachstartup on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:15AM (#11621370)
yeah, but a lot live in places like austin, portland, chicagoland, out in the woods somewhere on the east coast, etc.