Perhaps they should turn it around: offer the applicant the choice, without stating a preference. If he chooses the hotel, it counts against him, because startups need to be frugal. The applicant should realize that they're not just interviewing him, but perhaps a dozen others and the difference adds up.

On the other hand, when he's hired, he should expect to be made comfortable: don't skimp on chairs, displays, airconditioning, etc. Whether that's the case should become clear during the interview: it's also about "do I want to work here?"

If I had a strong enough preference for not using airbnb, I would. If my choice of accommodations is that big an issue, I probably don't want to work there anyway.

ie. skimp on commodities, not on talent

Skimping on commodities that affect the talent is skimping on the talent.

I guess that is why thousands of startups are running out of run-down brick warehouses covered in a swipe of fresh paint in some of the most seismically unstable areas of San Francisco; because people care that their companies are skimping on rent.

I was referring specifically to the skimping that reaches the level where it effects the talent.

Choosing functional real estate can certainly be fine. But what would you think of a startup that chose Oakland over SF to save even more money?