Re:What It Takes to Hire 10 Employees in San Francisco
by compiler-guy on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @07:50PM
(#20701209)
The author worked at Google prior to founding this startup. Presumably Google Bay Area. So they founded a company where they were, and where their contacts were.
Yes, they could have moved out of the area, but that has its own costs, not just financial.
Re:What It Takes to Hire 10 Employees in San Francisco
by a_t48 on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @04:09PM
(#20699451)
> Why do blank-slate companies continuously insist on basing themselves in the Bay Area?
Isn't it a funding issue? It's my understanding that it's easier to get funding here than anywhere else.
Not that I don't agree that age discrimination exists in tech, but this could just be an artifact of startups in the Bay Area.
North of 30 is when people tend to settle down and start a family. That's enormously expensive in San Francisco. My guess is that most over-30s in tech either A) decamp to a lower cost of living metro, B) have very high-paying FANG jobs that startups can't compete with, or C) are independently wealthy from prior ventures.
Either way they're not showing up to a relatively low-paying, very high-risk, low-security startup job based on the outside chance of their stock options hitting it big. Lottery tickets don't pay the mortgage or pre-school tuition.
I think the underlying issue isn't so much age chauvinism as geographic chauvinism. Why do blank-slate companies continuously insist on basing themselves in the Bay Area? There's no shortage of talented engineers in Columbus, Philadelphia, Huntsville, Dubuque or Boise. Certainly enough for a dozen-employee seed-round.