Re:New start-up hubs challenging Silicon Valley - study
by w1ntermute on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:05PM
(#4810628)
> The Democrats do not have a majority in the House, the Republicans do. And the Democrats do not control enough of the Senate to be immune to the threat of filibuster.
Trying reading my post again:
> The Democrats got a supermajority in the state House and Senate
And this:
> You are arguing that higher taxes will kill those seeking to bootstrap companies
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Read this again:
> The cost of living is high and the taxes are high, with the former being an obstacle for bootstrapping a startup, and the latter being an obstacle when your company grows in size.
It's the high cost of living that will kill bootstrapping companies, not the high taxes.
> Cost of living really doesn't matter that much to tech startups. If it did, everyone would be rushing to rural Nebraska to bootstrap their startup.
You've made a common logical fallacy. People aren't "rushing to rural Nebraska to bootstrap their startup" because the high cost of living is a pill worth swallowing considering the networking benefits in SV. That is, there's a net benefit to being in SV vs. being in rural Nebraska. However, like I said in my first post, this is not something inherent to SV - it's just a matter of where the people and companies happen to be at the moment.
Moreover, you've resorted to reductio ad absurdum here. I clearly stated in my first post that a good option in the Midwest for founding a startup would be a medium-sized city like Kansas City, not "rural Nebraska".
> In reality, you can find cheap rent anywhere, even SV, you just have to compromise on space and housing/location quality.
Which means that if you "compromise on space and housing/location quality" in a place with a lower cost of living, you'd get even cheaper housing. Another common logical fallacy.
Trying reading my post again:
> The Democrats got a supermajority in the state House and Senate
And this:
> You are arguing that higher taxes will kill those seeking to bootstrap companies
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Read this again:
> The cost of living is high and the taxes are high, with the former being an obstacle for bootstrapping a startup, and the latter being an obstacle when your company grows in size.
It's the high cost of living that will kill bootstrapping companies, not the high taxes.
> Cost of living really doesn't matter that much to tech startups. If it did, everyone would be rushing to rural Nebraska to bootstrap their startup.
You've made a common logical fallacy. People aren't "rushing to rural Nebraska to bootstrap their startup" because the high cost of living is a pill worth swallowing considering the networking benefits in SV. That is, there's a net benefit to being in SV vs. being in rural Nebraska. However, like I said in my first post, this is not something inherent to SV - it's just a matter of where the people and companies happen to be at the moment.
Moreover, you've resorted to reductio ad absurdum here. I clearly stated in my first post that a good option in the Midwest for founding a startup would be a medium-sized city like Kansas City, not "rural Nebraska".
> In reality, you can find cheap rent anywhere, even SV, you just have to compromise on space and housing/location quality.
Which means that if you "compromise on space and housing/location quality" in a place with a lower cost of living, you'd get even cheaper housing. Another common logical fallacy.