Ask HN: Should I move my startup from SV to SF?
First time poster here.
Most of the past posts on HN comparing "SF vs SV vs. East Bay" look at it from the perspective of where an individual looking for work should choose to live. I'm hoping for advice from the perspective of founders, CEOs, and/or recruiters. If I want to be close to great talent to build my team around, where should our office be?
We're in Palo Alto right now and hiring. Applicants are coming from all over the bay (literally) and I'm realizing that no matter where we are located, we're going to end up missing out on good people. We're hearing a lot of "I've been riding caltrain / driving 101 for X years and I can't do it anymore". Right now being in SV is turning away some SF talent. I imagine the same is true the other way around. Is this a "grass is never greener" situation? Is trying to please everyone inevitably going to lead to pleasing nobody? If I have to commit to one side of the bay, which talent market should I "give up"? Lastly, how much stock should I put in my own personal location preference (my wife has a job down here in Palo Alto, and if we move the organization to SF then either she or I will have to commute which I worry will burn us out and then what happens to the mission)?
I'm willing to work off "gut feel", but it would sure help to get some more data if possible.
Context: We're a high tech nonprofit. B2C. Our big three functions are community mgmt, product (dev+design), and biz dev. We have revenue and are no longer in need of startup investment.
Here are my thoughts. If you no longer need funding and are just concerned with missing out on talent, then I'm not sure it matters where you're located. Maybe start figuring out how to be a distributed team or get some space in SF in a co-working space where those that live in SF can go to work there. You'll never lose the anxiety of wondering if you're missing out on top talent. That will always exist. The best way to temper that anxiety is trust those that you have or make it easier to let your team work remotely.
This isn't an answer, but ever consider a remote office?
Does that work at small scales? Does 2-3 people in Palo Alto + 2-3 people in SF a team make?
I've worked on 100% remote teams for the past 5 years. The first company was ~8 people, and the second is 5 people. I'm a huge advocate of allowing people to work from home.
Other people have done better work laying out the benefits of remote work than I could, but here's some food for thought:
- Remote workers get an instant boost in work-life balance that doesn't cost the company anything. They have no commute, and they can choose to live in less expensive areas. Those are huge happiness boosts and also a great way to retain employees, since few companies allow remote work.
- Costs for office space go down.
- Studies have shown that people hate open offices and are less productive in them. Productivity is greater when people can have a quiet, private space to make phone calls or just think. Office space with individual offices for each employee are expensive and rare.
- You can hire from anywhere. My company currently employs an excellent senior developer who refuses to leave his home in small-town North Carolina. We pay him far less than he would make in NYC or SF, so both he and our company win.