[markh]

The kind of entrepreneurs most likely to succeed (and therefore gain the attention of VCs) figure out how to relocate to startup hubs where they can get the attention of the VC community and network their way into the ecosystem. It’s way easier to move from Florida to San Francisco that it is from Paris, Sydney or Cape Town, and the extra hoops foreign entrepreneurs have to jump through makes them stand out all the more (relatively speaking). Very few American entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley grew up there either. It becomes a self-selecting sample.

[sudosteph]

And for those people who have legitimate reasons to not relocate to the most expensive area in the U.S.? You know, reasons like familial obligations and limited safety net income? They should just accept that they weren't likely to succeed in the first place, because otherwise they would have relocated?

That's nonsense. Plenty of very successful companies run succesfully somewhere other than SV. If you run a tech shop, that knows what you're doing, has the talent and resources on-hand, you don't need to be in SV other than for networking (which you only need to do to get those talent and resources in the first place).

I would love to see numbers on long-term success vs funding numbers by city. I'd argue that for long-term success and a customer base that is consumer oriented (as opposed to B2B which does benefit from SFO or NYC), a location with lower expenses and less employee turnover due to less competition seems beneficial. Worked for starting Amazon and Microsoft, some of the THE most successful companies right now (even if Seattle is becoming more like SF every day now).

[markh]

The article above is specifically about VC-funded companies by definition. Nobody is arguing that you can’t be a successful entrepreneur outside of a startup hub. But if you’re going to play the “bubble metrics” game, raise VC, grow rapidly and exit for “bubble metrics” valuations, your odds are way higher if you move. Silicon Valley is generally full of young founders. They move before they have families. They couch-surf, eat ramen noodles and don’t let concern for a safety net impede possible success (however unlikely that is).

[sudosteph]

Parents are family. Siblings are family. If you have the ability move across the country without worrying if your family will be able to get by without you helping them either in person or financially, you already have a safety net that many working class Americans don't.

Everyone ate ramen in college to get by, but most folks had the option to go back home and stay with their parents if college didn't work out. That's what you're describing here. Please don't conflate choosing to live frugally in exchange for additional opportunity with Americans who actually have grown up watching parents work two jobs only to choose between going to the doctor or paying their car payment (which they need to earn income). That's what working class means, that's what not having a safety net means. The consequences are different.