[w1ntermute]

Ironically, the existing people/companies that are already there aside, Silicon Valley (and California in general) is a horrible place to found a tech startup. 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. The Democrats got a supermajority in the state House and Senate in the recent elections, so now they can unilaterally raise taxes, with the Republicans basically left powerless. No doubt many people will start to feel the squeeze in coming months as tax rates shoot up.

One of the big advantages of California is the year-round nice weather, but when you're sitting inside in front a computer, that doesn't really matter all that much. Moreover, a tech company, more so than many other types of businesses, can effectively work with people in remote locations.

Unfortunately, this is a problem that can't be solved easily over short time scales. The only hope is that people start realizing you can be "ramen profitable" a lot quicker if you choose to base your startup in, say, Kansas City (and there's always the nice added bonus of super-fast Google Fiber).

[muzz]

"Ironically" many of these have been the case for decades while the gap between Silicon Valley and other locations only grew.

[joonix]

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.

You are contradicting yourself, regardless. You are arguing that higher taxes will kill those seeking to bootstrap companies -- but if people are bootstrapping and have no income, they pay no taxes, and they most certainly aren't being hit by the only tax increases that are now being discussed: those on high earners making over $200k. It doesn't affect them.

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. In reality, you can find cheap rent anywhere, even SV, you just have to compromise on space and housing/location quality.

[w1ntermute]

> 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.

[natrius]

He's talking about the California legislature, not Congress.

http://graphics.latimes.com/2012-election-results-california...

[btrautsc]

Chattanooga, TN (which already has 1Gig fiber deployed throughout the city) is definitely heading in the same (right) direction. The cost of living is drastically cheaper, and the quality of life with easy access to mountains, rivers, lakes, shops, cafes, etc can be drastically better. The drawbacks of course are obvious; hiring enough talented people, smaller city environment, relocation, creating connective tissue with other startup people/ funders to create network effects. But, if you're build a product, service, company and don't immediately have a product-market fit, this environment allows you to stay alive longer, which can allow you to find success, whereas your seed funding or quick-market play would have died and dried up in more expensive towns.