[thomasptacek]

I think you should ask questions of the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom says one of the reasons to move a company to the Bay Area is that it's easier to hire developers. You should question whether that's really true. I gave some reasons why I think it might not be, and cited my experience. I don't think it's true. But you make the call.

Also, careful with words like "later stage". You're "later stage" as soon as you hire the first person who isn't getting a founder's stake in the company. For us, that was weeks, not months, after the birth of our company.

[anamax]

That's odd. I see founders, early, and maybe another round of folks before "later".

To me, "later" isn't until the biz is well beyond self-sustaining, when there's very little risk of failure.

[thomasptacek]

I understand, and am not arguing with you. Whatever you want to call them, that "second round of folks before later" is harder to hire than the founders. They're employees, not principals, and you can't bullshit them.

[anamax]

"Can't bullshit" sounds like a good thing.

I'm not disputing harder to hire, I'm asking whether harder to hire is a negative or a useful indicator.

[thomasptacek]

If, holding talent constant, a developer costs $100k in the bay and $65k in Ann Arbor, Michigan, then Ann Arbor startups have a pronounced recruitment advantage. That's all I'm saying.

The conventional wisdom is, "go to the Bay Area, it'll be much easier to find smart developers." It is, in fact, very easy to find smart developers in the Bay Area. Unfortunately, they work for Google.