[jamiemchale]

Isn't there a tremendous upside to being physically co-located? Even if the teams are remote, are the founders not usually located in a 'tech hub' city (SF, NY, etc.)?

Matt says to let people 'live someplace remarkable', but for most of the world that want to work in technology SF is someplace remarkable.

The benefits of using group collaboration tools are still available, but you have other people working on overlapping problems on your doorstep, support and service companies, and access to intelligent finance.

[kenrikm]

The Bay Area is pretty awesome however the housing prices are not, I would say it's the single biggest issue here. I've been told my $2000/mo Rent for a 500Sqft 1Br Apartment in San Mateo is a "good deal".. to contrast that the mortgage on my 2000Sqft house back in Miami (not far from the beach) is $650/mo including Taxes and Insurance.

[YuriNiyazov]

The downsides of mass immigration are have a tremendous downside, comparable to the upside of being physically co-located. For example, the skyrocketing living costs in US cities.

Trying to solve the problems that get in the way of making remote work as seamless as co-location seem to be technical, which are easier than the fundamental problems of economics.

[johansch]

Most people would think so, but apparently this changes if you work for Yahoo!. Then you are a lot more productive if you work remotely. This is what I learned on Hacker News. ;)