Am I wrong about SF?
My facts > I'm going to build companies for the rest of my life. > I don't care about cost of living or short term personal liquidity. > I'm not building anything hyperlocal. > I care more about building products for people than businesses. > I'm competitive and work best around high-agency people. > I'm in my mid/late twenties, no kids.
My assumptions > The density of people who want to spend most of their time changing the world is higher in SF than anywhere else. > SF is the epicenter of risk capital for big new ideas. > The best founder-like engineering talent pool are in our around SF. > Investors associate SF founders with ambition, grit, and speed. > The compounding effects of proximity to SF are not available to short term tourists. > Hyper-ambition is normalized and celebrated in SF.
I have no doubt great companies can be build anywhere. I'm trying to soundly conclude wether it will be more enjoyable to do so in SF.
P.S. By SF I mean Bay Area.
But. I grew up in Georgia, started my career in the Bay Area, then left again due to housing costs and commute times.
I believe you can find excellent people everywhere, not just SF. There's plenty of ex-NASA engineers all over the country right now. You could set up a recruiting table at the mall in Tyson's Corner Virginia and have your team roster filled in a weekend.
For normal humans, you might prefer that nice house with a yard for the kids. But if you don't mind living out of your car in the parking lot of an office in Silicon Valley, then knock yourself out.
Coming from Atlanta, Bay Area traffic will make you feel right at home. The food is better, especially the farther north from Silicon Valley you go.
PS: In California, THE OCEAN DON'T PLAY. It's quite cold and it kills people.