I've thought for more than a decade that the Midwest would be the "New Place" for 2005-2025. The coasts seem kind of played-out. The elites here (in NYC and SF) are already in place and going to try to block any real innovation. Silicon Valley was built in a time when Northern California was seen as a backwater-- sure, one with nice weather, but not a place the Northeastern elites took seriously-- and that was why it was able to generate so much momentum in the 1950s to '90s.
However, there's the problem of capital, and also one of risk-aversion. It may be that Michigan (where failure has already happened) is where the next wave starts. I can't predict such things, but it's interesting to follow the pulse of it. Does technology really still need high-priced locations? It seems to think it does, but that may be a venture capital get-big-or-die bias.
One thing that pisses me off is the talent-pays aspect of real estate. Why is New York expensive? Because companies want to hire here. Why? Because people like me live here. So we are effectively paying because we're awesome. Well, fuck that. Why am I paying a bunch of people who have nothing to do with productive activity because of that? If we, as a group, stopped being awesome then this city (even the country) would be fucking nothing. It's people who keep cities going.
I could really see a Midwestern city just killing it by throwing a few million dollars at some really great startup ideas. Bring 100 of the best programmers in the country together and pay them a market salary to work on whatever the fuck they want, then wait 5 years, see what they build and get a critical mass effect.
I like this idea. Now do you propose that a municipality create a startup accelerator with the requirement for funding being that you are willing to relocate?
Would be pretty amazing if they through in office space / housing for the first few years. One would have to believe it would pay off quickly.
Now do you propose that a municipality create a startup accelerator with the requirement for funding being that you are willing to relocate?
I think that could work. I'd focus on long-term projects and an "autonomy fund": $100,000 per year to 100 top-notch engineers. The city gets a non-voting 37.5% stake (implied valuation of $266.67k per year) in whatever you build, and you have to have at least half of your employees working there at least 45 days per year, or maintaining a residence (tax base).
However, there's the problem of capital, and also one of risk-aversion. It may be that Michigan (where failure has already happened) is where the next wave starts. I can't predict such things, but it's interesting to follow the pulse of it. Does technology really still need high-priced locations? It seems to think it does, but that may be a venture capital get-big-or-die bias.
One thing that pisses me off is the talent-pays aspect of real estate. Why is New York expensive? Because companies want to hire here. Why? Because people like me live here. So we are effectively paying because we're awesome. Well, fuck that. Why am I paying a bunch of people who have nothing to do with productive activity because of that? If we, as a group, stopped being awesome then this city (even the country) would be fucking nothing. It's people who keep cities going.
I could really see a Midwestern city just killing it by throwing a few million dollars at some really great startup ideas. Bring 100 of the best programmers in the country together and pay them a market salary to work on whatever the fuck they want, then wait 5 years, see what they build and get a critical mass effect.