
Ask HN: Can remote-first be a winning strategy for SV startups? - whack
I&#x27;ve noticed that startups are often very insistent on their developers being physically present, and are less remote-friendly even compared to bigger enterprises.<p>I understand many of the reasons why, but going remote-first also seems like it would bring many benefits. Avoiding the high-COL-high-salaries problem in SV. Minimising facilities expenses. Attracting talented employees who enjoy working from home. Working with the best talent from around the world, and not just SV.<p>I&#x27;m aware that it&#x27;s certainly <i>possible</i> for startups to go remote-first, but is it generally going to help or hurt the company? Do investors like YC and VCs encourage it or discourage it?<p>My general definition of remote-first: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stackoverflow.blog&#x2F;2017&#x2F;02&#x2F;08&#x2F;means-remote-first-company&#x2F;
======
mlthoughts2018
I think the emphasis on requiring everyone to be physically present in a
noisy, distraction-oriented open plan office is a direct confirmation that
it’s about optics and cosmetics.

The decision isn’t driven by what would be productive in terms of work output,
nor what would be healthy, nor even what would be cost effective.

They are willing to pay premiums in terms of the costs of lost productivity,
costs of opulent office features that don’t increase productivity or attract
talent, costs of artificially reducing the candidate pool by excluding remote
workers from consideration, etc.

The only way to see it as a rational choice on the part of management is if
they are compensated more for the optics and cosmetic appearance of the
company workplace than they are compensated for actual work output. I’d argue
this seems at least plausible for a lot of start-ups seeking hype-driven
investment.

By the formula, it then leads to a cookie cutter pattern of levering up the
hyped private valuation followed by a race to an IPO and marketing campaign to
distract everyone from loss growth and poor profitability prospects, to use
the IPO to essentially externalize the losses that will come from a huge price
correction out onto unwitting people who come to own the stock through some
unmonitored 401(k) plan manager and onto employees who get trapped by IPO
blackout windows preventing them from selling at the early, hyped IPO prices.

Spotify fit this pattern very well, and it is shaping up to be Uber’s strategy
over the next year too, while possibly even letting privileged insiders
participate in a private equity sale to a few hedge funds, to capitalize even
sooner on the hyped private valuation prior to the inevitable price
correction.

Really, it’s not hyperbolic to point out that even early choices to mandate an
on-site only policy in a cost-ineffective open plan office are indicators of
this optics-first-productivity-second way of thinking.

------
Eridrus
Like many things, it has benefits and risks.

Are the benefits of reduced burn/increased access to talent particularly
relevant for your business, such that they outweigh the increased
communication & management difficulty?

I think VCs don't see raising money as an issue, and would rather you burn
through a bunch of extra money than struggle with "unnecessary" issues. I
mean, we all know AWS is more expensive than doing everything yourself, but
yet almost no-one is operating their own machines.

------
smt88
> _Can remote-first be a winning strategy for SV startups?_

Yes, although then it's hard to say whether the startup is still "SV" or not,
assuming most of the company lives elsewhere.

> _Do investors like YC and VCs encourage it or discourage it?_

Don't optimize your company for raising money. Optimize it for not needing to
raise money, i.e. being cash-flow positive. If you're successful at the
latter, investors won't care whether you're remote or not.

