On the point of hiring the best and brightest wherever they live: I worked for a startup that hired from all over Europe and North America. We did hire some great people, but there are definitely considerations and downsides. Here are some of the cons I noticed:
1) It took a lot of effort to discourage cliques based on location. People from different countries or parts of the country bonded more easily. New hires would also quickly bond because they didn't know anyone, but together they felt excluded by the established groups. This was critical to their happiness because they didn't usually have friends outside of work. We managed, but it does require more effort to prevent internal politics.
2) This wasn't the sort of job where everyone could work remotely, so we regularly lost people who decided to go back home. That's why I left, and I was neither the first nor the last. People miss their families and friends, especially if they miss a large event.
3) Moving people can be expensive. Obvious, so I won't elaborate.
4) Recruiting from all over is also more expensive. You may or may not need to fly people out, but you also have a lower rate of interest for the same amount of effort. On job boards you'll get 500 resumes, out of which 100 people actually realized the position requires them to move. For the low-profile startup it just takes more effort and money to get the word out to the right people across the country.
Was it worth it? Sometimes. In the end, you need to consider whether the position is really worth the extra time and cost of hiring or whether you can find local talent that will do as well. The issues I've raised above are obviously harder for positions where "telecommuting" doesn't work.
The whole point of the article is explicitly on hiring people who aren't willing to relocate - those who are eager to move to SF already make up the current market.
What are the positions where "telecommuting" doesn't work and reasons for that? The OP argues that for pretty much all development jobs that isn't the case, and gives examples of how successful companies have implemented this.
1) It took a lot of effort to discourage cliques based on location. People from different countries or parts of the country bonded more easily. New hires would also quickly bond because they didn't know anyone, but together they felt excluded by the established groups. This was critical to their happiness because they didn't usually have friends outside of work. We managed, but it does require more effort to prevent internal politics.
2) This wasn't the sort of job where everyone could work remotely, so we regularly lost people who decided to go back home. That's why I left, and I was neither the first nor the last. People miss their families and friends, especially if they miss a large event.
3) Moving people can be expensive. Obvious, so I won't elaborate.
4) Recruiting from all over is also more expensive. You may or may not need to fly people out, but you also have a lower rate of interest for the same amount of effort. On job boards you'll get 500 resumes, out of which 100 people actually realized the position requires them to move. For the low-profile startup it just takes more effort and money to get the word out to the right people across the country.
Was it worth it? Sometimes. In the end, you need to consider whether the position is really worth the extra time and cost of hiring or whether you can find local talent that will do as well. The issues I've raised above are obviously harder for positions where "telecommuting" doesn't work.