How Paul Graham Is Wrong
>Use WordPress and P2, use Slack, use G+ Hangouts, use Skype, use any of the amazing technology that allows us to collaborate as effectively online as previous generations of company did offline.<p>I've been a 100% remote worker for 5+ years but I think we have to be honest here.  All those teleconferencing/videoconferencing/virtualwhiteboards/etc are <i>not as effective</i> as everyone sharing the same physical workspace.  Yes, they do help mitigate many issues of isolation and they do help collaboration but there's still some "bandwidth loss" when people are not in the same room or even down the hall from each other.<p>I'm not advocating an open floor plan with noise and distractions.  Even a set of private offices that share a common corridor to facilitate spontaneous conversation with a side conference room for group brainstorming, is superior to keeping Skype windows open.<p>Yes, there are the common examples of virtual remote workers at basecamp, Automattic, github etc.  Those are not billion dollar companies.  A lot of startups have ambitious goals and very hard technical challenges and you can't compete with a team made up of 99% remote workers.  I see no evidence that this has ever been successfully done.  Small scale modest businesses, yes, but not big ones.<p>Maybe you can hire a 5-person 100% remote team to launch a new web magazine.  Journalists and editors by their nature seem to fit the remote work paradigm quite nicely.  At first glance, it seems programming also fits, but only for modest projects.<p>Yes, the remote workers themselves will insist "I'm 100% just as effective offsite as onsite -- in fact, I'm more productive because I'm not interrupted by office nonsense."  No doubt they feel that way but <i>the whole team</i> isn't more effective.<p>Remote workers even with today's fanciest collaboration technology is not the answer to finding the best talent.