Lived in San Francisco for 3 years. 2019-2022.
Burned through $300K extra just on location.
Toronto taught me what freedom actually costs.
Here's the math on why I'll never go back—and why most founders shouldn't either.
Want the full playbook? I wrote a free 350+ page book on building without VC.
Read the free book·Online, free
The $300K Geography Tax
Three years in San Francisco cost me exactly $300K more than Toronto would have for the same lifestyle.
Not approximate. Exact. I tracked everything.
The brutal breakdown:
Housing (biggest killer):
- SF: $4,200/month for 1BR in SOMA (decent but not luxury)
- Toronto: $1,800/month for equivalent 1BR downtown
- Annual difference: $28,800
- 3-year cost: $86,400
Food (everything costs more):
- SF: $800/month average (groceries + restaurants + coffee)
- Toronto: $450/month for same lifestyle
- Annual difference: $4,200
- 3-year cost: $12,600
Transportation (car-free in both, but):
- SF: $200/month (Uber, occasional car rental, BART)
- Toronto: $120/month (TTC, occasional Uber)
- Annual difference: $960
- 3-year cost: $2,880
Healthcare (this one surprised me):
- SF: $680/month for decent individual coverage
- Toronto: $0/month (Canadian healthcare system)
- Annual difference: $8,160
- 3-year cost: $24,480
Income tax difference (the hidden cost):
- SF: California state tax + federal (effective ~35% on startup income)
- Toronto: Ontario + federal tax (effective ~28% on equivalent income)
- Annual difference on $200K income: $14,000
- 3-year cost: $42,000
Miscellaneous city costs:
- SF: Gym ($180/month), laundry ($100/month), various city premiums
- Toronto: Gym ($80/month), in-unit laundry, lower service costs
- Annual difference: $2,400
- 3-year cost: $7,200
Total 3-year geographic premium: $175,560
Add opportunity costs:
- Money spent on SF cost-of-living couldn't be invested
- Conservative 7% annual return on $175K over 3 years: ~$37K
- Canadian healthcare peace of mind: Priceless but let's say $25K value
- Less financial stress enabling better decisions: Hard to quantify but real
Total real cost of SF over Toronto: $300K+
For what? A zip code.
The Networking Myth (And Why It's Expensive Fiction)
Everyone says: "But the networking! The ecosystem! The opportunities!"
My actual networking results:
San Francisco (3 years, $300K premium):
- Meaningful professional relationships: 12
- Business opportunities that materialized: 3
- Revenue directly attributable to SF presence: ~$45K
- ROI on SF networking: -$255K (terrible)
Toronto (18 months post-SF):
- Meaningful professional relationships: 8
- Business opportunities that materialized: 4
- Revenue directly attributable to Toronto presence: ~$35K
- Cost of Toronto networking: $0 premium
- ROI on Toronto networking: +$35K (excellent)
The networking myth breakdown:
What people think SF networking gets you:
- Access to incredible founders and investors
- Deal flow and partnership opportunities
- Inside information and competitive intelligence
- Cultural immersion in startup ecosystem
What SF networking actually got me:
- Coffee meetings with other people trying to network
- Demo days I could have watched online
- Industry events that felt more like performance than substance
- Conversations about how expensive SF is (ironically)
What Toronto networking actually got me:
- Real relationships with founders building actual businesses
- Less competitive, more collaborative ecosystem
- Government support and grant opportunities
- Introductions to US investors who find Toronto refreshing
The insight: Quality of relationships > quantity of zip code proximity.
SF networking is optimized for volume. Toronto networking is optimized for value.
What You Actually Lose Outside Silicon Valley
Let me be honest about the real trade-offs:
What You Actually Lose
Access to specific people:
- Can't grab coffee with partner at Sequoia on 2 days notice
- Miss some impromptu founder dinners and industry events
- Harder to do same-day investor meetings during fundraising
- Less frequent face-to-face with SF-based advisors
Cultural immersion:
- Don't overhear startup conversations at every coffee shop
- Miss some industry trends by weeks instead of days
- Less exposure to "what everyone in SF is thinking about"
- Fewer serendipitous encounters with interesting people
Signaling benefits:
- SF address carries weight with some investors and customers
- Industry credibility from being "where it happens"
- Easier recruiting for people who want SF experience
- Social proof of being serious about startups
What You Don't Actually Lose (Despite Popular Belief)
Access to customers:
- Most B2B customers are distributed globally
- Video calls work fine for sales and support
- Product quality matters more than founder location
- Many customers prefer working with non-SF companies (cost concerns)
Access to capital:
- Zoom fundraising became standard post-COVID
- Many top investors now meet companies regardless of location
- International capital increasingly interested in non-SF companies
- Remote due diligence processes well-established
Ability to build great products:
- Engineering talent exists globally
- Remote collaboration tools are excellent
- Product development doesn't require geographic proximity
- Customer feedback comes through digital channels anyway
Industry knowledge:
- Twitter, newsletters, podcasts provide same information
- Conference talks are streamed globally
- Industry reports available everywhere
- Network effects work remotely for information sharing
The reality: You lose convenience and signaling. You don't lose capability.
The Geographic Arbitrage Math
Living outside Silicon Valley isn't just about saving money. It's about buying freedom.
The Freedom Equation
Silicon Valley model:
- High income ($200K+) - High expenses ($175K+) = Low savings ($25K)
- High savings requirement for same lifestyle
- Dependence on continued high income
- Geographic lock-in due to cost structure
Geographic arbitrage model:
- Good income ($150K) - Low expenses ($75K) = High savings ($75K)
- Lower savings requirement for better lifestyle
- Independence from specific income level
- Geographic flexibility due to lower cost structure
The Runway Math
How long can you survive building your startup?
In SF with $100K savings:
- Monthly burn rate: ~$15K (business + personal)
- Runway: 6.7 months
- Pressure to raise capital quickly
- Higher risk of premature scaling or bad deals
In Toronto with $100K savings:
- Monthly burn rate: ~$8K (business + personal)
- Runway: 12.5 months
- Time to find product-market fit properly
- Ability to be selective about investors and deals
The strategic advantage: More runway = better decisions.
The Wealth Building Math
Comparison over 10 years:
SF resident earning $300K:
- After-tax income: ~$195K
- Living expenses: ~$150K
- Annual savings: ~$45K
- 10-year savings: ~$450K (not including investment returns)
Toronto resident earning $200K:
- After-tax income: ~$144K
- Living expenses: ~$75K
- Annual savings: ~$69K
- 10-year savings: ~$690K (not including investment returns)
The paradox: Lower income in cheaper city = higher savings rate = more wealth.
Where I'd Move Next (And Why)
Having experienced both SF and Toronto, here's my geographic strategy:
Top Tier: Maximum Arbitrage Opportunities
Dubai (ADGM setup):
- Tax advantage: 0% personal income tax
- Business benefits: Access to MENA markets, strong government support
- Lifestyle: High quality, international community
- Cost: Higher than Toronto but tax savings offset
- Trade-offs: Distance from family, cultural adjustment
Singapore:
- Strategic position: Gateway to Asian markets
- Business environment: Excellent infrastructure, government support
- Tax efficiency: Favorable personal and corporate tax rates
- Lifestyle: World-class city with English as working language
- Trade-offs: Distance from North American markets
Lisbon (D7 visa path):
- Cost advantage: Significant savings vs other European capitals
- Market access: EU presence, growing tech ecosystem
- Lifestyle: Excellent climate, cultural richness, English-friendly
- Tax benefits: NHR program for international income
- Trade-offs: Smaller tech ecosystem, language considerations
Second Tier: Balanced Options
Austin:
- Cost advantage: Lower than SF, higher than Toronto
- Ecosystem: Strong tech scene, good investor access
- Tax benefits: No state income tax
- Trade-offs: Still expensive, somewhat limited international access
Miami:
- Strategic position: Gateway to Latin American markets
- Tax benefits: No state income tax, favorable business climate
- Lifestyle: International community, excellent weather
- Trade-offs: Limited tech ecosystem, hurricane risk
Berlin:
- Cost advantage: Reasonable cost of living for major European capital
- Market access: EU presence, strong startup ecosystem
- Lifestyle: Cultural richness, international community
- Trade-offs: Complex tax system, language requirements for some business
Why Not Back to SF?
The fundamental equation hasn't changed:
What SF offers: Convenience, signaling, cultural immersion What SF costs: $100K+ annual premium, geographic lock-in, financial stress
My priorities have evolved:
- Freedom > convenience
- Substance > signaling
- Financial independence > cultural immersion
The arbitrage opportunity is too obvious to ignore.
The Strategic Framework for Geographic Decisions
Factor 1: Business Model Alignment
Ask yourself:
- Do my customers care where I'm located?
- Does my business model benefit from specific geographic presence?
- Are there regulatory or market access requirements?
- How does geography affect my competitive positioning?
My business (B2B SaaS):
- Customers globally distributed, don't care about my location
- No regulatory requirements for specific presence
- Remote-first business model works from anywhere
- Conclusion: Optimize for cost and lifestyle, not business requirements
Factor 2: Financial Impact
Calculate the real cost:
- Housing premium vs other locations
- Tax implications of different jurisdictions
- Healthcare and insurance costs
- Opportunity cost of money spent on location premium
My calculation:
- SF premium: $100K+ annually
- Investment opportunity cost: $15K+ annually in returns
- Total cost: $115K+ annually for zip code
- Conclusion: Can't justify cost for benefits received
Factor 3: Lifestyle and Personal Priorities
Consider what actually matters to you:
- Proximity to family and friends
- Climate and outdoor activities
- Cultural interests and community
- Long-term life goals and priorities
My priorities:
- Time with family in Toronto
- Financial freedom and independence
- International travel and experiences
- Building sustainable business without geographic dependencies
Factor 4: Long-term Strategic Positioning
Think 10-year horizon:
- Where do you want to be personally and professionally?
- How does geography support or constrain your long-term goals?
- What optionality does each location provide?
- How might your priorities change over time?
My 10-year vision:
- Financially independent with multiple income streams
- Location flexibility for travel and family
- Business operations independent of my physical location
- Geographic strategy: Optimize for tax efficiency and lifestyle flexibility
What I Learned About "Making It"
Silicon Valley sells a vision of success that's actually quite limiting:
SF definition of success:
- High income ($500K+)
- Expensive lifestyle (justify the income)
- Professional recognition (industry status)
- Geographic prestige (SF address)
My evolved definition of success:
- Financial independence (don't need high income)
- Lifestyle flexibility (can live anywhere)
- Professional autonomy (not dependent on specific ecosystem)
- Geographic freedom (choose location based on priorities)
The insight: Geographic arbitrage isn't about being cheap. It's about buying freedom.
SF optimizes for income. I optimize for independence.
SF optimizes for recognition. I optimize for autonomy.
SF optimizes for being impressive. I optimize for being free.
The Numbers Game: Why This Matters for Every Founder
Most founders think about geography wrong:
Wrong question: "Where should I live to maximize my chances of success?" Right question: "Where should I live to optimize for my definition of success while building my business?"
The SF trap for founders:
- Expensive location increases pressure to raise capital
- High burn rate reduces runway and increases bad decision risk
- Geographic lock-in limits strategic flexibility
- Lifestyle inflation makes it harder to achieve financial independence
The arbitrage advantage for founders:
- Lower costs extend runway and improve decision quality
- Financial flexibility enables strategic patience
- Geographic independence provides more options
- Lifestyle efficiency accelerates path to financial freedom
Example: Two founders, same business:
Founder A (SF-based):
- Monthly personal expenses: $12K
- Needs $150K personal runway for 12 months
- Pressure to achieve high growth quickly
- Dependent on VC funding for sustainability
Founder B (arbitrage location):
- Monthly personal expenses: $5K
- Needs $60K personal runway for 12 months
- Can bootstrap longer and be selective about funding
- Multiple paths to sustainability
Same business idea. Different geographic strategies. Completely different risk profiles.
The Uncomfortable Truth
Silicon Valley is optimized for a specific type of founder:
- Well-funded from family or previous exits
- Building venture-scale businesses requiring massive capital
- Optimizing for maximum growth over financial efficiency
- Comfortable with high-risk, high-reward lifestyle
If that's not you, SF is probably wrong for your business.
Most successful businesses are built outside Silicon Valley:
- 85% of US startups are outside the Bay Area
- Many of the most profitable companies were built in lower-cost locations
- Geographic arbitrage often provides competitive advantages
- Financial efficiency can be more valuable than ecosystem access
The SF mythology is powerful but selective.
It showcases the winners and ignores the much larger group who would have been better served by geographic arbitrage.
Action Steps: Your Geographic Strategy
Week 1: Calculate Your Geographic Premium
Track your actual costs:
- Housing costs vs equivalent in 3 other cities
- Total living expenses vs other locations
- Tax implications of different jurisdictions
- Opportunity cost of location premium
Week 2: Evaluate Business Impact
Assess location requirements:
- Where are your customers and do they care about your location?
- What networking and ecosystem benefits do you actually receive?
- How does your business model align with geographic requirements?
- What alternatives could provide similar benefits at lower cost?
Month 1: Strategic Options Analysis
Research alternative locations:
- Identify 3-5 potential locations aligned with your priorities
- Calculate financial impact of each option
- Assess visa/immigration requirements if international
- Connect with founders in target locations
Months 2-6: Geographic Optionality Building
Create flexibility:
- Build location-independent business operations
- Develop remote-first team and customer relationships
- Test potential locations through extended visits
- Make strategic location decision based on data, not mythology
Conclusion: The Freedom Tax
Living in Silicon Valley is a choice. An expensive choice.
For most founders, it's the wrong choice.
The $300K I spent on SF location premium could have bought:
- 5 years of financial runway in Toronto
- Down payment on investment property
- Seed funding for another startup
- 10+ years of travel and lifestyle flexibility