Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had an extremely similar experience, but I do have a beef with the founders for not compensating me fairly with respect to the work I did in helping them create something they could eventually sell to a large company. [Before anybody throws shade, the site was developed by a Flash dev, a Java team for webdev, and me building the backend and running things as a solo sysadmin.] None of these people are your friends,…
That doesn't have to be true, there are many decent and honorable people that decide to start companies. But I do certainly think you need to walk away as soon as you feel a founder doesn't recognize or value you or your contributions
Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
951–960 of 968 posts
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
#952I was employee 18 at a startup recently acquired by Google. Maybe not super early, but I was able to make big contributions that had a large impact on our eventual acquisition. It was a fun ride but I won't be doing it again for one main reason: startup equity distribution makes zero sense for early employees. Founders get 20+ times the equity. Yes they take more risk and work harder, but they're not taking 20 times…
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
#953Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You dont get something just because you need it" Huge applause. "You need to raise more money" Crowd falls silent. How about trying to sell something and generate revenue. I long ago stopped subscribing to Startup Porn but I remain baffled as to how seemingly smart people are so intoxicated by it that the notion of building an actual business is an afterthought.
Well yes. But the premise here was that in order to generate that revenue you need the employee. If you don't need the employee then by all means don't hire the employee (and don't raise money to hire them).
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
#954Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You dont get something just because you need it" Huge applause. "You need to raise more money" Crowd falls silent. How about trying to sell something and generate revenue. I long ago stopped subscribing to Startup Porn but I remain baffled as to how seemingly smart people are so intoxicated by it that the notion of building an actual business is an afterthought.
Well yes. But the premise here was that in order to generate that revenue you need the employee. If you don't need the employee then by all means don't hire the employee (and don't raise money to hire them).
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
#955Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And yes, more risk deserves more reward, why is that even controversial? I think the argument is that the current reward to an early employee is a joke compared to the risk their taking, given the other job options available to them. So its not that the founder shouldn't be rewarded fairly for their risk, but that early employees are not. Thus the answer to this thread is just that being an EE isn't worth it. I thi…
Sure, but that's up to the employee to decide. Forget startups, why does anyone work for any of the other thousands of companies out there then? It's just not as simple as some money metric, and either way the market will correct for it, as this entire thread shows.
That said, I think its obvious for a tech worker currently that unless you're located somewhere which only has startup jobs, and you don't want to relocate, then you're better of going with an established business with more guaranteed pay and equity.
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
#956I was the first engineer at a TechStars startup that did have a successful exit (I was there about 5 years before the exit). If there is something I want YC to know, it's this: You helped create the culture of founder empowerment. You have the power to evolve that narrative to those that sacrifice as early employees. Tell the world that early employees deserve a lot more equity. Tell the world that early employees co…
Thank you for your comment. I am a founder currently deciding how much equity to give to our beloved first engineer. Any tips are welcome!
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
#957A BigCo will help them get hired for the rest of their career. Anecdotally, I learned and accomplished far more at startups than at Google, but anytime someone sees my resume "Google" is what they notice first and are impressed by. This sucks because early employees at a startup have so many opportunities to learn and accomplish way more than a typical BigCo employee, but recruiters can't easily filter on this like they can "Oh this engineer worked at Google - they must be good!" As a result, working at a BigCo will likely help their career more than working at a startup.
Pay and filtering out good vs bad offers is another concern. Most engineers are unfamiliar with startups, equity, preferences, cap tables, and everything else. We on HN are probably more knowledgeable, but I founded a startup and still don't fully understand it all so I can't imagine how someone completely unfamiliar with startups could possibly evaluate an offer. This is made worse by the fact that it feels like startups for the past decade have taken advantage of this ignorance and screwed over many early employees with poor offers and a fake promise of wealth when the company is a mega-success. Many others have made this point in this thread already so I won't get into the details, but the TL;DR is that employees need to be treated as vital investors in the business and as people you want to help succeed.
A third concern is development and training. At a startup you are expected to already have a pretty solid knowledge base when joining; you typically need to know how web apps work, some of the stack the company uses, etc. That isn't to say you won't learn a lot at a startup, but this is typically done in a "sink or swim" manner where you have to have some foundational knowledge to avoid drowning. At a BigCo this isn't always the case, and many new grads will be hired with less domain specific knowledge and are given an opportunity to learn and grow over the first year. Now I realize not all startups (especially early stage ones) can afford to hire employees who won't be contributing in the immediate future, so I'm not sure how you fix this (maybe a company like Triple Byte could find promising employees who lack some specific knowledge and give a crash course before sending them off to startups to interview?), but if you can get hired at a BigCo you can basically get paid to learn these skills which is a much more enticing offer.
A fourth concern I've heard from people less familiar with startups is concern that the startup will just die at any minute leaving them jobless and in a tight situation. This mostly stems from founders not sharing important information like cash reserves, burn rate, runway, etc, so I think the general fix is to encourage founders to provide more clarity around these things. The problem is this is hard because no founder wants to admit they are failing or that the company may not be alive in 3 months. They might raise money or turn things around and they don't want their best employees to leave, but by not saying anything they risk getting into a situation where employees need to be suddenly let go and a single story like this can scare away many potential candidates. This just isn't as much of a risk (or it is perceived to be less of a risk) at BigCos, even though they do occasionally close down branches.
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
#958Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the guy running the panel "didn't want individual contributors". That may be a reasonable requirement, depending on the panel topic. But note: Plenty of EEs aren't individual contributors! An EE can be a "team lead" for example. Basically if you have any responsibility for directing or managing other people, you are already not an IC.
> That may be a reasonable requirement, depending on the panel topic. Hmm. I really don't see how. That's a bit like saying that because you work in Java, you can't talk about Ruby, or AWS, or Scrum, or skydiving. This really seems like the sort of thing that you "opt in" rather than "opt out" - you're qualified to talk on a panel if you are X, rather than being disqualified if you are Y. Can you think of any topics…
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
#959Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That may be a reasonable requirement, depending on the panel topic. Hmm. I really don't see how. That's a bit like saying that because you work in Java, you can't talk about Ruby, or AWS, or Scrum, or skydiving. This really seems like the sort of thing that you "opt in" rather than "opt out" - you're qualified to talk on a panel if you are X, rather than being disqualified if you are Y. Can you think of any topics…
Post-mortems, one-on-ones, dealing with toxic team members, adopting "Continuous X" practices, "Your team just added it's first woman engineer. Now what?", etc.
In short, I completely disagree both by opinion and experience that any of those topics have "not being an IC" as a reasonable requirement.
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
#960Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That may be a reasonable requirement, depending on the panel topic. Hmm. I really don't see how. That's a bit like saying that because you work in Java, you can't talk about Ruby, or AWS, or Scrum, or skydiving. This really seems like the sort of thing that you "opt in" rather than "opt out" - you're qualified to talk on a panel if you are X, rather than being disqualified if you are Y. Can you think of any topics…
Also, X and Y in this case are (mostly) mutually exclusive. We just don't have a common catchall term for technical non-ICs to be able to express a positive requirement without also including non-technical managers.
Seems like the problem is trying to have a category (as in folder, as in old school email) rather than a label.
"Technically capable", "contributor", and "technical contributor" all sound like ways to positively express "not looking for non-technical managers".
The problem comes back around to "do not restrict people to the categories you assign to them".
(Which is also a way to phrase many social justice issues and IMO where "being a cog in a machine" comes from).