Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?

news.ycombinator.com

961–968 of 968 posts

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?

#961

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everybody that is an early employee adds to the company value! Some people are not so bad they get fired but they are living off of other people's input. Before you start giving away more equity to early employees, you need to seriously think about how you are going to make the employee earn that e.g. if they leave before 3 years, they lose it, if they fail appraisals, they lose it etc. Many companies go bad beca…

Many companies go bad because they do give away too much equity then there's not enough left for subsequent raises Citation please, because this sounds outlandish.

Selling equity to employees for their time is exactly like selling equity to investors for their money. Founders can only dilute their stake to a certain point before they’ll own too little to make fundraising worthwhile.

For a rough example, if the company gives 20% to early employees and 20% to investors, and want to raise $1MM A round at a $5MM valuation, they’d dilute down to 48% already. If they’d given 10% to early employees, they’d dilute down to 56%. That majority control could be significant. You can extrapolate lower numbers if a company needs significant cash and has to raise at a low valuation.

Hopefully the mechanics make sense and yes, there are companies that give too much away on paper and hurt the value of the equity long term because they didn’t have room to raise money or grant shares without giving up personal stakes.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?

#962
Startups in my opinion are almost never a good deal for folks who have the option to join a big successful company. My points will be directed at folks who can get a job at a big company easily but are lured by the great things they've heard about startups. Specifically I'll target the issue of compensation.

Startups, in my experience have very shady predatory compensation strategies. Along with the VCs that fund them, startups target people fresh from college, selling them the "each stock COULD be worth X, so you could be worth Y" story. They also target people who have spent their entire career at startups since this fairy tale works on them too. I have worked at both startups and big companies and my compensation at bigger companies has been so much better. People working at startups don't believe me when I tell them how much I make. Past me would not believe present me either. I am not talking about a 10% or 20% or even 50% increase in compensation. My pay is 4.2x of what it used to be and I know people who have had similar experiences. It's not like I was being paid peanuts at the startup I was at either. The pay at big companies is just much much better. It's easy to underestimate the power of performance evaluation driven stock refreshers and the sheer increase in the stock value that some of the big companies have had. Here are some things one should consider compensation wise when working at a startup: * You are essentially getting a lottery ticket with your stock options. How do you value this lottery ticket? Don't buy the stories the founders sell you on how this is a gazillion dollar market and even getting a faction of it would make FooBar a trillion dollar company. A simple but still optimistic method - just use the VC valuation. They have way more information and experience than you do and if they value it at X, it's at best valued at X. So if your tartup decides to give you 0.25% of X then you're stock is worth 0.0025X at best. You'll be surprised how little your options are worth if you use this method. * But even that valuation is optimistic. If you leave the company before they go public (or hit another liquidity event) you either leave with your existing options and pay a tax bill on something that may be worth nothing OR you leave with nothing. Now some startups let you claim your options for up to 9-10 years after you leave, but the typical ones give you a period of about 3 months - so you're forced to make this decision. The irony is that if your startup has actually done well, the tax bill might be too big for you to pay and you have no option but to stick around or leave with nothing. I've known cases of people who have poured their heart and soul into a startup, got burnt out and then were laid off and had to leave with nothing. Consider how long it takes the successful startups to go public these days and add a risk factor to your valuation based on that. * Okay, so you're rich enough to afford the tax bill on your risky options when you leave - you might still get screwed. Guess whose shares are getting diluted the most during the next round of funding? Ex-employees have no say in the company and the company has little to no loyalty towards them. A company could easily do something shady like raise money, dilute current and ex-employees, but give all the existing employees new shares to make up for the dilution.

For a sample of some of the disingenuous "I know what you need better than you do" kind of marketing that VCs do to help maintain the status quo, take a look at https://a16z.com/2016/06/23/options-timing/. These folks are not your friends.

Startup founders get the vast share of the equity and even the 3rd or 4th employee gets a tiny fraction, while having to do the same amount of work. So if you still want to work at a startup, my advice would be to either be a founder (hopefully not one that continues the cycle of screwing over other employees) or at the very least come from a big company. Founders and VCs know that big company employees make a lot of money and they wouldn't just give up on their good compensation package for the "each stock could be worth X" story. Hence they compensate them much better than their average employee that doesn't know the market. Folks coming from bigger companies can also afford the tax bill associated with early exercise of options or exercise of options when leaving a company. Further consider working at startups where they let employees buy their options years after leaving. There are also successful startups that straight up give RSUs.

The well known article by Dan Luu at http://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/ addresses some of the other points raised when discussing the relative meritcs of startups VS big companies.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?

#963
I think the talent pool is getting smarter about how much their equity will likely be worth (hint, it's $0). Those who are joining startups now, are either naive to that fact (not good once they discover the data), or they care more about working on the problem than they do the compensation (which is the perfect employee if you can find it - but the cost of living in SF has made that nearly impossible).

So when the company you are going to work for is going to pay you less in cash, likely require you to work harder, and not offer any guarantee that they will be in existence in two years, you are taking a ton more risk for less reward. Financially it does not make sense, so you better be in it because you enjoy the work that much more than a big company.

Bottom line is that startups are going to need to pay more money to attract talent. The secret is out on common shares and what happens with liquidation preferences.

As for how YC could solve this, perhaps they offer an unemployment supplement to those who are laid off. Help talented folks reduce their risk and you will find it easier to recruit.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?

#964

I think the talent pool is getting smarter about how much their equity will likely be worth (hint, it's $0). Those who are joining startups now, are either naive to that fact (not good once they discover the data), or they care more about working on the problem than they do the compensation (which is the perfect employee if you can find it - but the cost of living in SF has made that nearly impossible). So when the c…

Just another thought, but perhaps YC can explore more options for building startups in secondary markets where the cost of living is more manageable. I know the shop is famously SV-centric, but certain companies may have a better chance at success in markets like Salt Lake City, Austin, Des Moines, Nashville, etc.

Maybe an HQ2 process for YC.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?

#965

On the compensation point... If you are a smart, quantitative person looking to maximize your income, you should go into investment banking, not software engineering. Partners at an investment bank can make $5M a year. You won't make that as an engineer at Google. Since you're reading this, I'll assume you didn't go into investment banking, but went into engineering, likely because you found it more rewarding. Good j…

Aside from the probability distribution issues with investment banker income, it's actually a much harder thing to simply "go do". Going straight into investment banking right out of undergrad is a privilege largely reserved for students of "elite" schools [1]. The other way in is post-MBA, but an MBA is quite expensive. The hourly rate also looks very bad [2]; junior/entry-level research analysts routinely put in 80…

I would argue that making $400k as an engineer at an elite school also requires some element of academic pedigree.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?

#966

Wow, when did we all lose our souls? So many pro "FAANG" comments. Working at a big tech company totally sucks. Its soul sucking. Personally speaking, I made about 300k at a FANG adjacent company - and I hated every moment of it. I quit to make less money at a startup. And I'd do it again. Today, especially today, what is there to be proud of in working for a FANNG company? Google is working with the Pentagon on war…

I'd like to update this response. Even though I'm positive about the quality of work benefits startups have over FANNG companies - its still important to negotiate a fair equity deal for yourself.

Equity is one of the factors that really should differentiate working at a startup vs an established player. So fight hard for it, and never settle for a bad deal.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?

#967

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe engineers are more replaceable than founders? That would explain why founders walk away with a lot more cash and credit. After all, there are a lot of good engineers who probably would do a good job as an early employee. And relatively few people who have the vision, motivation, and skill to create a successful company. That said, I sometimes feel that being a successful founder has less to do with skill and mo…

As an engineer of middling competence (I don't do poorly, but there are people smarter than me), I think you're wrong. The reason engineers receive less than they're worth by and large is because A. they cannot negotiate very well and B. they do not know their own worth. If you combine these two with some idealism, which is the only real reason you'd work for a startup (high-risk, low-reward work - if it's not for id…

Suppose getting a good engineer would contribute $2 million / year profit to a company. That company would offer a higher salary than the going market rate, and thus steal engineers from competing employers (in fact, that's exactly what FB, Google, LinkedIn, etc. do: you can ask them to match or beat the other company's offer). Since regardless of how badly engineers negotiate, they would still be attracted by a higher offer. Then other companies would also offer higher salaries, to avoid missing out in hiring. This cycle won't stop until compensation gets to a good fraction of that $2m/year; say, $500-800k/year or so, leaving room for overhead (office rental, benefits, etc.) and profits. The fact that it doesn't happen tells me that me that most engineers probably aren't worth $2m/year to companies.

I do agree with your last point: engineers are often idealists and/or they have very strong preferences about what they want / don't want to work on. So they may often be willing to give up much better comp in order to satisfy such preferences. That's why startups get away with paying maybe half of what large corporations pay. Still that's not nearly enough to explain the gap between engineer and executive compensation.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?

#968

As a former startup founder, I tend to agree that most startups are low-balling early employees. These employees over-value their stock by imagining what it would be worth if the company reaches $1B valuation. It really is a lottery ticket. But in my opinion, the answer is more pay, not more equity. Employees should get market comp, period. Doesn't matter how early-stage the startup is. If a founder can't afford empl…

> If a founder can't afford employees at market rate, they shouldn't be hiring yet. They could perhaps offer to take people on as co-founders -- with an appropriately equal share. Brother, I have worked with both startup & MNC's and i can understand what you are trying to say but it is a bit harsh to say that if a founder can't afford employees at market rate, they shouldn't be hiring. Some part of me says you are ri…

I would say the 'market rate' for the big tech cos cannot be applied to the financial analysis of hiring in startups because most startups have cash burn, and big tech is profitable. If you somehow negotiate a startup to pay you a google like salary you probably won't have much fun because you will be viewed as an even riskier hire than you were to begin with. There will be even more pressure to perform than there already was.
Post reply on HN