Live data from Hacker News

Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation

danluu.com

351–360 of 418 posts

Re: Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't scale down like that.

Wouldn't that be nice, though? I'd do it in a heartbeat. One of the guys tried to arrange that where I work, and he ended up retiring.

As a contractor that's basically what I do; the drawback is you have zero job security, and you're not really "part" of the company (which, depending of the client can be a good or a bad thing).

I think if enough people asked for it, it could become more mainstream; we spend way to much time at work IMHO.

Re: Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also throwaway for obvious reasons. What you say sounds totally in line with my experience: I am Senior SWE at an Alphabet company. Came to MTV in middle of 2015 from a company in the midwest where I made over $200K last year (much of this was profit-sharing bonus), and I was definitely at top of the market for my city. My total compensation for this coming year (based on current value of GOOG, obviously this can var…

One more datapoint from Google (non-Bay Area office): $75k (partial year), $182k, $254k, $360k and then I left for a start-up where my total package is $50k. No less happy :-)

That is because you have shitloads of cash.

Re: Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, shouldn't there be evidence (other than anecdotal comments via HN) to support that? Not that it's so far fetched that big Valley firms are paying over $200k base salary, but if it was so prevalent, I'd expect to see more concrete evidence to support that.

Literally, ask any friend working as SWE in any of those companies - they will confirm numbers. You are pretty much guaranteed to make that money in 5 years if you get promoted with average velocity.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but wouldn't this: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-San-Francisco-Salari...

be more indicative than asking a person first hand what they make? I don't think saying 'personally confront friends/workers at said companies about salaries' is anymore reliable than anonymously submitted.

Re: Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally, ask any friend working as SWE in any of those companies - they will confirm numbers. You are pretty much guaranteed to make that money in 5 years if you get promoted with average velocity.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but wouldn't this: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-San-Francisco-Salari... be more indicative than asking a person first hand what they make? I don't think saying 'personally confront friends/workers at said companies about salaries' is anymore reliable than anonymously submitted.

Look at total compensation - average total compensation says ~$238k for senior, which certainly seems to confirm numbers...and they may be higher currently since I'd guess that those numbers probably span across a number of years. Google SF is a smaller office also.

Re: Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation

#356

250k a year in 5 years at a big corporation, really? Yea if you're lucky to work on a project/team higher-ups care about and are also willing to bust your ass working long hours to meet insane deadlines. Also, you better be someone who is excellent at communication and charismatic if you want to get invited to the table of interesting work. There are a lot of brilliant hyper-competitive people who work at these big c…

It's $250k if you count the equity . The base salary in cash is not that amount, but if you include options/RSUs, and the company continues to do well, those numbers make sense. If you do the math as base+equity you will often find startups that are giving out even better offers. I've seen $300k+ if you consider dollars in RSUs the same thing as dollars in cash. Unfortunately the math really is base+(equity*chance_it…

Startups will give better offers at the lower levels - however, as someone gets more experience, the big companies will go far and away above in total compensation typically. Even companies like Uber, Airbnb, etc. aren't paying as well (although they do pay well)...and that doesn't even go into the riskiness of startup work.

Re: Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation

#357
You could apply this same model to IBM very easily if you started from college any time from 1993 (April to be precise) and 2013. If you just worked your way up the promotion ladder you would have done super well financially (better than the SP500 by 4-5x).

The problem with any comparison is hindsight. Many other large cap tech stocks do not behave that way. Certainly you could have joined Microsoft at a certain time and "given up" at the "wrong time". Your cash comp might have been quite good (or not).

The thing to ask yourself (and I definitely am not judging or implying one way or another) is where does your code go and what does it do? A lot of that IBM code, well... And of course many startups don't make it as well.

If all you want is money with low risk the choice is clear. If all you want is a chance at a huge payoff with high risk then the choice is clear.

If you're happy with the end result of your code then in a Fountainhead sort of way that's what matters. Then whichever risk path you take for your compensation is secondary. And your views on this might change at different life stages.

Finally the ability and skills to navigate and succeed in either a startup or a big company are different. Depending on when you choose and how you grow and evolve you may or may not be at the right place at the right time.

That's my shortest comment to a very long topic :)

Re: Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation

#358

You could apply this same model to IBM very easily if you started from college any time from 1993 (April to be precise) and 2013. If you just worked your way up the promotion ladder you would have done super well financially (better than the SP500 by 4-5x). The problem with any comparison is hindsight. Many other large cap tech stocks do not behave that way. Certainly you could have joined Microsoft at a certain time…

>> If all you want is money with low risk the choice is clear.

It's not quite clear to me: care to explain?

Re: Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation

#359
post #71
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went about it the opposite way, and can definitely recommend that as well: big company first, then small. The big company experience shows you a ton of things, like how to interview, build, and deploy at scale. The small company can benefit from your ability to bring order to chaos, develop tools which are obvious in any big company but strangely missing from every small one, and more. Maybe it doesn't matter which…

This sounds great when you envision that big company as Amazon, Google, Microsoft or Facebook. It sounds less so when you envision that company as Oracle, eBay, Yahoo! or SAP. Some large companies are mostly going to teach you politics, byzantine process and spending money as a means of scaling bad software. It's important to differentiate skills learned at big companies. Some are very useful, but others are coping m…

Dont't knock spending money to scale. The most important lesson I learned at BigCorp was when to buy vs build. Not Invented Here syndrome will kill even mega companies.

Re: Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation

#360

You could apply this same model to IBM very easily if you started from college any time from 1993 (April to be precise) and 2013. If you just worked your way up the promotion ladder you would have done super well financially (better than the SP500 by 4-5x). The problem with any comparison is hindsight. Many other large cap tech stocks do not behave that way. Certainly you could have joined Microsoft at a certain time…

>> If all you want is money with low risk the choice is clear. It's not quite clear to me: care to explain?

Assume starting salary and velocity and ability to perform are all equal. Then that's one interpretation of the original article.
Post reply on HN