Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

State of Startups

stateofstartups.firstround.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 122 posts

Re: State of Startups

#111

Post by rsp1984 »

pc86 wrote: post #65
EduardoBautista wrote: post #63

> 9. Are you optimizing for growth or profitability? > Profitability - 39% > Growth - 61% This is what happens when your business goal is to get acquired and not to have a business sustained by paying customers.

Well this is one of the few but key differences between a "startup" and a "business." A business that isn't profitable is either a hobby or a bad idea. A startup that isn't growing is dead. Personally I'd rather make $5/10/15/25k a month with a business than kill myself trying to get millions in funding, pay myself a $10k/mo in salary and leave with nothing through either failure, dilution or some combination thereof…

Given that you can make $5/10/15/25k a month with a cushy 9-5 corporate job where everything's taken care of for you, in most cases the choice is not small-business vs. startup, it's corporate job vs. startup.

The "lifestyle" self-running company that spits out a comfortable amount of cash and is easier to handle than a corporate job is somewhere between a myth and a unicorn. It's very rare. If you want to stay on the legal side of things it takes a great amount of connections, experience, time and effort to build such a company. You might as well invest that time in a "proper" startup and get some funding. Chances of success will be similar in the end.

Re: State of Startups

#113

Post by trymas »

benmarten wrote: post #37
jdavis703 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but you (generally) get other things like universal healthcare, free or cheap university, retirement plans, no need for a car due to proper urban planning, etc. In the US you have to shell out for all these things, paying into a private 401(k) for retirement, paying back student loan debt, paying for your health insurance etc. And these are at well funded tech firms.

That healthcare in europe or any of the social security systems are better is just left-wing propaganda. My health insurance costs me 270$/m whereas in my home country Germany I would have to pay 15.6% which is limited to 678.60€(721.61)/month in the government health insurance. There is predictions and plans that the government retirement insurance mandatory fee will increase to 23-25% in 2030(Currently ~19%). That'…

oh boy..

Take into account what will insurance be if you have kids, not to mention that even with insurance you will usually still get an invoice after visit to the doctor/hospital (correct me if I am wrong), which may be substantial amount of money (even after insurance negotiations, etc.).

Don't know how it's in US but in EU you have around 20-30 days of payed holidays, payed sick leave, payed _sick child_ leave (!). For example my coworker's 2 kids and wife had severe pneumonia, full treatment took around 2 or 3 months and he could help his family on paid sick leave that whole time. I do not know how much it would've cost in US but it would be a significant amount of money, not to mention that you would still needed either to work, to take unpaid leave or to quit.

It's all about averages. You maybe healthy (now) and do not pay much, but what if some serious illness hits you or your family member? What if you will get some chronic illness/condition? On those cases your insurance price may be adjusted.

To be fair, I want social health care to be more efficient and economical, i.e. not to pay 1/3 of my earned money for it, but I am treating it as a cost for my sanity and not needing to worry about some shit luck hitting me and insurance twisting their ass out of the situation, as insurance's goal is to pay you out as little money as possible.

Re: State of Startups

#114

Post by rpeden »

almostarockstar wrote: post #98
jdavis703 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but you (generally) get other things like universal healthcare, free or cheap university, retirement plans, no need for a car due to proper urban planning, etc. In the US you have to shell out for all these things, paying into a private 401(k) for retirement, paying back student loan debt, paying for your health insurance etc. And these are at well funded tech firms.

>no need for a car due to proper urban planning Most European cities were built before urban planning was a thing.

Although not true in all cases, many of those cities that were built before the distinct concept of urban planning existed were also built and grew large before cars existed. So they grew naturally in in a way that's fairly pedestrian friendly.

In contrast, many cities in the U.S. and Canada grew very rapidly from the 1960s to the present, so you'll often see big cities with a nice (but relatively small) walkable downtown surrounded by vast stretches of generic, car-friendly, pedestrian-hostile suburbs.

In the Toronto area, at least, there are plenty of suburban areas that are nominally served by transit, but it is so inadequate that you'll usually need a car to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time.

Re: State of Startups

#115

Post by PeterisP »

monkmartinez wrote: post #92
vsloo wrote: post #89

There's a disconnect between founders who want to build a startup and founders who want to build a business. They think the two are the same but they're really not and this study clearly shows that. There are situations where startups turn into businesses but I'd rather build a profitable business for myself from the start and our team than to build a startup purely focused on "growth".

I am very disconnected from the "startup" world, and something in your comment has me asking: What is the difference between a startup and a business? To me, they ought to be one in the same...

It's the difference in preference between e.g. $500k nearly sure profit versus a tiny chance of $100M profit but a most likely result of losing it all. For a "normal" business, the first one is preferable; a startup is the condition where the first result is considered unacceptable and the investors are there for the second possibility only - go big or go home.

It means quite different cultures, quite different "correct answers" to similar situations, and has mostly opposite requirements for many business factors and people involved.

Re: State of Startups

#116

Post by WhitneyLand »

rsp1984 wrote: post #111
pc86 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this is one of the few but key differences between a "startup" and a "business." A business that isn't profitable is either a hobby or a bad idea. A startup that isn't growing is dead. Personally I'd rather make $5/10/15/25k a month with a business than kill myself trying to get millions in funding, pay myself a $10k/mo in salary and leave with nothing through either failure, dilution or some combination thereof…

Given that you can make $5/10/15/25k a month with a cushy 9-5 corporate job where everything's taken care of for you, in most cases the choice is not small-business vs. startup, it's corporate job vs. startup. The "lifestyle" self-running company that spits out a comfortable amount of cash and is easier to handle than a corporate job is somewhere between a myth and a unicorn. It's very rare. If you want to stay on th…

I don't notice that many people making 15/25k a month that think their jobs are cushy. There are usually high expectations at that level.

Re: State of Startups

#117

Post by shanwang »

user5994461 wrote: post #108
shanwang wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking about mid-level engineers in startups, not senior engineers in banks, if you want to compare big employers, £80-£120k is nothing compared with $250-300k you get as senior developer in Silicon Valley.

Well, the 1 bedroom in London is far from 3000-4000 per month. I don't know the details of the costs of living and all the expenses. Maybe SV is better but I just want to say that it is not twice as better, contrary to what some comments would have you think.

Renting is about the only thing SV is significantly more expensive than London. Quick Google shows me this: https://www.numbeo.com/cost--living/compare_cities.jsp?count...

The cost of living in SF is 1.4 times higher but the wage is 1.75 times higher. Note this number is assuming you are renting, and not considering electronics which is a lot cheaper in the US.

The house price in London is still more expensive, and if you are a senior developer in your 30s that's probably more relevant than renting price.

Factor those in, as a software developer, in SV you are easily 30-50% better off than London, the best paid city in Europe. The pay gap between Europe and US do exist, Silicon Valley is the technology centre of the world, Europe isn't.

Re: State of Startups

#118

Post by WalterSear »

dx034 wrote: post #72
discordianfish wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true, that doesn't even come close to filling the gap. In Berlin "the silicon valley of Europe", as people here like to say, there are pretty much zero engineering jobs paying >$100k/year. There is some magical ceiling of around $90k/year, no matter how senior you are. This isn't only true for startups but pretty much any company. That's one of the reasons I work remote for Silicon Valley.

On the other hand, costs in SV are way higher than Berlin. Berlin has very low living costs, even compared to other European (and German) cities. With $90k/yr you probably have the same living standard as in SV with twice as much. Probably even a higher standard, with $90k/year in Germany you can afford a large appartment, eat out regularly, don't have to worry about retirement or health care. Of course living in a c…

I have yet to have anyone satisfiably demonstrate what is more expensive in silicon valley apart from housing.

Re: State of Startups

#119

Post by rrdharan »

ci5er wrote: post #52
beat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a computer science background necessary for an IT career? I know many, many IT professionals who did not study CS in college.

"IT Professionals" is a broad label. Maybe we can think of getting a 'degree in a field' as a proxy-variable for 'interest in the field'. What's astonishing to me is through the 60s, 70's and into the mid-80s, computer-tech interest in female cohorts tracked with science, law and medical fields. Then it flattened and fell, while female participation in those other three fields continued to expand at the rates they ha…

This Planet Money episode attempted to tackle that question: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...

Their tl;dr answer is that video games happened, and they were marketed exclusively to boys; that's what created and drove the cultural rift.

Post reply on HN