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

Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 632 posts

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#81

Post by humanrebar »

cachemiss wrote: post #24
ryandrake wrote: post #7

> Often times there are hard barriers preventing people from starting a company. In these cases my best advice is to move to a tech hub (preferably the Bay Area) and work for a tech company until you can save the money I had to laugh there. Moving to the Bay Area will reduce your ability to save money, not increase it. I was probably saving 40-50% of my salary when I worked in Nowhereville, Florida. With the housing…

If you are bootstrapping, and you are starting a company in an area that does not need the top tier of engineers (which is most of them, regardless of how they talk about hiring the best), I'd consider starting someplace low cost. I think college towns in the midwest / rust belt are untapped resources, or areas that used to have strong technically focused companies that moved away. I've personally seen founders boots…

I share you bullishness about "untapped" cities, but:

> ...starting a company in an area that does not need the top tier of engineers...

As far as quality of talent, the "top tier of engineers" aren't all in SF, Seattle, or NYC. There are plenty of "top tier" engineers in all kinds of places.

If you mean the "top tier" in pay rates are in those cities, that probably true. But those cities also have a ridiculous cost of living adjustment baked in.

I might be misreading what you're writing here, but it sounds like you're saying, "Try founding a place in Champaign, Ill. The engineers aren't top notch, but they're cheap enough to be worth it." I just wanted to push back against this meme.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#82

Post by urda »

mattdawson wrote: post #28

The lack of even a nod to diversity issues (race, gender, class, etc.) that the tech industry is dealing (or not dealing with) is tone deaf and insulting to the extreme.

Time and place for topics like diversity and this is not one of them. Stop making every tech industry article about diversity.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#83

Post by vostok »

segmondy wrote: post #50
cachemiss wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are bootstrapping, and you are starting a company in an area that does not need the top tier of engineers (which is most of them, regardless of how they talk about hiring the best), I'd consider starting someplace low cost. I think college towns in the midwest / rust belt are untapped resources, or areas that used to have strong technically focused companies that moved away. I've personally seen founders boots…

But I thought the internet removed all boundaries? Why do we need to be in the Bay area to have access to top tier of engineers? They are also everywhere else and let's say they are in the Bay area, that's what remote is for right?

> Why do we need to be in the Bay area to have access to top tier of engineers?

Most people want to live in expensive areas. Top tier engineers can afford it.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#84

Post by nugget »

koolba wrote: post #51

Regardless of which path you'd like to go down, learn some basic financial planning, frugality, and learn to live like a miser. It'll pay dividends, both figuratively and literally. Regarding the executive path, or more generally any management role, learn early on if it's for you. If you're the type that gets caught up in human interest stories, considers it inhumane to fire low performers, or generally believes in…

Underrated advice. As they say: "it's not what you make, it's what you spend". Personal expenses will inevitably determine financial stability, for the vast majority of folks.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#85

Post by nightski »

mahyarm wrote: post #66
ryandrake wrote: post #7

> Often times there are hard barriers preventing people from starting a company. In these cases my best advice is to move to a tech hub (preferably the Bay Area) and work for a tech company until you can save the money I had to laugh there. Moving to the Bay Area will reduce your ability to save money, not increase it. I was probably saving 40-50% of my salary when I worked in Nowhereville, Florida. With the housing…

80k* %50 = 40k vs. 160k * %35 = 56k Bay area in a nutshell. You can have higher savings rates too, I do around %40 and I could save even more. Working at a startup does make it harder, usually it's better to work at FANG. You also learn a lot and realize the difference between 'facebook does this dev practice because it's huge so it has to vs. it's the better practice'

Or you know, you don't have to be average and can do 300k * 60% consulting or doing some other slightly more ambitious method while still not living in the bay area.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#87

Post by forgotmysn »

brndnmtthws wrote: post #14
ryandrake wrote: post #7

> Often times there are hard barriers preventing people from starting a company. In these cases my best advice is to move to a tech hub (preferably the Bay Area) and work for a tech company until you can save the money I had to laugh there. Moving to the Bay Area will reduce your ability to save money, not increase it. I was probably saving 40-50% of my salary when I worked in Nowhereville, Florida. With the housing…

It really depends on the kind of lifestyle you choose. If you want to live alone in a fancy apartment, drive a new car, and eat out every day, then you certainly won't be able to save as much. If you practice frugality, find cheap housing (which does exist if you look hard enough), and don't spend money on things you don't need, then it's quite easy to save a lot of money.

this is a fallacy, at least in the bay. start-up salaries are lower because you're working for a start-up, and rents are exorbitantly high everywhere. even with roommates living in the living room, no car, and making your own meals will you be able to save money in the bay area.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#88

Post by humanrebar »

koolba wrote: post #62
alexandercrohde wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for comparison, I lived in SF for about 4 years. I saved a huge amount of money. I lived with 3 roommates to save money, I sold my car, you won't get stabbed anywhere in SF (so live in the sketchy area it'll get nicer each year). My rent was $1,200 a month, a lucky find. Now don't get me wrong I hated living there, no girls, homelessness everywhere smelled like garbage, and a self-obsession that pretended to be…

(Emphasis mine): > I lived with 3 roommates to save money, I sold my car, you won't get stabbed anywhere in SF (so live in the sketchy area it'll get nicer each year) . I'm not willing to test that theory and there's an inherent value to not thinking about getting stabbed on a daily basis. > My rent was $1,200 a month, a lucky find. To live with 3 other people in the sketchy part of town? Yeesh.

It's also not sustainable since, you know, most people eventually start families and settle down. Roommates don't work then.

Even if that's not you, you have to realize that everyone else needs that option if we're going to have a functioning community.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#89

Post by brndnmtthws »

forgotmysn wrote: post #87
brndnmtthws wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on the kind of lifestyle you choose. If you want to live alone in a fancy apartment, drive a new car, and eat out every day, then you certainly won't be able to save as much. If you practice frugality, find cheap housing (which does exist if you look hard enough), and don't spend money on things you don't need, then it's quite easy to save a lot of money.

this is a fallacy, at least in the bay. start-up salaries are lower because you're working for a start-up, and rents are exorbitantly high everywhere. even with roommates living in the living room, no car, and making your own meals will you be able to save money in the bay area.

After ~8 years living in the Bay Area (mostly Oakland & SF), I'm obliged to strongly disagree with you.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#90

Post by cachemiss »

humanrebar wrote: post #81
cachemiss wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are bootstrapping, and you are starting a company in an area that does not need the top tier of engineers (which is most of them, regardless of how they talk about hiring the best), I'd consider starting someplace low cost. I think college towns in the midwest / rust belt are untapped resources, or areas that used to have strong technically focused companies that moved away. I've personally seen founders boots…

I share you bullishness about "untapped" cities, but: > ...starting a company in an area that does not need the top tier of engineers... As far as quality of talent, the "top tier of engineers" aren't all in SF, Seattle, or NYC. There are plenty of "top tier" engineers in all kinds of places. If you mean the "top tier" in pay rates are in those cities, that probably true. But those cities also have a ridiculous cost…

It depends on what you are doing. If you are trying to build something like a database kernel, you want people who have done it before, very specialized. There aren't lots of them outside of the tech hotspots.

I don't necessarily mean there aren't smart people outside of the hotspots, but there isn't the specialized skillsets that get built from working at the Microsofts / Googles etc. edit: In the number that you need.

Champaign obviously has lots of smart people (my parents went there), but you may have issues finding specialized senior people there.

Post reply on HN