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

After landing a lucrative job at a tech startup, I had made a terrible mistake

torontolife.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 192 posts

Re: After landing a lucrative job at a tech startup, I had made a terrible mistake

#61

Post by kalms »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #50
randompi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with the 2 red flags?

Nothing wrong with family funded business but if after 18 years the 'dad' is the major shareholder it's a bad sign they were not able to raise much outside capital. It's not so bad, most companies are not 'high flying' but if they have 'startup culture' ... maybe not such a great thing. Also - family companies can be odd. It very much depends on the situation. An 18 year old company should simply not be referring to…

I find that a lot of companies that refer to themselves as being bearers of startup culture, is mostly trying to cater to younger people or at least a young mindset - not because they're necessarily trying to hide insane working hours or demands. Sometimes it truly is about passion and keeping a "beginner's mind". Definitely not for everyone, but to me it feels very inspiring and empowering.

(I work for 15+ year company that like to view itself as a startup - but the partying is definitely optional)

Re: After landing a lucrative job at a tech startup, I had made a terrible mistake

#62

Post by raducu »

lucidone wrote: post #22

I'm surprised by the amount of salt (for lack of a better word in my vocabulary) in the comments. I've worked at a Canadian start up. It was not a unicorn, but you were expected to work long hours, be a "10xer", always be responsive, and put in hours on the weekend. Those expectations were never made explicit, but the company had a lot of churn for those who didn't "fit the culture" or acquiesce to the cult of person…

Did the company also pay 10x the market rates?

Of course not, because they aren't really hiring 10x programmers (whatever that is), they are just hiring low self-esteem people, slap the 10xer label on them, strap them on the hamster wheel and work them to death.

It's a bit like the series "The Good Place" -- "heeeyyyy we only hire 10xers, you're a 10xer, aren't you proud? Right, now go prove you're a 10xer by working your butt off".

Re: After landing a lucrative job at a tech startup, I had made a terrible mistake

#63

Post by consp »

fsloth wrote: post #54
thaumasiotes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One is to compensate them at a level commensurate with what is expected of them (too few companies do this, even in tech). Companies don't do this because it's not a coherent concept. No two people see the same workload in the same way. Payment is based on what it would cost to replace you, not on what you do.

"Payment is based on what it would cost to replace you, not on what you do." I would perhaps rephraze this as 'payment is based on the market rate'. It has more into it than just cost of replacement. The replacement cost becomes a key metric when presenting a counter offer to an employee who got a better offer elsewhere.

>> The replacement cost becomes a key metric when presenting a counter offer to an employee who got a better offer elsewhere.

Do not forget that replacement cost the first few months to about half year is quite high. You are far less profitable to a company if you are new as you take time of others and are less up-to-speed. But that never gets taken into account when dealing with pay increases for retained employees. E.g. you should get significantly more than a new hire if you are with the company for longer as it usually a benefit. Though there are counter examples to this statement, so it is various shades of gray between new hires and paying retained employees more.

Re: After landing a lucrative job at a tech startup, I had made a terrible mistake

#64

Post by lotsofpulp »

consp wrote: post #63
fsloth wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Payment is based on what it would cost to replace you, not on what you do." I would perhaps rephraze this as 'payment is based on the market rate'. It has more into it than just cost of replacement. The replacement cost becomes a key metric when presenting a counter offer to an employee who got a better offer elsewhere.

>> The replacement cost becomes a key metric when presenting a counter offer to an employee who got a better offer elsewhere. Do not forget that replacement cost the first few months to about half year is quite high. You are far less profitable to a company if you are new as you take time of others and are less up-to-speed. But that never gets taken into account when dealing with pay increases for retained employees.…

Similarly, the replacement cost of a new employer is also high for an employee if they have a family and don’t want to move and/or can’t gamble on the conditions at a new employer. I would say thaumasiotes is correct in saying an employee is paid what it would cost to replace them, in 99.9% of cases. Of course the buyer takes risks such as not finding as good of an employee, cost of training, legal risks of terminating or hiring, and the cost of the message it sends to others, but it’s still the same concept.

No buyer wants to pay more than they have to, hence when the value an employee adds is commoditized, you see that they get paid exactly what it costs to replace them, hence the minuscule pay and terrible work conditions of retail, restaurants, and hotels.

Re: After landing a lucrative job at a tech startup, I had made a terrible mistake

#65

Post by consp »

pcunite wrote: post #18
dawhizkid wrote: post #2

According to the Wikipedia page the company was founded in 2000...I don’t think you can be called a “start-up” when you’re almost 20 years old...

startup = young They want to appear "hip" and "cool" ... forever.

I can say from experience that calling yourself a startup give you certain leeway to stupid 'requirements' like 'having 5 senior software devs on the project. Big companies do this just on paper but if you are small, even though no longer a startup, you can get away with such requirements by calling yourself a startup. Also, if your company (if it's small enough) does 'relatively' small jobs a lot of clients pay faster and with less hassle than normal.

Re: After landing a lucrative job at a tech startup, I had made a terrible mistake

#66

Post by EliRivers »

sethammons wrote: post #38
pcunite wrote: post #6

Culture is an obsession at start-ups. They talk about it nearly as much as they talk about sales targets. Its a signal for: don't apply here if you're over 40.

Can you expand on that? I disagree completely, but my sample size is small. We have lots of people over 40 and we hire for culture too. We define it has folks who are happy, hungry, honest, and humble. If you fit those boxes, are enjoyable to work with, are customer focused, and interested in driving the product forward with colleagues, you will fit our culture. We guard that zealously. Edit: typo.

We define it has folks who are happy, hungry, honest, and humble.

Good for you. In a number of companies, "culture fit" became code for "looks like us, dresses like us, educated like us, thinks like us, is like us".

Re: After landing a lucrative job at a tech startup, I had made a terrible mistake

#67

Post by thaumasiotes »

fsloth wrote: post #54
thaumasiotes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One is to compensate them at a level commensurate with what is expected of them (too few companies do this, even in tech). Companies don't do this because it's not a coherent concept. No two people see the same workload in the same way. Payment is based on what it would cost to replace you, not on what you do.

"Payment is based on what it would cost to replace you, not on what you do." I would perhaps rephraze this as 'payment is based on the market rate'. It has more into it than just cost of replacement. The replacement cost becomes a key metric when presenting a counter offer to an employee who got a better offer elsewhere.

The market rate is the cost to replace you. An employer paying more is making a mistake. An employee taking less is making a mistake. It's the only steady state.

Re: After landing a lucrative job at a tech startup, I had made a terrible mistake

#70

Post by krageon »

crunchyfrog wrote: post #60

Anyone else find it strange that this person worked in sales for one company which called itself a startup despite being nearly two decades old but keeps making these sweeping generalizations about startups and tech? > Here was the biggest surprise about working in tech: even though everyone wears their team T-shirts and hoodies, rah-rah chants at the monthly all-staff meetings and competes for the sombrero of shame…

You've worked at enough companies to make your own generalization and can say with 100% certainty that they are false. The author happens to do the opposite. Seeing as you are both talking from (your own) experience, you might both be right. There's no way for the readers to know.
Post reply on HN