Downsides to working at a tech giant

This is such a weird post. Big fan of Garry, but I don't agree with most of this.

1. Just because it turned out that you would have made $200mm doesn't make it a mistake. If anything, that outsized return proves just how rare this kind of outcome is. If you look at the YC startups graduating every year, maybe 1 will ever generate $20mm for an early employee, let alone $200mm. Joining a new startup for that kind of outcome is stupid, even (especially?) if the founder is a big personality.

2. What is the bizarre pie chart in the middle of this post supposed to show? I'm very skeptical that it's actually based on data of any kind.

3. What is the line about it being hard to believe that any company other than Google is going to make money? Apple and Microsoft both earn more than Google, don't they?

Bottom line, if you care about comp, you should know that no early stage startup of any kind offers an expected outcome remotely close to the big tech companies. Yeah, you might make a few million after working your ass off for many years. But realistically, you won't. But you would make close to that (or more) if you worked for the big tech companies for those same number of years, at a much lower risk.

If you want to do the startup thing, do it as a founder, not an employee. Start with 30-100% of the equity, not 1% or 2%.

Again, I'm a fan of Garry's, but I'm very skeptical of these posts by VCs trying to convince you it's a good idea to work at an early stage startup. Startups are great for them since they have a whole portfolio of companies to spread their risk across, but it's a shit deal for employees if you care much about comp. I don't envy the hassle of trying to hire at a startup when big tech companies literally pay 2-3x as more, but that's where we are.

EDIT: apparently the graph I referenced in #2 is showing that the top 5 companies in the S&P500 (as of sometime back in 2018) are equal in market cap to the bottom 282: https://www.newworldadvisors.com/post/the-role-of-private-ma...

Interesting, I guess, but pretty useless stat for the topic of this post. It also ignores about 200 companies in the middle that have huge market caps as well. Like Visa or Walmart or Disney. More here: https://disfold.com/top-us-companies-sp500/

I really hate speeches like that. They are always told by one permile (or even less) of people that succeeded. The voice of all those that have lost are never heard. Same as blockchains, there are a few very loud people explaining how easy is to get rich, while those who gave them their money are rarely heard. I would laugh if it wouldnt be sad.

An anecdote (just a detail, I am developer for almost 30 years, I know the industry from downside up), a month or two back, two greenhorns were fanatically explaining me, how they were on a talk of X billionaire that told them it was never so easy to be a billionaire as right now. You only need a 2k laptop. I laughed on inside, but today kids really believe stories like that. Sure, gauss will do its game and a few will get filthy rich. But lottery seems a better game to me.

Not to mention it's 1% of a $20b company that has yet to go public and seems intent on staying private.

> statistically unlikely to pay off

> probabilities involved with your decision

While this is a good general approach to life IMHO as well — if you mean "be rational, not just emotional" and "work on your cognitive biases, seek objectivity" — it might also prove terribly counterproductive in this context.

It would take a book or five but briefly:

- you just can't use statistics when they say "95% fail", otherwise you just don't do startups, ever. With that mindset, joining an established company is more likely to "succeed" for you and maximize serenity.

- another stat for you: most entrepreneurs fail "about twice" before making it, i.e. you'll probably fail 1-3 times for sure before entering the 5% of those who create a profitable business. Trick #1, thus: you can roll the dice several times (consider 2-5 years per "real try").

- most valuable ideas were either not identified (rarely) or not well executed (often) before someone eventually nails a product. You thus iterate quickly on the market (MVP, feedback, lean cycles, etc) to find your best fit curve, to hone in on the product that works. Chances are you'll find a local minimum, not "the best", you'll pivot, you'll reconsider, you'll maybe focus entirely on a subsystem, a 'feature' become 'product' — think how Docker, the company, appeared after the same name product.

The reality is that a "fast scaling startup" a la California is rare and a moonshot most often — unicorns and all that — but a diligently conducted, ground, sustained effort to make a business growing organically to reach sustainability for you and a few others in 2-5 years is a realistic goal (but all things considered, e.g. probably not on your first try, likely 10 years after you began for the first time).

I don't want to claim that it's easy to create a business, it's by far harder than working the jobs in most cases; but SMBs make up anywhere from 80 to 90% of our economies, they're the real bread and butter of our collective wealth, and these 'small' entrepreneurs are our true heroes. Not many of them make it big, and that's the 'gamble' you speak of, but it's not the only way, nor is it at all required to go down that path.

It took me a good number of years to realize that working for startups cost me years of being underpaid, working long hours and no real benefits in the end. I joined a corporation a couple of months ago and now I'm getting twice as much in compensation, plus financial incentives to actually stick around for a longer time. Survivorship bias is real.