Live data from Hacker News

Downsides to working at a tech giant

blog.garrytan.com

241–250 of 583 posts

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#241

For all the startup founders and VCs in this conversation, you are cheap motherf*ckers. When I read that engineers and employees prefer FAANG companies because they pay better, I want to remind you that it wasn't always like this. 10-15 years ago startups paid way better than big tech. Big Tech rewarded you by getting to specialize on problems and working at scale. The reason FB and Google pay well is because when th…

> The reason FB and Google pay well is because when they were startups, they were paying WELL

100% this. Most people didn't work at Google or Facebook back in the day in the hopes of winning the lottery. Those companies paid really well, had the best benefits, culture, and mostly they were working on a ton of challenging problems unlike most of the "giant tech companies" of the time.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#242
post #207
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with all of the points raised, and share the same experiences. But this one: > I might as well become a founder and start my own at that point Great! So, how would you recruit your first 10 employees?

That is a big reason why I don't start my own company, because I couldn't really live with doing that. My current armchair strategies: * Compete in a way that big tech are not willing to do, which means distributed remote companies. A lot of people don't want to live in $3.5k/month rent SF or other tech centers for various reasons. * What a lot of startups do, but RDF (reality distortion field) over with 'we only hir…

Founders should be willing to give a lot more equity to the first employees. I don’t get the logic of not doing this. You want your engineers to feel as if they have ownership in the equity that you’re building. It’s such an easy way to keep engineers engaged and productive that it baffles my mind that it’s not done more widely.

I hate working for BigTech. Startups expect too much and compensate very little. The sweet spot for me has been medium sized public companies that offer great compensation but need solid engineering to grow their market share.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#243
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with all of the points raised, and share the same experiences. But this one: > I might as well become a founder and start my own at that point Great! So, how would you recruit your first 10 employees?

I don’t understand... why is the goal to convince a bunch of naive youngsters to work for you at 1/10 their value? You shouldn’t exist unless you can pay competitively for the same people, end of story. Until then, don’t hire

The fact is that there are a bunch of younger programmers willing to work for a startup regardless of the comp. Founders naturally try to exploit this.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#244
post #209
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just cringed at the thought of some BigCo software company project management tracking obsessive approach being pigeonholed onto a startup. Or the various other ‘processes’ that built up continually over the years at BigCo to minimize any sort of risk at the expense of speed and flexibility. The bigger benefit is working with really smart people. I think you’re over valuing the utility of a lot of the stuff that go…

Yeah, I could have been more clear - the BigCo I'm at is still pretty light on process, and teams are free to use whatever project management approach they want. As seattle_spring conjectured, I was thinking more about technical best practices. I've learned many patterns from the software I work with now, and I've been able to grow from working with really smart engineers that have enough experience to be pragmatic w…

Personally having also worked at monorepoCo, I would only recommend it to another company with a good enough system to support it. I’ve heard of places trying to implement it with git sub folders and hellacious branching, to great lack of success

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#245

A lot of the comments are rightly pointing out the logical fallacy of survivorship bias in the article, but I don't think Garry intended to say that "choosing to work for Palantir in 2003 was the expected-wealth maximizing career decision and that's why you should join a startup". I think the title and lede, "working for Microsoft cost me $200M" is intended to be provocative and encourage clicks on the article, while…

Everyone's opinions on tradeoffs vary. Were it me, I wouldn't be proud if I'd made the call to join the company that is directly supporting The US's broken ICE system ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/technology/2019/05/do... ), even if I were $200M richer. It seems Garry dodged a bullet on this one.

He says he ended up working for Palantir anyway, so he dodged the bullet then chased it down to dive back in front of it again.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#246
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They do biannual liquidity events internally. If you’re an employee you can sell your stock back to the company for cash.

Another big iff here: iff the true owners of the company permit you to do so. Most startups do not permit this, afaik, which further indicates what a longshot it was that he turned down an offer from one that does.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#247

Garry, where do you get that figure of $1.6 million per employee per year in profit for Google, please? In Q2 2019 Alphabet (GOOGL), Google's parent, made $9.81 billion in profit[1]. At the end of the previous quarter, they reportedly had 103,549 employees[2]. Doing the division yields $88,654 profit per employee in Q2 2019. Doing the naive thing of multiplying that by 4, which I know will be somewhat off, gives $354…

He probably confused profits and revenue.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#248

The pessimism in this thread really bothers me. I’ve read anecdotes on entrepreneurship being on the decline, but it pains me to read so many negative takes on startups. We’re actively training our young people to avoid taking risks, and it’s going to fuck us — especially if some of those young people have the ambition be early employees at, say, a startup that takes on climate change in a big way. Look — the fact th…

Stories like this are really a dime a dozen. Marc Andreesen and the founders of Tivoli both worked in the same IBM dept. I met Michael Dell when he was building systems in his dorm. So did a thousand other people. Anyone who got in early at Dell got ground into the pulp years before there was a huge payoff. Even those who survived had to wait 10 years. The trick is finding new tech where people are taking risks. Anybody who went to a NeXTWorld Expo could have partied with John Parry Barlow, Tevanian, Kawasaki, Draper, etc.

There are probably a thousand classmates of Larry, Sergey and Mark who are just "getting by" at $200K/year. Get out there, mingle, take risks, fail and look for the edges. That's where you'll find the famous people of 2025 or 2030.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#249
post #172

The pessimism in this thread really bothers me. I’ve read anecdotes on entrepreneurship being on the decline, but it pains me to read so many negative takes on startups. We’re actively training our young people to avoid taking risks, and it’s going to fuck us — especially if some of those young people have the ambition be early employees at, say, a startup that takes on climate change in a big way. Look — the fact th…

The reason why is the math changed. The gap between startup and tech giant is much larger now than it was in 2010. Also, unless you have insider access and join a very risky angel stage company, the likelihood of getting a good package that makes sense is low, very low. Also public companies have shown to get +3x gains, which can make the math even worse. Example from personal experience that is very lucky in startup…

I don’t disagree with the spirit of your post. Large tech companies are paying ridiculous salaries and generally speaking we’re in a period of early-stage capital glut.

The point you’ve made — that it makes more sense to just start a company — is directionally correct, but for the most part is a logical fallacy. I hear this from competent, capable people all the time, “I might as well just start my own company rather than work at a startup as an employee.”

The reality is that 0 to 1 is an extremely, extremely difficult hump to overcome and most people intuitively know this. Which is why anybody who says, “I’m better off starting my own company than working at a startup,” especially without startup experience, is likely to never actually do that thing. I’ve never actually seen it, though I’ve seen a number of people go from working at to founding startups.

The real insight here is that it is actually more valuable to found — or be a really early employee at — a successful startup. And so the question becomes: how do you put yourself on track to get a $72k check from Peter Thiel at 23? Take risks, prove your competence and grow your network. That means work at startups.

Sure. I’m (currently) a lucky recipient of survivorship bias. There’s a long way to go and my current state is incomparable to most of the people we look up to and respect as a community. But the key word there is, “survivor.” If you look at the start of my startup career — middling ad tech company in Toronto, eng. lead at a failed Series A SF startup, short stint at a biotech company, turned down by BigCos — none of it looks like it could possibly have been leading anywhere. I just used those opportunities to meet really talented folks who believed in me and, one by one, would end up supporting me down the line. I’m lucky and very grateful for that. Some of the aspects of my journey to date are non-repeatable, and I’ll always give thanks for those moments — but a lot of the lessons I’ve learned can apply to any ambitious young technologist.

Keep at it. If startups aren’t for you, fine, but, again — survivorship bias requires you to survive in the face of insurmountable odds. And it does happen. Startups teach you how to survive. It’s OLN on steroids for careers.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But for many, it's about having a (tiny) shot at changing the world. It can be a thrill. Honestly this seems like Silicon Valley bait for getting people for work in an abusive mismanaged environment. And I hope most people stopped drinking the Kool Aid. > You are also a bigger fish in a small pond - more responsibility, no bureaucracy This I can understand, I mean if you are talented enough that you don't want to j…

There are a lot of envs that are not abusive. Having your workplace generalized and called abusive on the internet when it's not in real life, definitely feels abusive, however. I've seen people join abusive personal relationships with worse pay than startups, it happens with friendships and marriages everywhere. I've also seen very bad relationships between founders and teams that have caused lots of pain... The onl…

The main question is to ask what can you make out of it as an employee assuming the worst. I know full well that there are several great people working in tech as founders. I also believe that ambitious people who really think they are fantastic at delivering products can and should try the testy waters of startups knowing full well what the true market value is of the skillset that they are building. I would never ever join a startup where your market value keeps degrading. Yet many people join startups as employees with mostly worthless stock and continue to do meaningless work that doesn't help increase their market value because they are sold the Kool Aid of "belief in product" and "changing the world" or whatever so hard. As an employee, it is important to stay mindful of your market value and where it is headed.
Post reply on HN