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

Downsides to working at a tech giant

blog.garrytan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 583 posts

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#321

Post by Apocryphon »

nullspace wrote: post #314
austenallred wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and FB were paying less when they were founded than most startups I see today, adjusted for inflation. The difference is that now Google and FB pay way more . More than startups could ever dream of competing with. Everyone I know at FB or Google is making $225k+, with the average/median being around $300k/yr. Absolutely no way new startups can play ball with those salaries, and FB/GOOG certainly weren’t paying…

> The difference is that now Google and FB pay way more. More than startups could ever dream of competing with. Logically speaking, the only way that a company can pay more and still be profitable is if they produce value more efficiently. On a general, macro level. So, if startup founders cannot even dream of providing either cash or equity (adjusted to risk) comparable to the big-techs, does this mean that startups…

Could it be because BigTech, collectively, have created an oligopoly? Perhaps making it easier for startups to compete is another reason for antitrust.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#322

Post by eaguyhn »

milofeynman wrote: post #165
eaguyhn wrote: post #152

I worked at four startups and gained so much experience at each. Even with the long long hours I really liked it. Three of the four failed - the fourth one eventually succeeded after 15 years and I received about $4,000 for my original shares as employee #3 (I can relate to the point in one comment about being a founder instead of an employee).

The founders entire job early on is to convince schmucks that they'll be rich if the idea succeeds while simultaneously making sure to give away as little in stock as possible. It takes people like Peter Thiel to pull that off

True, that. I was a schmuck that saw his equity diluted with every angel round in the one successful startup. But I'm still glad I went through it all.

People can take this as a cautionary tale to make sure your equity is protected or from an optimistic view that, at least, you gained something other than abundant riches :)

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#323

Post by amznthrowaway5 »

ben_jones wrote: post #316
opportune wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely this. A lot of startups these days skimp by hiring sub-FAANG SWEs with less than 5 yoe, and it shows in their products. Lack of product maturity, bad engineering (worst horror story I’ve heard recently is Wayfair), resume driven development / over-engineering / cargo culting, huge teams to work on simple features. All so they can hire two middle-skill 22 year olds instead of a skilled 35 year old. If you’r…

Sub-FANNG SWEs? 250k+ or gtfo? I sincerely hope Google and it’s Ilk don’t represent the best of the best because that would mean the best of our indistry would be found severely wanting.

The average at these companies may not be very good given the inherent noise in hiring and promo processes, but most very good engineers end up at one of these companies since it's a much better deal than going to a startup.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#324

Post by majormajor »

austenallred wrote: post #284
jarjoura wrote: post #221

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…

Google and FB were paying less when they were founded than most startups I see today, adjusted for inflation. The difference is that now Google and FB pay way more . More than startups could ever dream of competing with. Everyone I know at FB or Google is making $225k+, with the average/median being around $300k/yr. Absolutely no way new startups can play ball with those salaries, and FB/GOOG certainly weren’t paying…

> Absolutely no way new startups can play ball with those salaries

Are their ideas just not that promising, or are they just not raising enough money, or what?

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#325

Post by milofeynman »

cosmodisk wrote: post #311
georgeburdell wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FAANG pay has gone through the roof while startup pay has not. I am not a software engineer, but I still work in a field rife with startups. I don’t even work at a FAANG, but I do work for the industry leader in my field and I’m making a safe $250k annually after 5 years. I have gotten a few startup offers just to test the waters and I’m generally being offered $175k + $50k-$100k in stock options. Sounds OK if you ex…

It's a bit sad how the rest of the world don't put such reward for dev jobs.Even here, in London,I'd need to be a quant to pull such a salary.

The rest of the US does not pull such salaries. That's pretty exclusive Silicon Valley / Seattle.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#326

Post by bilekas »

novok wrote: post #172
keithwhor wrote: post #90

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…

Yes, I am a little longer on the tooth than some others, but I would love for developers today to dictate the path..

Instead of having this idea: 'We want to work for the next big thing' - Which can be super attactive.

- Instead say: Hey, Im a developer, so I like this product, can I stand behind it.. Can I stand behind my work in it.

Even if you need a job badly, and you're taken on as a developer or someone contributing, I still believe, you should always be able to stand behind your work. Even if the product is shit.

So If you want to work for a startup, you need to really know the company, product and for sure the direction, not all of them are looking for a payout. Some of them are genuinely enjoying changing and hacking things up. - Embrace these - eve if they're not startups!

The best companies I've worked for where well established, but gave the freedom to innovate, play around, make mistakes, and build.

New startups for me always seem to just throw money expecting something good.. I've come to the idea that its 'Startup business ideas people'. and not "Developer playground that turned into a startup"

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#328

Post by munk-a »

fatnoah wrote: post #184
novok wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The reason why is the math changed. Very true. Making it even more unbalanced is that a startup exit may not be profitable to non-founders. I spent the first 17 years of my career at 3 different startups. Two were acquired and one is still chugging as a lifestyle business for the founder. The net value of my options (> 1% even after dilution in two of them) amounted to a $2000 capital loss due to there being no mone…

I think this is a really good argument as why graduated corporate taxes really need to be increased in the US. I'd be curious how productive you felt at each position and if you think the FAANG job is more difficult and stressful.

I'd like to think that no matter which of these paths we chose - the more stressful and risky life or the more secure and corporate FAANG one - we'd all have a chance to live a decent life. I really enjoy working at a small company and we make a notable impact on society, but the money will never approach FAANG levels.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#329

Post by bradleyjg »

throwaway1777 wrote: post #258
bradleyjg wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RSUs are the solution to this problem. With a double trigger a pre-public company can offer them without employees suffering a tax liability on illiquid equity.

RSU will make you pay tax at the marginal rate though instead of long term cap gains on options.

NQSOs have the same issue and ISOs are increasingly difficult to issue as startups get to mid and late stages.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#330

Post by whatshisface »

pm90 wrote: post #285
novok wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the math again. Go do a spreadsheet and simulate a company as it grows and you see treating your first 10 employees in line with big tech expected value outcomes is a really, really big hit.

I know this is totally super optimistic, but can we change the perspective from > is a really, really big hit. to > really amazing payoff for the early engineers/employees My very limited understanding of the growth of the SV tech community is that its a generous cycle of people creating wealth, and then using that wealth to fund the next generation of tech. So it seems completely logical for SV founders to want to d…

Whether it's a big hit or an amazing payoff are actually irrelevant, there is a going rate for engineers who are willing to accept startup risk (in a job market where anyone can get hired right after it fails this is not a lot of risk), and that's the price that will be paid.
Post reply on HN