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

Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

nav.al

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#51

Post by gdubs »

I avoided Stephen Covey’s “7 Habits [...]” for years and years — but when I finally read it, it was much deeper than I’d imagined, and less superficial than a lot of “self help” books out there.

One central habit in the book is around “saw sharpening” and essentially making time to invest in yourself, so ultimately you can invest in interpersonal relationships. It’s kind of a “hierarchy of needs”. You need time, and money — and sometimes neither seem to be available.

I can’t do the whole thing justice here, but for the sake of advancing my point — it begins with sorting out what’s urgent and important from what’s trivial and unimportant, and learning to be proactive. Personal finance is something to consider as well, because saving and reducing expenses can buy you some additional flexibility in your life.

With some spare time and money, you get to the question of — what do I do next? How do I learn, where do I start? Personally, I think the best way to learn is to build something! Build something that you’re passionate about, and try to solve a problem. Then, see if you can demonstrate value to others — speak to real people who use your product, empathize, and try to make it better.

In terms of big company vs startup, both — like anything — have their ups-and-downs. In my experience, if there’s something worth optimizing for it’s this: try to work with great people. Kind, brilliant, considerate people.

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#52

Post by christiansakai »

These kinds of articles that talk about hustling, startup life, versus the other kinds of articles that talk about FAANG salary and perks are like the yin and yang of HN articles.

Always popular, always divisive enough, no clear compromise in sight.

I think it speaks of how actually a lot of HN readers really want to work at startups (including me) but these days they cannot find any justification to do it, financial wise.

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#53

Post by paulgb »

brenden2 wrote: post #35
dang wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been wondering about this for a long time. On average, what equity level would you say counts as "pathetically low" and what range would you say counts as fair? It seems to me that early employees are underpriced these days, the way that founders used to be, so a correction is probably inevitable. At the same time, there's no way seed-stage startups can match FB levels of compensation—the math just doesn't work.…

FWIW my Airbnb stock was worth about $1mm/year when I joined (in 2013 as a IC SWE). To be fair, the starting salary was well below market, but I got a raise to bring it up to the market rate about 1 year in. I've since never seen a startup that generous, only FAANGs come close.

They gave you stock rather than options? Is that usual at that stage?

Any offer I've seen from a startup (admittedly a small sample size, and always later stage) has been options rather than stock, and I've never heard of a company providing enough information to actually value the options.

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#55

Post by dang »

CPLX wrote: post #48
dang wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, you guys. HN comments need to be better than this—much better. Please read and follow the guidelines: " Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. " " Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidel…

I fully agree with the general HN guidelines, and believe they've been incredibly effective at making this a smart and civil discussion forum, but I respectfully disagree with this interpretation of my comment. The original article is very thinly argued, and I do believe it's perpetuating negative dynamics that don't reflect well on the general VC/startup community and the author in particular. The author of the arti…

> My response contains no more dismissive scorn than his original post.

Sorry, but that's not true at all.

The thing is, it doesn't matter whether the article is thinly argued or what have you—comments here still need to be much better than that one. Maybe the article doesn't deserve better, but the community here deserves better. It's about ourselves.

Suppose someone writes a shitty, arrogant article. What good does it do to react by degrading HN? It only makes it harder for this place to survive.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#56

Post by brenden2 »

paulgb wrote: post #53
brenden2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW my Airbnb stock was worth about $1mm/year when I joined (in 2013 as a IC SWE). To be fair, the starting salary was well below market, but I got a raise to bring it up to the market rate about 1 year in. I've since never seen a startup that generous, only FAANGs come close.

They gave you stock rather than options? Is that usual at that stage? Any offer I've seen from a startup (admittedly a small sample size, and always later stage) has been options rather than stock, and I've never heard of a company providing enough information to actually value the options.

To clarify, I was granted options, although they did switch to RSUs later on.

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#57

Post by paulgb »

brenden2 wrote: post #56
paulgb wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They gave you stock rather than options? Is that usual at that stage? Any offer I've seen from a startup (admittedly a small sample size, and always later stage) has been options rather than stock, and I've never heard of a company providing enough information to actually value the options.

To clarify, I was granted options, although they did switch to RSUs later on.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. So they became worth $1mm/year, that wasn't the fair market value when they were granted?

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#58

Post by genbit »

dang wrote: post #29
ccthr wrote: post #13

I feel like this is promoting wantrepeneur lifestyle and taking low paid long hour start up jobs to get on the ladder. Whilst innovation is important, and earning your stripes too, I get sick of this unspoken attitude that anyone who doesn't work for a "cool" startup must be unambitious and lack talent. Big tech are dominating most of the interesting problems. Startups likely can not compete with google - if they cho…

If that argument is correct, then startups are toast and it's big conglomerates from now on. I think that's going too far. Not everyone wants to work for a big company; not everyone wants to work for an ad company; and so on. What I'd like to know is whether startups can narrow the gap enough to be worth it for early engineers, once these non-compensation factors are included.

Disclaimer: worked only in startups as early-stage engineer.

I feel like early stage startups are getting closed to be toast, at least in bay area, from different angels conglomerates are better at non-compensation factors as well. And in current environment, when startups stay private longer, any engineer has a better chances to go to mid or late stage startup, wait till IPO and repeat. It is better from money, career, networking.

If put aside equity, as a decision factor, I think, early engineers can go to a startup because it's a faster growing environment with more freedom. Faster for career, business skills, networking, engineering skills... But founders are focused on growing a startup (or stock price) at all cost, short term, from round to round. And people personal goals are usually longer term and founders don't have time/will for that.

More thoughts on non-compensation factors that startups could get right if they want:

1. Advance in career faster.

Some go to startups because they feel they can progress faster in career ladder. In reality early engineers do not have enough experience for management/lead positions, and there is not enough experience to gain in early days (not enough people, tasks). Founders usually end up bringing ex-big corp/cool startup management, because "they worked at scale".

For management career development working at big corps are usually better, since there is a clear path you can take to grow, and you can estimate how much it will take you to do it.

Founders could be upfront about they goals and as part of offer could promise people a chance at management, some management coaching. Organizations like YC could offer early engineers management/leads coaching programs to their portfolio companies.

2. Grow as engineers

Startups usually don't have enough scale and tech is not perfect. More like a different peaces "glued" together in a hurry, and always constant change.

Anyone working at startups as early engineer and trying to go to big-corp for money will hear "yeah cool, but we are looking for tech experience at our scale of usage"

Startups can compete in this area (if they don't have scale) by allowing people to develop as public figures, encouraging blogging, talking at conferences.

3. Unlimited vacations. Flexible time.

Early engineers are always on, and harder to take long vacation, or completely disconnect. Compare to big corps, there are some where you can take several months sabbatical.

4. Full business transparency

Founders can be fully transparent in terms of business, funding in front of employees. This can go long way in developing loyalty and trust. Compare it to big corps, where there are layers of management.

5. Remote-first

More startups allow people to travel and work from whatever hours, location they want - more employees/engineers they will attract. Founders could be upfront about it: we pay 80% of market comp, but we don't care where you work from, as long as you available from some reasonable time online.

6. Networking

I feel like startups suck at this. It's expensive to send people to conferences, startup team is small. Working at FAANg you have better networking opportunities.

YC/VCs could have a networking events not only for founders, but for engineers as well. From YC perspective it's better if engineer leaves for another YC company and stay in ecosystem, than to leave to FAANg.

7. Family friendly

I feel like big corps are more family friendly: insurance, time off, activities. Startups figuring out how to make it or compensate for luck of it — could help.

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#59

Post by brenden2 »

paulgb wrote: post #57
brenden2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, I was granted options, although they did switch to RSUs later on.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. So they became worth $1mm/year, that wasn't the fair market value when they were granted?

I was granted 36,000 shares (or options to buy shares), vesting over 4 years, with a strike price near $4. IIRC, preferred share price was ~$120 in 2015, but I don't recall the precise details. AFAIK there were no refreshers of any kind while I was there.

I think the amount I got was pretty standard for an engineer, but I also know some engineers received 4 or 5 times as much, and others got half that. I think the recruiters had a lot of discretion to decide how much to hand out in order to hire great people.

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#60

Post by genbit »

dang wrote: post #16
ditonal wrote: post #3

Founders want employees to have the founder mentality without giving them founder equity. AngelList (which this author is shilling) salaries and equity grants are pathetically low. So they write fluff pieces about how you’ll learn so much doing a founders laundry. I learned a lot more, faster, as an employee at big tech than at early stage startups. Startup VCs and company need to get out of the business of writing f…

I've been wondering about this for a long time. On average, what equity level would you say counts as "pathetically low" and what range would you say counts as fair? It seems to me that early employees are underpriced these days, the way that founders used to be, so a correction is probably inevitable. At the same time, there's no way seed-stage startups can match FB levels of compensation—the math just doesn't work.…

i think vc/founders need to innovate on this topic to: provide better effort/reward incentives, and reduce risk for employees, giving that they have less voting control over equity.

Could be something like:

- companies keep lower number of employees, higher grants, but demand founder-like effort for early years

- early employees get substantial equity grants 5-10%, that must be sold to VCs on secondary offering at next rounds. In that case, employees could directly benefit from startup grows, while reducing risk compared to FAANg, and founder can keep their equity size. Yes, upside is limited, tax/legal work, but could be covered by new refreshment grants from employee pool

- YC creates/funds employee union-like organization, that funds/organize activities/benefits for early stage startups

- help legally with paying/hiring employees remote with equity package

also joining startup and buying out $$$$$ worth of stock options that could turn to 0 is a downside compared to stock grants from FAANg.

Post reply on HN