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

How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 257 posts

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#231

Post by liquidpele »

deely3 wrote: post #199
satvikpendem wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get what you negotiate. That's why actors and writers have been getting royalties and residuals on their works for decades now. Only now with the rise of streaming platforms and AI content generation are they being forced to accept weaker terms.

Sure. Do you agree that software developers become modern repairman?

Depends on the project doesn’t it? Website building is pretty much commodity now, but even taking one step forward and designing scalable public APIs its going to require a different caliber developer.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#232

Post by gosub100 »

pc86 wrote: post #141
Aurornis wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But getting "founding engineer" level equity on the order of 0.5% (before dilution!) seems to basically be a scam, where you're working 2x the amount for lower salaries than the market, 0.5% at an early stage with below market compensation, no refreshers with future rounds, negligible comp increase with future rounds, and below-market salary is indeed a scam. A lot of startups are happy to operate this way. On the…

Serious question: if you're truly being paid a market-rate salary -- e.g. roughly as much as you could make at any other VC-funded enterprise, any FAANG company, etc, not the same $110k/yr you'd make at a bank or consulting firm -- why would you get any equity? The whole point of equity is that you have skin in the game and "work harder" (whatever that means) to make the company a success. At least in the early days…

Another reason could be career progression. A startup is generally "up or out" growth, right? A mid or mega corp has some opportunities for advancement (especially for juniors). In practice juniors get better gains from job-hopping but some play it safe and want to build 401k or get into management. Something that a startup doesn't offer if they run out of money.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#233

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

bmitc wrote: post #230
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a successful career and my neighbors failures are not related to that in any way. you'll need to give a more strict definition of the word better before this can be a useful conversation.

That's not relevant. And one could similarly ask for a definition of success. But the ecact interpretation of the definitions would depend upon the context.

right, their failures aren't relevant.

What's trying to be implied here is that the failure of others informed the success of the one and what I'm pointing out is that's not a given.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#234

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

smokel wrote: post #169
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why is their contribution important? Is it your supposition that the only reason the person who went down the successful path did so purely because they watched everyone else fail? That seems highly unfair to the successful person.

For one, the successful ones might have learned from the unsuccessful ones that which does not work. This is especially the case if the unsuccessful ones are brave enough to write down that they failed. The latter does not seem to happen much now that most people celebrate only success.

might have, the other poster is heavily implying that's what happened and the successful one was just lucky.

It also might be that the successful one had better judgement and that it _wasn't_ luck.

My point is that the current political narrative is strongly that people who are successful are lucky and there's nothing logical about that stance.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#235

Post by moribvndvs »

satvikpendem wrote: post #9

One of the top comments on the YouTube video attached to the article talks about how someone wasted their 20s working as the founding engineer (employee #6 of a 6-person startup) and when the company exited for $100 MM, they only got 100k and are still working at 40 years of age while the other 5, presumably having cofounder-level equity, are retired. This is the true risk of startups, and, if you're looking to maxim…

Not exactly the same, but I worked 11 years at a start up, the third hire. These were my prime years, gone in the blink of an eye, where I missed so much, made many sacrifices, and ruined my body and mental health… and got $2000 at the end.

The stress was unbelievable the entire time. I even quit once but stupidly came back, and they kept throwing Monopoly money at me which was going to make me a millionaire, supposedly. I believed them, sunk cost fallacy and all, but eventually the owner got sick of it, sold it, and my position was diluted almost into oblivion.

Maybe a shrewder person would have seen it coming, but I worked with several very smart and successful people and we all got taken on it. If things are bad and they start throwing Hail Marys at you to keep you around, I dunno man, it’s probably not worth it.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#236

Post by pc86 »

ditonal wrote: post #177
pc86 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: if you're truly being paid a market-rate salary -- e.g. roughly as much as you could make at any other VC-funded enterprise, any FAANG company, etc, not the same $110k/yr you'd make at a bank or consulting firm -- why would you get any equity? The whole point of equity is that you have skin in the game and "work harder" (whatever that means) to make the company a success. At least in the early days…

Because FAANG pays equity too. Google will pay a senior engineer 200k base and 250k in liquid stock a year for 450k TC. That stock is also incredibly low risk. If a startup paying market means 450k cash, absolutely there’s no need for equity. But if it means matching the 200k base then obviously you’re screwed with no equity. And I’m theory it should be a lot of equity given the much higher risk premium.

But you're getting 0.5-2% of Google. That's why startup equity is a lottery ticket, and why it comes with a comparable decrease in cash comp.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#237

Post by pc86 »

sokoloff wrote: post #180
axlee wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is also to keep people around. Software engineers are notoriously feeble, as they get offers extremely regularly.

Do you mean “fickle” rather than “feeble”?

Statistically it's probably both :)

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#238

Post by throwaway092323 »

pb7 wrote: post #228
throwaway092323 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that logic still apply to teachers? How about public defenders? Food bank staff? Punishing people for believing in their work is called "exploitation".

It applies to anyone working in a free market. A software engineer can't be overpaid because all participants in the transaction are a part of a free market. The party writing the check strongly believes they're profiting from the transaction. > Punishing people for believing in their work is called "exploitation". What is the relevance of this?

I didn't make it explicit, but the point was about where you draw the line. Obviously a software engineer has a lot more bargaining power, but anyone is paid less if they believe in their work because the desirability of the job is a factor in the pricing. The more people who are conscientious and care how their work affects others, the more market forces drive down the price of important work.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#239

Post by zoogeny »

kaidon wrote: post #221
zoogeny wrote: post #76

The intro of that video hit hard and hurt. I have literally been in that position where I built the analytics page, which marketing asked for, and I can see the analytics for the analytics and no one has even checked the page. And so I chime in asking if anyone else has noticed that our big product release is not going anywhere and its like crickets. You realize that from your position that you have no ability to hol…

Are you me? I agree and have experienced every single thing here. > I believe that it is a mistake to believe that merely working harder will earn that respect. You must be a principal level developer -- it is a role driven with the highest degree of cynicism and empathy, which you comment is gushing with.

On the aspect of empathy, I really liked the cofounders of the company. They were the best kind of people. When I say that others wanted control, it actually wasn't the cofounders, they were honestly committed to getting the entire company involved. It's just when there are 25 people at a slow growth company and the challenges aren't technical, there isn't much control to hand out to the engineering leaders. Even if I could have helped them grow their engineering team to 100+ developers and fostered a fantastic culture or whatever dreams we all had ... they just didn't need it at that time. What they actually needed was to find a way to accelerate growth. And the advice they were getting from investors was to lean into sales, marketing and growth.

So they have to go out and recruit the best of the best that they can in those disciplines. I can't fault them for doing what is necessary. They even sent a bunch of the engineering staff (including me) to growth marketing courses. But now you have 1 new VP of Sales with 20+ years of experience, 1 new VP of Growth fresh out of some hot startup and the same dozen engineers. When ideas are being pitched on what to do to increase growth, and when engineering time is being portioned out to implement those ideas, consistently we were spending our time and resources on the ideas of those VPs.

I don't envy the position of the founders in many ways. They have severely limited resources and they somehow have to try to keep everyone happy. And even if I am a technically strong and reliable engineer, they needed to give that control to the areas in their company that were most in need. And those new VP level folks demanded that control. I do wish they had just been a bit more honest about it.

My frustration is that when you bring in people at that VP level, they need to be held to the same accountability as the engineers would be. And even when I saw that they were failing and making bad decisions (and were frankly asleep at the wheel in some cases), I felt shut out of avenues to apply leverage. It became clear that the decisions and opinions of those marketing and sales folks were being held to a different standard than the input from the engineering team.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#240

Post by throwaway092323 »

onion2k wrote: post #227
throwaway092323 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that logic still apply to teachers? How about public defenders? Food bank staff? Punishing people for believing in their work is called "exploitation".

Does that logic still apply to teachers? How about public defenders? Food bank staff? Yes. Personally, I think they're all underpaid. But I don't set their wages. Society does that by agreeing a level of tax people are happy with, and then spending that money on public employee's wages. Collectively society has agreed to pay those people as little as possible. That's the important thing in any wage negotiation - you…

> The answer is either to educate the public about the value of public wealth...

That's not a solution because the people in power materially gain by feigning ignorance.

> Teachers are always going to lose out on that one.

How can you openly admit that the incentives don't work and still defend them?

Post reply on HN