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

Benefits matter, or why I won't work for your Y Combinator startup

mhalligan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 360 posts

Re: Benefits matter, or why I won't work for your Y Combinator startup

#151

Post by dopamean »

coolsunglasses wrote: post #58
etchalon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a contractor, if you're taking in 800 dollars a day, and buying your own health insurance, you are not taking in 800 dollars a day. In fact, your take home pay is probably less than his (at least on the high-end of the per-diem). 1. You're paying a higher marginal tax rate on your earnings than he is on his salary. Self-employment tax is a real bitch. 2. If you're buying your own health insurance, the benefits you…

I've been contracting for a long time, I know the risks and it's not just about the money. It's about the self ownership. Of course it's better for the company, they want the ability to coerce the employee and hold their livelihood/healthcare hostage. With my arrangement, I keep the same healthcare plan no matter who I'm working for or what I'm doing.

> I've been contracting for a long time

Didn't you just say you are 24?

Re: Benefits matter, or why I won't work for your Y Combinator startup

#152

Post by ryguytilidie »

edent wrote: post #23

From a UK perspective - this post is nuts! I've worked with a few London based startups (and interviewed for several). Holiday 28 days minimum - as per law https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitlement-rights/entitlement Rarely offered health care but - for all its flaws - our National Health Service is pretty good. Shares - yup, they're almost always going to be worthless. Pension - every company has offered me at least 5%…

Oh. My. God. Get me to the UK now.

Re: Benefits matter, or why I won't work for your Y Combinator startup

#154

Post by resu_nimda »

michaelochurch wrote: post #7

The prestige asset generated by YC is interesting, because I bet it's going to have an unintended consequence of increasing the social difference between founders and employees. If you're a YC founder, you're in the club. You were picked. It's great if you succeed; if you fail, you have a network. If you're a YC employee, you're just an employee of a small startup. YC founders seem, at least from this, to be blind to…

> ...while the 40-year-old is thinking, "kid, if I wanted to take on that kind of risk and insanity, I'd have your job".

So what made that 40-year-old think he wanted to work for the startup in the first place? if the founder's position is too risky and insane for his taste, how is an employee position going to be any better?

I mean, everything he's saying is true, and the take-away seems to be that 40 year olds with families (or anyone else who requires stability) are not a good fit for early-stage startups. Didn't we already know that? One poster hilariously bemoaned being "put out to pasture," but the demand for more compensation (even if deserved) has a lot to do with it. You can't have a stable cushy job and be on the ground floor of a startup at the same time.

Edit: The disparity between founders and employees is definitely an issue, which could be fixed by a more even equity distribution, but I don't think that would solve all of OP's issues.

Re: Benefits matter, or why I won't work for your Y Combinator startup

#155

Post by rayiner »

FD3SA wrote: post #29
michaelochurch wrote: post #7

The prestige asset generated by YC is interesting, because I bet it's going to have an unintended consequence of increasing the social difference between founders and employees. If you're a YC founder, you're in the club. You were picked. It's great if you succeed; if you fail, you have a network. If you're a YC employee, you're just an employee of a small startup. YC founders seem, at least from this, to be blind to…

As you've noted here, it seems like most startups support the traditional executive/employee status divide, but with better marketing. Using startup culture as a substitute for benefits, compensation and autonomy within a company is now standard practice. Unfortunately, it just a variation of the old Sociopath/Clueless/Loser paradigm (I am a frequent patron of your blog). I recently discovered a blog with some intere…

While the slavery analogy is likely to get people riled up, there is a deep truth in the point about the guaranteed income.

Re: Benefits matter, or why I won't work for your Y Combinator startup

#156

Post by wbharding »

As a CEO/Founder running a business that is revenue-sensitive, my developer-side completely agrees with the "FYPM" attitude of OP.

Every story I see about the supposed "tech talent crunch" makes me wince at the fact that the average web developer salary is about the same from when I started my company five years ago to now. If there's really a shortage, the makers ought to be getting paid: in dollars, not kool aid.

This isn't even to mention the "glory deficit" that goes with being an employee. With today's incubator explosion, any decent technologist can own 50%+ of their own company. If they're going to work for yours, you'd better pay them. And spend more time glorifying those who want to work as a team, rather than those that chase the CEO/Founder glory (a common blog post written by CEOs, Founders and VCs).

Re: Benefits matter, or why I won't work for your Y Combinator startup

#157

Post by johnnygoods »

twakefield wrote: post #127

"That $375k would then be subject to 63% taxes, netting me $138,750, or a 20% down-payment on my piece of the american dream. The other company does the right thing, so I only see a 15% capital gains tax" A bit of an aside but could someone elaborate on this? Is the OP referring to an 83(b) election? If so, isn't that his responsibility (of course, the company should advise him to do this). Or is this referring to so…

I think he is referring to the company letting him purchase his options as they vest, so that the eventual sale of the stock will be of a long-term capital asset, rather than short term and subject to his marginal tax rate.

Re: Benefits matter, or why I won't work for your Y Combinator startup

#159

Post by zallarak »

I think the fear people have in choosing a larger company is that they're going to miss out on working with smart people on interesting problems, having work-ownership, etc. This was my personal fear.

I've worked at 2 early-stage "prestigious enough" startups and now work at a much larger company that offers a much better work-life balance/salary/benefits/etc. What I've found is that contrary to my fears, it does indeed have "smart people, interesting problems to work on", etc. - without the BS you have to deal with at smaller and/or unprofitable startups (bad benefits, hours, etc.). To be fair, it's harder to find larger companies that offer this, and the one I'm at isn't massive, it's no more than 50 people.

Unless invalidated startups begin offering better equity packages (because most can't usually afford to pay market salaries) they are going to see talent leave. It baffles me to think that companies think they can get away with this. And to those engineers who accept below-market salaries and small equity packages I ask you to question why - know that even if you work your *ss off and the product succeeds, your equity payout is probably in the tens of thousands at most - a typical bonus for a lot of entry/mid-level software engineers.

Re: Benefits matter, or why I won't work for your Y Combinator startup

#160

Post by rayiner »

resu_nimda wrote: post #154
michaelochurch wrote: post #7

The prestige asset generated by YC is interesting, because I bet it's going to have an unintended consequence of increasing the social difference between founders and employees. If you're a YC founder, you're in the club. You were picked. It's great if you succeed; if you fail, you have a network. If you're a YC employee, you're just an employee of a small startup. YC founders seem, at least from this, to be blind to…

> ...while the 40-year-old is thinking, "kid, if I wanted to take on that kind of risk and insanity, I'd have your job". So what made that 40-year-old think he wanted to work for the startup in the first place? if the founder's position is too risky and insane for his taste, how is an employee position going to be any better? I mean, everything he's saying is true, and the take-away seems to be that 40 year olds with…

> if the founder's position is too risky and insane for his taste, how is an employee position going to be any better?

The founder has upside potential to compensate for the risk. If the employee position has much less upside potential (i.e. equity), but just as much risk, it had better be balanced by higher compensation than you could get in a "stable, cushy job."

Post reply on HN