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

181–190 of 360 posts

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

#181

Post by khuey »

nilkn wrote: post #64
swilk wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All my finance friends make about 10x what my engineer friends make and work equally hard. If you compare engineers to lawyers, doctors, and executives we are very much underpaid.

I don't see the point. There's always going to be someone making far, far more money than you make. It doesn't matter if you're an engineer, a lawyer, a doctor, an executive, or the president of a country. That doesn't mean that you should feel so inherently entitled to the compensation that you do get. While some executive may be making 10x your salary, you're probably making 10x the salary of someone else who works…

Your income is not determine by how hard you work. It's determined by how much value you create and how strong your negotiating position is for capturing that value.

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

#182

Post by etchalon »

coolsunglasses wrote: post #148
etchalon wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh. Personally, I was a contractor for a long time, and I realized that the whole "independent" thing was total BS. 1. I was never independent. I had a "client", or a "contractor", I was obligated to fulfill. I only got paid if I did so, and I only got more contract jobs if I did a good job. 2. When one contract was over, I had to run out and find another one. While doing so, I was making exactly nothing. If I timed…

I prefer working with clients to having a boss. I prefer having customers to having a client. You're always answerable to someone or something, even if it's begging daddy to refill that trust fund. I add 2 months of runway for each week I work. Not exactly a big deal. >Often it meant I had to do double-shift days to make up the lost time. I'm starting to develop a picture of you under-billing, if you felt obligated t…

I'm not trolling. I'm literally talking about my experiences as a contractor and the conclusions I've reached.

> I prefer working with clients to having a boss. I prefer having customers to having a client.

To me, it was just trading one noun for another.

> I'm starting to develop a picture of you under-billing, if you felt obligated to do so.

Projects have deadlines. This isn't a matter of under-billing, it's the fact of life.

> Except for the part where if you're the type of person to prefer working on 5, 10, or 15 different things a year as opposed to one thing for 5 years, you're penalized as an employee because you'll be seen as a job hopper.

Not really. Go work for an agency that does lots of different things. I own a digital agency, and we build lots and lots of different things every week. My creatives/engineers can jump on stuff they're interested in (we actually encourage that).

If you feel like you're more "free" as a contractor, great. Personally, I found I thought that until I realized it was nonsense.

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

#183

Post by lubujackson »

The takeaway from this is if you want to build a startup run by adults (gray neckbeards), these are their concerns. Forget the foosball and lunches, focus on healthcare for families and gym memberships.

It's not 1995 anymore. Now there ARE candidates who have been there and done that. It's clearly better to have employees with startup experience who don't operate always in crisis mode.

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

#184

Post by nilkn »

khuey wrote: post #181
nilkn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the point. There's always going to be someone making far, far more money than you make. It doesn't matter if you're an engineer, a lawyer, a doctor, an executive, or the president of a country. That doesn't mean that you should feel so inherently entitled to the compensation that you do get. While some executive may be making 10x your salary, you're probably making 10x the salary of someone else who works…

Your income is not determine by how hard you work. It's determined by how much value you create and how strong your negotiating position is for capturing that value.

Has that not been my point all along? ...

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

#185

Post by rdl »

rhc2104 wrote: post #179
rdl wrote: post #118

I don't think benefits are the main reason to work anywhere -- doing meaningful work and working with great people far exceeds financial benefit, and salary/bonus/equity should dominate fringe benefits. However, why do benefits packages need to be uniform? I personally hate having "benefits" in my compensation which come out of my salary which I don't really want. Sometimes companies get tax savings (i.e. they can de…

I believe companies do not offer ginormous 401k matching because 401k plans can't be too "top-heavy". So for that to work, the less compensated at the company have to contribute a lot. http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Sponsor/401(k)-Reso... Other employer contributions. If the plan document permits, the employer can make additional contributions (other than matching contributions) for participants, including…

Yeah. the "Safe Harbor" thing is weird, but it's probably realistic to have $45k/yr in extra compensation for every employee if you're a 5-10 person shop where everyone is a professional (with high compensation). I've seen it work at consultancies where everyone was a partner or otherwise highly compensated, but I've never seen it at a company which had receptionists, etc. (You could probably hire through a temp agency or contractor for things like janitorial/reception/etc. if you wanted to get around this)

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

#186

Post by resu_nimda »

rayiner wrote: post #160
resu_nimda wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the kinds of companies in question normally don't have the capital to offer that kind of compensation. That's why I added the edit to my comment: the employees should certainly get to share in the reward as compensation for their risk.

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

#187

Post by avenger123 »

guptaneil wrote: post #175
pg wrote: post #133

This entire thesis is a red herring. I doubt we've ever had a conversation with a startup about what sort of benefits they should offer. Since the startups in a position to hire lots of people will presumably have raised money from later stage investors, if anyone is giving them advice about this, it would probably be them. FWIW, if anyone did ask my advice about what benefits to offer, I'd tell them to err on the si…

I'd argue that being less generous with benefits is a good filter for hiring candidates that are genuinely interested in what the startup's doing (which is crucial in early employees) rather than somebody who's just looking for another job, like the author. Edit: To clarify, there is huge difference between offering no benefits and offering fewer benefits than a large company. I'm not advocating treating employees li…

This is a good point, so why not just come out and say it!

I see a lot about how these start-ups state "competitive salary, great compensation, etc."

Instead, just say, "hey, we will pay you crap but come work for us anyway because you believe in our idea."

Somehow, I don't think that would get traction, when its put that way.

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

#188

Post by runarb »

marvin wrote: post #134
hkmurakami wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't name the company, but this isn't limited to the UK. It's found in other countries too. Maybe there's too much history/tradition/peer-pressure/competition in the States for this kind of arrangement to fly. I'd immediately bolt for the door if someone demanded such a structure on me.

Smaller Norwegian companies which offer shares to employees often have a "if you quit within 5 years, the company is allowed to buy all your shares back at the price they were when you received them" clause, or something similar. Obviously you'll only get sub-par or naïve people with such a policy.

You will probably find that some companies tries that regardless of where they are located. I doubt it is unique for any specific country.

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

#189

Post by throwawayhooray »

jacoblyles wrote: post #170

It's true that Bay Area startups spread their equity shamefully thin. Doubling the equity stakes for employees wouldn't dilute the founders much for most startups and it would feel a lot more fair when everybody is working late at night.

It's really funny when Founders are stodgy about giving more than a single percentage of equity per employee when those early employees will probably work just as many hours.

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

#190

Post by absconditus »

rdl wrote: post #118

I don't think benefits are the main reason to work anywhere -- doing meaningful work and working with great people far exceeds financial benefit, and salary/bonus/equity should dominate fringe benefits. However, why do benefits packages need to be uniform? I personally hate having "benefits" in my compensation which come out of my salary which I don't really want. Sometimes companies get tax savings (i.e. they can de…

Perhaps many of us question whether these startups are doing meaningful work.
Post reply on HN