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

The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have

themuse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 121 posts

Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have

#81

Post by siberianbear »

cperciva wrote: post #72
drewvolpe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a third option: you can sell some or all of your equity to an investor. Companies don't like to talk about them, but I've seen more and more of these transactions happening, and they can be great for everyone involved: the employee gets a payday and eliminates her risk, and the investor gets access to a company she would not have otherwise been able to.

Don't rules about sales needing to be approved by the board block such transactions?

When I bought my options at a pre-IPO startup, my agreement was that the board had a "first right repurchase," not a block. So if I were (for instance) to sell you my shares for $10, the company would have the right to buy them at the same price instead.

Perhaps there are other types of agreements out there, and therefore YMMV.

Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have

#82

Post by [deleted] »

emptytheory wrote: post #73
cynicalkane wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are "millions of people" smart and talented enough to start a successful startup, or join one early, this sounds like a spectacular business opportunity. After all, everyone knows doing a startup is easy and riskless if you just have enough smarts and talent. Startups don't require any skill or effort beyond that. We therefore conclude that the reason there aren't millions of people involved in startups is a…

I'm confused. Where was it ever implied by the parent that running a startup is "easy and riskless if you just have enough smarts and talent" and that "Startups don't require any skill or effort"? The point, that I understood, from the parent is that the job (SV?) culture is highly homogenized and that there isn't enough outreach to skilled people who don't "fit". Did I misunderstand? If I didn't, do you not believe…

[deleted]

Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have

#83

Post by eropple »

smtddr wrote: post #67
eropple wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employee #1 is taking on 80% of the risk of a founder for usually a sliver of the upside. I know a lot of single-digit startup employees and I really think you're doing them a disservice by characterizing that role as really at all less stressful than being a founder. You see founders parachute straight into consulting or speaking after flaming out of their tech startup. Their team needs to go get jobs.

>>Their team needs to go get jobs. I can't speak for everywhere on earth but in this current Bay Area tech job market, I can just as easily parachute into a well-paying, full-time gig at $TRENDY_TECH_COMPANY. You build interesting experience & insight being the first-hire and, if you're actually a skilled engineer, shouldn't have a problem finding your next job in about 4 to 6 weeks if things don't work out.

Sure. But the amount of risk you're taking on, relative to the reward, is much, much, much higher.

Management consultants make a lot more than code jockeys do.

Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have

#84

Post by emptytheory »

[deleted] wrote: post #82
emptytheory wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. Where was it ever implied by the parent that running a startup is "easy and riskless if you just have enough smarts and talent" and that "Startups don't require any skill or effort"? The point, that I understood, from the parent is that the job (SV?) culture is highly homogenized and that there isn't enough outreach to skilled people who don't "fit". Did I misunderstand? If I didn't, do you not believe…

[deleted]

"Yes, the homogenized group of Americans, Europeans, Indians, Chinese, other Asian and Middle Easterners present in the valley clearly won't engage in outreach to skilled people. Another popular meme: those greedy capitalists are constantly lobbying congress to give them permission to reach out to skilled people from around the world in order to lower wages. Better stop them, it's bad for workers!" -yummyfajitas

It's pretty clear to me that staunch isn't talking about racial homogeneity:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8871859

Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have

#85

Post by WalterBright »

a3n wrote: post #74
danielheath wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a senior/lead software engineer with only about 2 years of professional experience" Has the term senior lost all meaning?

For 20 years I've only ever called myself "software developer", or "QA analyst," or whatever the role was. I've never added level of seniority, and I always used my own term, not whatever corporate label a particular HR department dropped on a role. ("Technical staff member?" Please.) I really don't care how my employer of the moment labels me.

My job title has often been "nerd".

Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have

#86

Post by scosman »

courtson5 wrote: post #30

The author sells equity as a main motivator in joining a startup. But if you believe in equity, you are far better off being a founder than an early employee Being the first employee (or an early employee) of a startup seems to be the worst possible choice. * none of the stability of a larger company * a salary which is likely less than market * 10 to 100 times less equity than a founder (So, in an exit, you'll make…

Sightly less than market salary is a lot better than 12+ months of no salary, and putting a good chunk of your saving in to getting a company started.

If you want a ton of equity, start a company, but don't expect a paycheque. If you want a paycheque and a lot of equity, join an early stage company.

Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have

#87

Post by Bahamut »

danielheath wrote: post #66
Bahamut wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having the opportunity to take on a larger role earlier in a company's lifespan has a lot of allure to me - you get a lot of valuable experience that a larger company would be loathe to offer to not as experienced employees. For an example, I am a senior/lead software engineer with only about 2 years of professional experience. However, my experience has been increasingly high quality, and allows me to move up at my…

"a senior/lead software engineer with only about 2 years of professional experience" Has the term senior lost all meaning?

The terms CEO/CTO/etc. haven't lost their meaning with all of the startups out there (some pretty poor), why would years of experience necessarily dictate that a quality engineer cannot reach that position so quickly?

In my case, I continually hone my craft outside of work (with some breaks here and there) - I spend a lot of time learning, digesting new patterns, and assessing then. I read articles, and spin up many projects to experiment hands on with the technology, patterns, etc. My abstract depth was already sharpened from my time as a math PhD student (ultimately dropped out), and spending 2 1/2 years unemployed from having trouble finding work whetted my appetite for working to an insatiable degree. The Marine Corps enhanced my innate leadership traits, which I then took the lessons learned and applied them to leading a team (which I had to do as an acting tech lead when the tech lead had to take leave due to a family death), as well as generally carrying myself.

I earned the senior title through domain expertise at an exceptional level, and with a bit of luck achieving it in a piece of tech that exploded in popularity just afterwards (AngularJS). I have been seriously recruited as a lead developer for about a year, although I have turned down such positions for a while since I did not consider myself ready at the time.

The one thing I appreciate about being in the Bay area is that companies here recognize that such talent can exist, and such people may not even be unique. In most of the country, I probably would be still a mid-level developer, and not given the opportunity to demonstrate I would be a capable senior developer, much less lead developer.

Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have

#88

Post by yen223 »

staunch wrote: post #57
cynicalkane wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are "millions of people" smart and talented enough to start a successful startup, or join one early, this sounds like a spectacular business opportunity. After all, everyone knows doing a startup is easy and riskless if you just have enough smarts and talent. Startups don't require any skill or effort beyond that. We therefore conclude that the reason there aren't millions of people involved in startups is a…

The most successful Silicon Valley founders and investors were born into wealth, attended expensive private schools, and are connected by exclusive networks. We therefore conclude that these kind of people are simply better and more successful human beings than others. Why else would this tiny class of people so dominant an entire industry?

Startups are hard and risky, which is precisely why it's dominated by "wealthy entitled children". If a poor kid's startup fails, poor kid gets kicked out of his house and starves. If a wealthy kid's startup fails, wealthy kid doesn't get to buy his Ferrari for another year.

I have no idea how to break this vicious cycle, apart from strengthening social safety nets for the lower classes to minimize downside risk. But we know once you start providing welfare for the poor, they'll simply stop working, right?

Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have

#89

Post by refurb »

ashark wrote: post #79
dcpdx wrote: post #64

Graduates fresh out of college have the one thing that's most important for long-term wealth accumulation on their side: time. Take two scenarios, for instance, both assuming retirement age of 65 and a long-term average stock market return of 7% annually. Scenario one: Smart 20-year-old college grad accepts an offer to go work for Big Tech, Consulting, whatever. Their salary allows them to pay down any student loan d…

None of these numbers are adjusted for (estimated) inflation, right? For instance, $1,000 from 1969 was worth the equivalent of over $6,000 in 2014 (45 years later, same as "start work at 20, retire at 65" examples) So the benefits of investing, while not poor, are substantially less impressive than they appear from the raw numbers. That $21,000 of 2060 dollars might only buy as much as $3,500-4,000 in 2015, when tha…

You can ignore the impact of inflation since his argument is that the earlier investing results in a greater net worth at a later time.

Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have

#90

Post by staunch »

yen223 wrote: post #88
staunch wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most successful Silicon Valley founders and investors were born into wealth, attended expensive private schools, and are connected by exclusive networks. We therefore conclude that these kind of people are simply better and more successful human beings than others. Why else would this tiny class of people so dominant an entire industry?

Startups are hard and risky, which is precisely why it's dominated by "wealthy entitled children". If a poor kid's startup fails, poor kid gets kicked out of his house and starves. If a wealthy kid's startup fails, wealthy kid doesn't get to buy his Ferrari for another year. I have no idea how to break this vicious cycle, apart from strengthening social safety nets for the lower classes to minimize downside risk. But…

Kickstarter and crowdfunding are a great next step. When it's not just rich old guys picking which projects get funded you get Oculus and an entire new VR industry, created by a unpedigreed outsider that no investor would have given the time of day to.

The real shift will come when crowdfunding for equity is possible. When not just rich investors will be able to benefit from the massive wealth creation of technology companies. It may be that regular people are willing and able to fund as many viable projects as exist.

Post reply on HN