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

Working for a startup makes less sense

zainamro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 392 posts

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#181

Post by alasdair_ »

scarmig wrote: post #159
sokoloff wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it unfair? The engineer was part of a team that collectively destroyed economic value. What is the fair portion of bonus on top of salary that they should be rewarded with for that performance? By all means understand it; I’ll never argue against that, but I find liquidation preferences quite reasonable.

The VCs are also part of the team that collectively destroyed economic value. They can't simultaneously claim credit for every success and disavow every failure.

This is a fair point and I’d never looked at it that way before. Thanks!

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#182

Post by senordevnyc »

cj wrote: post #112
senordevnyc wrote: post #65

Strongly agree with this. I just did about seven weeks of interviewing in NYC for senior iOS roles, at both startups and big tech companies. To be frank, it was a total shitshow. Especially on the startup side. Here’s some of the bullshit I faced interviewing at early stage companies before accepting an offer literally 2.5x as high as the (multiple) offers that startups made. 1. Shitty equity: one startup wanted me t…

From your post, it sounds like you value: 1) Safety and predictability in compensation 2) Ownership over your company’s strategy (e.g. mobile) only if you’re paid highly for doing it (not a bad thing, but many other people exist who would willingly take a pay cut for the ability to have an actual impact on company strategy) 3) A highly organized and logical hiring process and qualification evaluation 4) Custom negoti…

From your comment, it sounds like maybe you're one of the founders I was talking about.

1) Fair compensation, yes.

2) It's unfair to ask someone to have the responsibility for the success of a huge part of your business without making sure they have significant upside if they succeed.

3) Yes, I want a logical hiring process. The horror.

4) Fair. Not "custom negotiated", just fair. The fact that the industry norm is to fuck over your employees should fill you with shame, not be an excuse you hide behind to do the same thing.

5) I doubt I'll take that much, but I like that the company understands that they'll get the best work from employees who are taking care of themselves and their families.

If you're representative of a typical NYC founder, then yes, I'm glad I didn't join a startup.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#183

Post by antcas »

The consensus on HN is pretty clearly towards being a founder or working at Bigtech Co vs being an employee at a startup.

So, if you're a founder, how do you tip the equation to make working at your startup attractive to talent who presumably also read HN?

What would make you interested in joining a startup as an employee?

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#184

Post by [deleted] »

account73466 wrote: post #180
siquick wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artistic pieces or songs are generally a representation of an event, a struggle, or a state of mind - if you lead a cushy life then no, you're not going to have the same output than if you were living on the breadline. There's a reason that history is dotted with songs and pieces of art that were written during times of struggle.

>> you're not going to have the same output than if you were living on the breadline That is what poor people are told to justify their struggle.

[deleted]

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#185

Post by Ozzie_osman »

senordevnyc wrote: post #65

Strongly agree with this. I just did about seven weeks of interviewing in NYC for senior iOS roles, at both startups and big tech companies. To be frank, it was a total shitshow. Especially on the startup side. Here’s some of the bullshit I faced interviewing at early stage companies before accepting an offer literally 2.5x as high as the (multiple) offers that startups made. 1. Shitty equity: one startup wanted me t…

Sorry that was your experience. Just so everyone else reading this does not get the wrong idea, not all startups are like this. Many are, many are not. 10-year exercise windows are becoming more common. Flexible remote work is also more common (in fact, startup I'm at now as co-founder, we let people work from wherever the hell they want... while my friends at large tech co's have to work out of an office, even if they are allowed to WFH like once or twice a week). And we work hard but let people take as much time off as they need, whether that's vacation or just a day or half day here or there to deal with some family thing.

If you're reading this, please know that not all startups will "bleed you dry". And on the other hand, many big tech co's will!

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#186

Post by senordevnyc »

jgelsey wrote: post #141

Actually, my observation over the last 20 years of being a venture investor, bigco acquirer and startup CEO (including at a unicorn) is that the risk-adjusted $ compensation is the same at a startup and at bigco. Startups just have more beta in the comp. You learn a lot more at a startup and hence it's the experience you want if you hope to do your own startup. If you just care about short-term $ then absolutely stay…

Show your work, because I flat out do not believe you. Just the fact that you were investing in these startups, acquiring them, and working as a CEO at a unicorn indicates that you have a vastly skewed perception of the typical startup.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#187

Post by streetcat1 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #177
jandrewrogers wrote: post #125

I've had a related discussion with a few VCs in recent months. Some kinds of startups are effectively impossible to build given current structural constraints on financing them, creating an adverse selection for startups that fit the classic model rather than startups with the highest expected ROI. Broadly speaking, engineers will work at a discount to market-clearing wages of maybe 20% if they really like the startu…

This is a good summation of the current challenges with startups that are attempting to compete on technical merit. I know this first hand as I started a computer vision company right around 2012 when the "AI" boom was really picking up steam. I would never dream today of starting a very technical company because every major will poach your talent (happened to me), invest in your competitors or attempt to acquire you…

So there are actually three tech revolutions going on in parallel:

1) Kuberentes 2) Microservices. 3) AI

All of them are based on open source, and all of them are permissionless (I.e. the startup does not need permission from a big company, e.g. an app store owner).

They also erode the build-in advantages of big tech:

1) Kubernetes erode cloud lock-in on compute/storage. 2) AI is best serve on the edge.

I would say that everything today is up for grab.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#189

Post by bb88 »

sokoloff wrote: post #162
bb88 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suppose I have a company idea, maybe an early prototype and manage to raise $2MM at $10MM post-money valuation. The investors have a 20% stake for their investment. The rich technically have less personal risk -- that's because, well, they're rich. GP arguably took more personal risk, took less pay, and created the machinery that made the company profitable. If you want to say that the original $2M is paid out befo…

Do you read any of the latter in my argument above as to why liquidation preferences exist? It seems to me that you built and eviscerated a strawman right in front of us.

Did you see where I said, "If you mean to say..." You could just have said, "No. I agree with you on that point."

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#190

Post by sokoloff »

librish wrote: post #106

It seems like start-ups could catch up, at least somewhat, by offering more stock. Right now founders are still ending up with an order of magnitude or more stock than the first few employees. There are certainly situations where that makes sense but if the founders are adding extreme value compared to the first few employees perhaps they should only end up with twice as much stock. That would free up a lot of equity…

> if the founders are adding extreme value compared to the first few employees perhaps they should only end up with twice as much stock

Why would this be the case? If they’re adding relatively extreme value, why should they only get 2x the equity?

Post reply on HN