Live data from Hacker News

Downsides to working at a tech giant

blog.garrytan.com

211–220 of 583 posts

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> statistically unlikely to pay off > probabilities involved with your decision While this is a good general approach to life IMHO as well — if you mean "be rational, not just emotional" and "work on your cognitive biases, seek objectivity" — it might also prove terribly counterproductive in this context. It would take a book or five but briefly: - you just can't use statistics when they say "95% fail", otherwise you…

You just can't use statistics when they say "95% fail", otherwise you just don't do startups, ever. With that mindset, joining an established company is more likely to "succeed" for you and maximize serenity. Actually, you certainly can do that. Most people do. And depending on what you're optimizing for, it seems pretty rational to me. Another stat for you: most entrepreneurs fail "about twice" before making it, i.e…

As I see it, if it comes down to such criteria to decide which path you'll take — i.e. you're in tech for the money — then it makes no sense to dabble in startups. Statistics clearly don't lie in this regard.

What I meant however was a bit meta: those who are deeply cut for entrepreneurship and startups are not motivated by money first or even at all; they thus don't and shouldn't care about statistics aiming at maximizing personal benefit... to a founder, "personal benefit" is more about getting things done, creating the dream. They'd rather optimize for long-term success (the kind that's much harder to take away from you, that creates real value).

Wealth, personal or collective, is but a consequence of a successful economic endeavor. As an employee, you'd choose to work for a startup because there's something in it that corporations money can't buy for you. There's no bet if you already believe in the work, you will get what you want every single day on the job. Different values, different goals, different rewards for different people I guess.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#212

The pessimism in this thread really bothers me. I’ve read anecdotes on entrepreneurship being on the decline, but it pains me to read so many negative takes on startups. We’re actively training our young people to avoid taking risks, and it’s going to fuck us — especially if some of those young people have the ambition be early employees at, say, a startup that takes on climate change in a big way. Look — the fact th…

FAANG pay has gone through the roof while startup pay has not. I am not a software engineer, but I still work in a field rife with startups. I don’t even work at a FAANG, but I do work for the industry leader in my field and I’m making a safe $250k annually after 5 years.

I have gotten a few startup offers just to test the waters and I’m generally being offered $175k + $50k-$100k in stock options. Sounds OK if you expect the stock to grow 100X, but the problem is that even Series A funding these days pushes valuations into 8 or 9 figures. In my field, the total market is 10 figures. The valuations are going up so steeply that anyone but founders or employee 1 will be better off on the FAANG hampster wheel

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#214

Building a network is an important thing... But let's not kid ourselves: Most startups offer very little % for equity. And that equity often amounts to next to nothing. Look at Uber or WeWork. Most founders end up as assholes. Some are great, some care, some what to learn. Learning as a manager/founder is someone else's job. Stress is real. People do shut down from stress. If you are a founder, that's great. If you a…

> And that equity often amounts to next to nothing. Look at Uber

What are you talking about? Everyone who was early Uber is a millionaire now.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#215

The pessimism in this thread really bothers me. I’ve read anecdotes on entrepreneurship being on the decline, but it pains me to read so many negative takes on startups. We’re actively training our young people to avoid taking risks, and it’s going to fuck us — especially if some of those young people have the ambition be early employees at, say, a startup that takes on climate change in a big way. Look — the fact th…

It's just the reversion-to-the-mean effect described elsewhere[0]. It seems bothersome that on a startup news website run by an incubator, the view is that startups aren't a good idea. However, that's only because HN is now what /r/programming+technology+apple+google was, not what HN was. It's not really a startup news website. So I wouldn't worry too much. The people in startups are probably in real-world groups, and the networks are tighter.

I suppose the real problem is that some genuine startup-oriented personality may be dissuaded from working on one, but perhaps the cultural force against them is in the range where it should dissuade someone who isn't more wholly convinced that they know a truth that others do not believe in.

I think it may be counter-productive to attempt to convince people who prefer aiming for the safe money. I think that while attempting to draw a line hits the Sorites paradox really fast, there is quite clearly a difference between someone with your world-view and someone who runs the math on total compensation alone. I think the person with the latter view will not recreate the OP experience because all the choices are very non-independent. The same person who'll take the low-variance high-expected-value out of school will do the same the next time they're faced with a choice and again and again and again ad inf. They provide the selective pressure of optimizing for 'exploit' (in the explore/exploit sense) while the startup-type folks provide the selective pressure of predation.

0: For instance in the geeks/mops/sociopaths view https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#216
The real issue with startups is that there is currently no efficient secondary market for startup equity.

This makes the game much riskier than it should be since:

1) There is no way to diversify for founders and employees. 2) There is no exit for employees. 3) It gives VC monopolistic power.

There were attempts to solve this (e.g. ICO) but those were misused.

Once such a market exists, it would be much easier to join/leave this ecosystem.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#217
> [at a startup] you get very direct access to users and customers and their problems, which means you can actually have empathy for what's actually going on with them, and then you can directly solve it.

I'm calling BS on this. The empathy fairy doesn't bless you just for working at a startup, just like it doesn't disappear when you work for big tech. You have to actually create and nurture empathy yourself. You have to engage in the work: learning about the products, all the people you've never met that build things you didn't know existed, how all of it eventually becomes a thing for a customer to use, and how to make it better. In that process, you learn to care about things you didn't before.

Can you "directly solve" a problem for customers in a big company? Sometimes. But more often, you have to work together with other people to solve it. You have to use initiative, talk to people, coordinate things, lead initiatives. It's more work. And because it's more work, it's even more rewarding when you solve something. You may have even improved a lot more than the original problem in the process.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#218
Garry, where do you get that figure of $1.6 million per employee per year in profit for Google, please?

In Q2 2019 Alphabet (GOOGL), Google's parent, made $9.81 billion in profit[1].

At the end of the previous quarter, they reportedly had 103,549 employees[2].

Doing the division yields $88,654 profit per employee in Q2 2019.

Doing the naive thing of multiplying that by 4, which I know will be somewhat off, gives $354,615 profit per employee per year.

That's a tidy sum, but only a quarter of what you claimed so, again, can you tell us where you got that figure, please?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/25/google-al...

[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/29/tech/alphabet-q1-earnings...

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#219

The pessimism in this thread really bothers me. I’ve read anecdotes on entrepreneurship being on the decline, but it pains me to read so many negative takes on startups. We’re actively training our young people to avoid taking risks, and it’s going to fuck us — especially if some of those young people have the ambition be early employees at, say, a startup that takes on climate change in a big way. Look — the fact th…

If the pessimism in this thread bothers you, imagine how much your woefully out of touch survivorship bias and bothers everyone else in this thread? One of the top comments that responds to your post tells you that the math changed. This is true. The fact that neither you nor Garry talk about the concrete specifics of this means that you're either unaware of it, or worse, intentionally sweeping over it. You really th…

The reason I haven’t responded to the math changing is because it’s Christmastime and I’m spending time with family. Some of the responses to my post require a much more thoughtful answer than I can muster while at the gym between meeting family members.

Be patient. I’ll respond to the other post if you wait.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a medium-high probability of what you mentioned. But for many, it's about having a (tiny) shot at changing the world. It can be a thrill. You are also a bigger fish in a small pond - more responsibility, no bureaucracy. And usually the pay is enough to live modestly on.

> But for many, it's about having a (tiny) shot at changing the world. It can be a thrill. Honestly this seems like Silicon Valley bait for getting people for work in an abusive mismanaged environment. And I hope most people stopped drinking the Kool Aid. > You are also a bigger fish in a small pond - more responsibility, no bureaucracy This I can understand, I mean if you are talented enough that you don't want to j…

There are a lot of envs that are not abusive. Having your workplace generalized and called abusive on the internet when it's not in real life, definitely feels abusive, however.

I've seen people join abusive personal relationships with worse pay than startups, it happens with friendships and marriages everywhere. I've also seen very bad relationships between founders and teams that have caused lots of pain...

The only way this is worthwhile is if you really believe in some product + are working with non-abusive people you trust and have known for a while + actually get paid enough to live a comfortable life. You can't join a startup thinking that the world owes you and will make you rich and the startup is how it will do that. But I just hope people reading your comment don't think that any small group of friends working on something is abusive to new folks that join.

Post reply on HN