31–40 of 165 posts
I'm from Indianapolis, but currently in South Korea, where accelerator/incubator programs are funded by the government. Angel investors work in some government agency. Centrally planned and controlled "capitalism". Engineer salaries much lower than US or Canadian salaries. Yet somehow, the Republic of Samsung/Hyundai keeps churning.
As someone who has worked in the Canadian tech scene for 25 years, and rode two startups all the way to exit (i.e. acquisition by US companies), in my opinion the problem has nothing to do with exit mindset, good angels, bad angels or SRED. It is all about talent retention. Up until early 2000, Canadian tech salaries at least somewhat kept pace with US salaries, albeit 20-30% lower. After the dot com crash, however,…
"Paying salaries competitively" can also be rephrased as: "Raise as much money as you can and keep salaries on an upward trajectory". Optimising for profit is normally a good, healthy thing, but given the cheapness of capital (printing etc) sloshing about, how does one go about and build a profitable and steady company with good talent without getting yanked into this cycle?
All companies want talent, and capital has been freely available for the past 15 years in amounts previously unimaginable. It doesn't seem like there is any way to avoid this treadmill.
*Note, I am perfectly on board with paying competitive salaries, my point is that given the heavy market distortion because of all the VC money, that "competitive salary" isn't actually an accurate descriptor.
Who says it doesn't work? If it produces viable companies, it does work (sure, it might fail to do that, but the parent haven't showed that). Don't have to ve FAANG sized. If anything, in my book, it's more of a societal success and healthier for them to NOT be FAANG sized - and screw the VCs.
It's not just about size, at least not directly. FAANG companies are big in large part because they radically changed the world for the better, and most people who identify as part of the "startup scene" are hoping they can be a part of something similar.
Did Facebook "radically changed the world for the better"?
Did Twitter?
Did Google, for that matter? Is the control it has amassed, and its imperial impact of business and ideas (and the web itself) a net positive to a good search engine and a OK email service (both of which have gotten worse over time)?
As someone who has worked in the Canadian tech scene for 25 years, and rode two startups all the way to exit (i.e. acquisition by US companies), in my opinion the problem has nothing to do with exit mindset, good angels, bad angels or SRED. It is all about talent retention. Up until early 2000, Canadian tech salaries at least somewhat kept pace with US salaries, albeit 20-30% lower. After the dot com crash, however,…
Thanks for sharing this. What is the solution though? "Paying salaries competitively" can also be rephrased as: "Raise as much money as you can and keep salaries on an upward trajectory". Optimising for profit is normally a good, healthy thing, but given the cheapness of capital (printing etc) sloshing about, how does one go about and build a profitable and steady company with good talent without getting yanked into…
> That’s part of why I think that if any city in Canada has the potential to actually develop a Bay Area grade startup scene (smaller, sure, but actually the real thing), it’s clearly Montreal
I would have to agree with the conclusion of this article, Montreal has:
(i) 5 universities very close to each other(i.e. 10 to 20 minutes walk from each other) + Great public transport
(ii) Lots of government subsidies for startups, on municipal, provincial and federal levels
(iii) Small tech companies and startups can afford rent downtown (or in the mile-end), where other tech companies and universities are located. (I also have a 1200sf apt downtown for 1/6th the price of SF)
(iiii) It's an amazing market where to fail quickly. Quebec is some sort of small scale self-sufficient society where you can experiment before scaling. And outsiders tend not to look at failures in the Quebec startup scene
(iiiii) It's surprisingly easy to get funding from the massive government investment funds(IQ, CDPQ, BDC), and they have been focusing more on the startup scene lately.
(iiiiii) The french Canadian "culture" tends to be bolder and more dynamic than what you would expect in the rest of Canada. Can't hurt the ecosystem if you're expected to move fast and fail quick
(iiiiiii) Move to MTL already, we want more startups!
Now, couple this with the ease at which Canadian engineers can get jobs in the US and the picture emerges, bright and clear. Any Canadian with a lot of ambition may be alienated by the relaxed culture in Canada and subsequently move to the US, further reinforcing the cultural divide.
On the other hand, Canadians (and even Americans) who are disillusioned with what they may see as an excessive ambition and a relentless focus on "growth hacking" might opt to live in Canada, also reinforcing the cultural divide.
As someone who has worked in the Canadian tech scene for 25 years, and rode two startups all the way to exit (i.e. acquisition by US companies), in my opinion the problem has nothing to do with exit mindset, good angels, bad angels or SRED. It is all about talent retention. Up until early 2000, Canadian tech salaries at least somewhat kept pace with US salaries, albeit 20-30% lower. After the dot com crash, however,…
Thanks for sharing this. What is the solution though? "Paying salaries competitively" can also be rephrased as: "Raise as much money as you can and keep salaries on an upward trajectory". Optimising for profit is normally a good, healthy thing, but given the cheapness of capital (printing etc) sloshing about, how does one go about and build a profitable and steady company with good talent without getting yanked into…
One approach might be to build a business by cleverly leveraging the value of competitively paid software engineers. You can accomplish quite a lot through focused effort. You shouldn't need fifty ICs to develop a profitable product.
Paying professionals doesn't have to come from absurdly oversized VC rounds. Sometimes it comes from steady, profitable, sustainable growth.
> *Note, I am perfectly on board with paying competitive salaries, my point is that given the heavy market distortion because of all the VC money, that "competitive salary" isn't actually an accurate descriptor.
You're right. It isn't. We should ignore the VC funded companies, and talk instead about the big players: FAANGs. That is the new definition of a competitive salary. I suspect you'll find it dwarfs that of many VC-fuelled startups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every year the HR departments in Vancouver and Toronto do a hush-hush survey among each other and fix their salaries to the exact same level - maybe 2% but usually closer to 1% higher than the previous year. Collusion like that would almost certainly be illegal - do you have a source for that?
It is but it happens all the time. Google, Facebook, Amazon, and the rest all have been caught doing it on a large scale. Most of them even agreed not to hire from each others employee pool.