Live data from Hacker News

Working for a startup makes less sense

zainamro.com

301–310 of 392 posts

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#301
i'd say if a start-up is hiring outside of founders / stock offerings then they are no longer a startup and should offer somewhat realistic wages. before that time, people accept to get paid less with prospect of their stock options exploding and that compensating for the lack of initial wages.

that being said, if a person wants to work at a startup, i'd say they already accept that the wage will be much lower than at some big corporate or company who is making good income already. it seems a bit if not a lot silly to me that someone would join a startup in the early phases but then demand a corporate salary. startups are kind of a popular term, but think about it... people used to actually build stuff and then get funded / success, instead of wanting funding upfront without any actual effort put in (thats exaggerating i know). A lot of startups these days though really ask for ALOT of money from investors without having even an MVP or viable product yet. I can't see why someone would pay for just an idea ... it seems a lazy way to make a startup. Building something, prove it works, and investors will have no issue to invest?

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#302
post #232
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I started at Google my first three full years were $213k, $233k, $287k ( https://www.jefftk.com/money ). Some of this was stock growth (which is not guaranteed and I was lucky there) but I think this sort of pay is reasonably typical for people who are considering a FAANG offer.

You didn't join straight out of school.

Whoops, thanks! I'd missed that!

I don't think that had a large effect on my compensation, if any: I joined at L3, which is what most new grads are hired at, and my salary before Google was low enough that I don't think it pushed up my offer at all. I also didn't get offers from multiple places, which is the sort of thing that (a) results in higher offers and (b) is the sort of thing new grads usually do.

But ideally someone hired right out of school would be up for sharing their comp?

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#303
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (some people don't want to be acquired). Damn, this is exactly what I want to do. Computer vision too. Do you have any advice other than "don't"? Would basing the company on the East coast near a tier-1 research university help with talent?…

>Another thing I really want to do is offer a 4-day work week with the promise of sabbaticals and/or remote work. That might not be attractive to everyone, but it's something that would speak to me and that I would want in addition to equity and salary. I think this would be a very strong advantage in the hiring market (assuming you can raise money from investors who're okay with it). I'm not your target market (I'm…

Well, that's his big bet isn't it. There are a lot of studies that claim 4 day work week will keep productivity more or less the same.

The catch here is this will potentially enable you to hire those 10x people. Even at reduced productivity, 80% of 10x is more than double productivity for 100% of 3-4x people, and perhaps this work environment will foster other people to increase their productivity as well.

With the right people and product, I see this as the ultimate weapon against big tech, most of which will have shareholders that will act a lot more conservatively when it comes to risks compared to startups.

This is not something big tech will be able to accommodate in the current macro-economic environment, no board will approve basically a 20% salary bump to all employees and while risking a potential drop in productivity.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can live on 4% interest, you can live off of it indefinitely.

For sure. Not in SF though, or so I thought anyway

True, 1M in savings gives you ~40K per year to live off. This wouldn't be sufficient in SF, but given that you're basically retiring at that point, you might as well buy a home somewhere else and then you'd be able to live comfortable off of that.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#305
I've worked at 3 big tech companies and 3 startups. 2 got bought out, the other is going strong. I made more money off 1 year of bonus at Google than I did with any of the successful startups. It's not because I did anything wrong (I was Eng #1 at one, First iOS Lead at another and Lead for the 3rd) It's because I was building someone else's vision for the promise that that my stock will be worth something. When a company gets bought even if you have a high % when it gets funding, it will be diluted. If the company doesn't do refreshers often enough you will be working long hours for close to free. The charming CEOs will talk about how they plan to change the world, the sleazy ones will tell you they are a sure thing (and what will you do with your millions). That makes no difference, it's just a lottery ticket. You have to decide how much of your career to put on that ticket.

Startups are a wild ride, and a thrill to join, you'll learn a lot, and have a great chance of coming out learning more than you'd learn as a entry level at a big company. Don't for a second think you have the winning lottery ticket, because if your number doesn't come up you'll left with memories and the paper it wasn't written on.

PS I'd argue if you have a group / team, build your own vision. Go big, we have enough insta-wecha-snapple sauce out there. Build something that will have real impact. And if you don't have the Team / Vision / Risk tolerance go somewhere they'll pay you what you are worth. Maybe you'll be even meet some of those you want to build a team for whats next.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#306
A few things developers are waking up to...

burnout, working evenings and weekends, a life outside of code, having children or families, master in a specific field vs jack of all trades (master of none), money is more important than free snacks, working your butt off to watch all the credit go to the founders (as well as the money), long term stability, benefits and retirement is much less risky than hoping for an equity payout

I feel the startup founders should enjoy reaping what they have sown.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#307
post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the remaining 30 years of life you have low ability to earn income, but face higher taxes and healthcare spend. To me, FU money is passive investments which yield a couple hundred thousand a year from businesses that can keep up with inflation.

1 million is 40.000 dollars per year indefinitely, by the 4% rule, with a small risk of ruin that you'll most likely see coming years in advance. It should be possible to live in the Bay Area on that, given that the place still has cashiers, cleaning personnel and maintenance workers. It won't be a middle-class lifestyle, but you'd have to make _some_ sacrifices in order to indefinitely work at whatever you want in t…

Never having visited myself, this is what I don't get about the bay area. How is it still a functioning city? How far out do you have to live to be able to afford rent on a non-tech bro salary?

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#308

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…

Consequently, startups that have this property are effectively un-investable because there is not enough capital available in the early stages to achieve technical viability

Well, this is the class system in action. Investors would rather sit on capital and moan about how they’re unable to spend it, than spend it in a way that would benefit engineers. They will endlessly try to keep that money circulating amongst their own class.

Note: I am not a Corbynista by any means, but there’s no other way to explain all this money with nowhere to go yet wages stagnating.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#309

I feel like it is hard for people to say what they truly love before they have at least $1M in their bank account. If you have FU money, your view on working at a FAANG vs building a startup can change. You will find it easier to know what you truly LOVE.

That assumes that the person doesn't change in the meantime. You might put your dreams on hold to solve the money problem, only to discover that you no longer have the energy or focus to accomplish what you could have in the past. End state: I wish I had done what I loved back then.

>> That assumes that the person doesn't change in the meantime.

In the meantime of what? I didn't suggest any action but merely suggested that sometimes money could clarify whether you do something because you love it or/and because you have to make money.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (some people don't want to be acquired). Damn, this is exactly what I want to do. Computer vision too. Do you have any advice other than "don't"? Would basing the company on the East coast near a tier-1 research university help with talent?…

Just an anecdotal data point, but some places have a vibrant tech scene despite paying jack shit. Salt Lake City, where I live, is one of them. FAANG don't have offices here and don't offer remote positions, so no one is competing with them. As a result senior developers are getting like $130k or something, and seem to be happy with that. Some people (myself included) don't want to move anywhere else even for $500k.…

Indeed, I think $130k might go a lot further in Salt Lake City than $500k elsewhere
Post reply on HN