Live data from Hacker News

Downsides to working at a tech giant

blog.garrytan.com

521–530 of 583 posts

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#521
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be: Google's annual revenue for 2018 was $136.22 billion[1], which yields $1,315,512 revenue per employee. Controlling for employee growth from 2018 to 2019 (they only had 85,050 employees at the end of Q1 2018[2]) and assuming linear growth and revenue earn through the year, that gives an average number of employees of 94,300 over the year (I realise this is an oversimplification), and revenue per employee of…

You're absolutely right — I annualized net revenue which I interpreted as "net" but certainly is not profit. I've corrected this and will put a note about it. I'm sorry for the mistake. I'll do better next time.

Even after this correction, the article still doesn't make sense to me:

> net revenue per employee is actually $1.6 million per year, after all costs.

What does "net revenue after all costs" mean? Isn't that operating income or net income rather than revenue (which aren't that high)?

You really should get these things straight before giving people advice.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#522

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…

I honestly find it highly unlikely that a startup is going to address climate change in any meaningful way.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#523
post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is true but also kind of depressing. With the means of software production cheaply available to everybody is that stable job at a tech giant really the pinnacle of the software engineering career? Yes, because economies of scale greatly benefit big companies. Just because software is free to scale, in the sense that a cp command doesn't cost you anything, doesn't mean that making money from software is free to…

> Yes, because economies of scale greatly benefit big companies. I don't think software engineering in itself benefits greatly from the economies of scale. Yes, tech giants have developed some nice internal tooling, but the cost of implementing a feature for a google engineer is probably in the same ballpark as for a startup engineer. User acquisition OTOH seems substantially cheaper for the big companies. So, econom…

If they don't then why does anybody use AWS?

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#524
post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Deserve“ absolutely means exactly what it means. I’m talking about the equity distribution sub-10 here. What sub-10 employees are getting any more benefits than their founder(s)? Maybe marginally more cash but it’s all still below market so it doesn’t really matter. But most founders I’ve encountered are actually paying themselves more than their early employees because they have to in order to maintain their lifest…

It doesn't mean anything because its a completely subjective moral judgement. There's no global arbiter of what people deserve. And again, if you think founders should take less equity then you're free to start your own venture and show everyone how well it works. I've yet to see single example of this though. If it's so easy to start a company without risk and get rich then what's stopping anyone else? Do you realiz…

I don’t understand the “if it’s so easy then go do it” argument. Personally I’m interested in founding something at some point in my life. And I’d much rather do it with a group of people who I’ve shared more equity with. But that’s not the point at all.

In this thread we’re talking about what stops people from leaving their cushy jobs at big corp to join a small gig where apparently the talent is sorely needed. My response to that is, “if it’s so needed then speak with equity and more favorable comp strategies that are more likely to pry those smart people out of FAANG’s grip”. If the world needs a few principle engineers for some incredible new idea then surely the world can find the capital to fund the equivalent of a few 500k salaries for a few years—whether it’s with more cash or more generous equity or both.

It’s a two way street. Every time I hear someone lament about the dying startup scene my response is generally that humans are acting rationally and the industry has realized that the ~0.2-1% equity offered for positions 4-10 at a small gig is not really worth the sacrifice required unless some other stars align (mega exciting domain, super unique opportunity, write off as professional development).

So either the startup industry is dying and all the good talent is locked up in FAANG. Or maybe startups don’t need principle engineers and 0.1% talent in the first place. It’s probably some of both.

And I’m certainly not sitting in a pile of my own self entitlement at FAANG thinking, “if you want me pay me more because I’m hax0r”. I’ve made my own sacrifices to be a part of growing a small company. We’re in a specialized domain where finding the right talent is especially difficult. I’m unable to fault anyone for rationally biasing towards more comp and stability and less stress. So when the topic comes up I like to remind people that the status quo equity/comp strategies that you see at most places are a little dated and despite it being (as it seems) somewhat presumptuous of me, suggest that founders might be biased towards overvaluing their own contribution to the cause. If the cap tables were a little looser I think you’d see the scene perk up again...

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#525
post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to reform employee stock options - in the UK there are far less possibilities to screw employees over stock options.

Absolutely, stock options in the US are super strange, they can be performance tied and for non-qualified shares. The thing I'd actually like to see is a better default governance for companies - companies are wholly owned by founders and I think there is just something fundamentally wrong with treating all employees as contractors by default until it's decided to grant them options or actual ownership. A bunch of pe…

Are you confusing "contractors" with "employees"

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#526
post #255
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Founders should be willing to give a lot more equity to the first employees. I don’t get the logic of not doing this. You want your engineers to feel as if they have ownership in the equity that you’re building. It’s such an easy way to keep engineers engaged and productive that it baffles my mind that it’s not done more widely. I hate working for BigTech. Startups expect too much and compensate very little. The swee…

It's the math again. Go do a spreadsheet and simulate a company as it grows and you see treating your first 10 employees in line with big tech expected value outcomes is a really, really big hit.

Which will be attrited away over funding rounds

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, because economies of scale greatly benefit big companies. I don't think software engineering in itself benefits greatly from the economies of scale. Yes, tech giants have developed some nice internal tooling, but the cost of implementing a feature for a google engineer is probably in the same ballpark as for a startup engineer. User acquisition OTOH seems substantially cheaper for the big companies. So, econom…

If they don't then why does anybody use AWS?

Start-ups use AWS because with $20k-$100k in credits you can do a lot for free in the first year, and after that the cost difference usually doesn't matter. It also looks great on everyone's CV.

Big companies ofc have other reasons like flexibility, needing less coordination in the company etc.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#528
post #496
post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average turnover is a little over 2 years at BigTechCo so half of the people never see that 4year total compensation.

I doubt this very much.

https://www.inc.com/business-insider/tech-companies-employee...

You'd be wrong.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#529
post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m intrigued by your idea of alternative compensation. Care to expand? Are you thinking like bonuses for growth? Deferred bonuses?

Not OP but I've been thinking about this as cofounder of a "hard tech" company. If we live long enough that we're in a position to hire real talent we can't compete on total yearly comp. The business just won't be able to afford a 500k a year engineer for years. However right now FAANG companies generally do not offer either the following: - Reduced work weeks - Remote work I've talked to several staff and principle…

I work at one of the FAANGMs and my group of about 700 engineers are all allowed to be 100% remote if they want to be. It’s actually promoted by our leadership.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP but I've been thinking about this as cofounder of a "hard tech" company. If we live long enough that we're in a position to hire real talent we can't compete on total yearly comp. The business just won't be able to afford a 500k a year engineer for years. However right now FAANG companies generally do not offer either the following: - Reduced work weeks - Remote work I've talked to several staff and principle…

I work at one of the FAANGMs and my group of about 700 engineers are all allowed to be 100% remote if they want to be. It’s actually promoted by our leadership.

So M it is then?
Post reply on HN