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

Downsides to working at a tech giant

blog.garrytan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 583 posts

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#551

Post by Grimm1 »

tracer4201 wrote: post #450
Grimm1 wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be inaccurate, I've been using sites like payscale to do the measuring here for averages. If that really is the case then RSUs are quite insane and I'd have to revise my statement. Edit: The sites I'm using make it seem like the RSU compensation is the one time grant for 100k+ over the 4 year period so if its really a 400k+ stock grant over the 4year period then yes there's really no way to compete with that fo…

I wouldn’t use Payscale or even Glassdoor. Levels.fyi is more accurate I think, although obviously some people definitely inflate their numbers, and there’s a self reporting bias. FAANG total comp is crazy... obscene. I earn quite a bit more than one of my siblings who’s a doctor, and all I have is a bachelors degree. All this does have a cost. Not counting potential monopolistic practices, ads being literally cancer…

Yeah, I've chosen to work in startups for the last 4 years largely because I want to found my own company and I really have enjoyed working in startups. I've learned a lot that I don't think I can get at BicCo in terms of running an early-stage company but, I'm also in a position with student loans and since I've done well on BigCo interviews before but chose a different path I'm really torn on saying screw it for 3 years, get a BigCo offer and take care of everything financially, build a small nest egg and then jump back into my own startup at this point. Especially now when laws regarding the restrictions around building your own thing on your own time are becoming more favorable to us.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#552

Post by thesausageking »

elamje wrote: post #457
thesausageking wrote: post #441

Palantir built a lot of ICE's software systems. Among other things, when ICE was using children crossing the border to go after and arrest their family member, "the key place where that information was stored and communicated to be able to prosecute them was through the ICM and Palantir’s information sharing."[0] I would encourage anyone to think twice about taking money from Gary or similar VCs who only care they lo…

Not everyone has the same views on business and morality. Morality is completely gray for almost everyone. I understand where you are coming from, but retroactively punishing people who are associated with a business who only recently (last 2 years) had bad publicity is why people are scared to actually have public opinions about anything. Even typing this comment will be misinterpreted in 30 years. Palantir is in an…

It’s not the bad publicity that’s the issue. It’s their helping the government put 7 year olds who have done nothing wrong into detention centers for months and lock up their parents when they come to claim them. Read the ACLU’s reports on this if you believe it’s just “bad publicity”:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-p...

Does everyone agree with this? Of course not. A large % of the US are encouraging these policies and want ICE to be even more aggressive. Everyone needs to decide for themselves what their ethics are.

What’s important is that founders ask these questions and understand who they’re taking money from.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#553

Post by christiansakai »

acheron wrote: post #538
christiansakai wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do. I honestly want to hear. I am debating whether to join a startup again for my next job or just crank Leetcode and go FAANG and stay for the rest of my life there.

Unless you’re 80, you’re not going to spend the rest of your life at Facebook or Google. Imagine someone in 2004 saying they’re going to work the rest of their life at MySpace or Yahoo.

Fair point.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#554

Post by why_only_15 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #337
nojvek wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BigTech is insanely big right now. Basically advertising and cloud are humongous cash cows. It’s a good time to work for BigTech and build some safety net. But then again it’s only Google and FB that pay above the line. Microsoft and Amazon salaries, last I checked were pretty subpar.

Apple is not known for paying great, either. So one wonders if it really is just Google and Facebook pumping the market up.

I think that's true but a good number of my coworkers at Apple got offers from Google as well and Apple outbid them

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#555

Post by dunkelheit »

emodendroket wrote: post #542
wongarsu wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If there were no economies of scale it certainly would seem strange that it could possibly be cheaper to rent computers from Amazon than to run your own data center.

Operating AWS and the datacenters involves massive economies of scale. Writing the software that powers AWS - not so much.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#556

Post by stevenwliao »

sbilstein wrote: post #188

The safest risk reward ratio in terms of career development, networking, and financial gain is to work at a startup that is in their explosive growth stage. You will likely get shares valued at some multiple of 100k. Make sure you understand the business and feel confident they will IPO or exit. The scaling needs, technically or culturally, of a company at this stage are unlikely to be available at a risky early star…

What are the right metrics to look at for growth?

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#557

Post by manigandham »

someguydave wrote: post #532
manigandham wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees get cash, that's the compensation like any other worker. Why should equity be a default option? Most startups fail so that's like saying workers should get something that has a high probability of being worthless while suffering all the tax implications. If anything equity should be decreased. Startups are better off competing on cash and other benefits like work flexibility and increased responsibility.

That would imply that they make revenue, which is somewhat unfashionable.

You need cash to run a business, wherever it comes from. Otherwise you don't have a business in the first place.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#558

Post by manigandham »

jackthetab wrote: post #546
manigandham wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This topic was covered in Episode 3 of Gimlet Media's "Startup" podcast[1]. He ended up do a 50/50 equity split. They seem to have done well for themselves[2]. [1] https://gimletmedia.com/shows/startup/8who49/gimlet-3-how-to... [2] ht…

They're both founders and equity is split evenly between them, which is extremely common with any startup.

That's not the same as founders giving up majority to their employees.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#559

Post by manigandham »

dcow wrote: post #524
manigandham wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

My replies are regarding your statement that founders "deserve" less, especially the rather extreme quote of 10%. That's nowhere near viable considering the effort and risk involved, and why I suggested you try it and show us.

And if most startups fail, why is equity worth so much to employees? Who wants to be paid in worthless options? This is the other common fallacy I see. Startups can compete by offering cash and better benefits like work flexibility. Equity rarely moves the needle and doesn't suddenly make people better workers either, regardless of all the hype leadership blog posts about ownership.

Some people respond to the increased responsibility and will always work at startups. Some people always want the big corporate gig. Neither will change much based on equity. What startups are competing over are the mostly average workers in the middle that could be swayed with the right offer, but there's not really a global shortage, just with hype FAANG workers (who are no longer 0.01% quality or anywhere close). You can get great people anywhere and plenty of startups have figured that out.

Re: Downsides to working at a tech giant

#560

Post by mancerayder »

seem_2211 wrote: post #386

I think the equity situation is bad, and only going to get worse. FAANG stocks have been on an absolute tear and VC firms have got more money to deploy than ever before. If I were to bet on it, I think we'll see the tech industry move to a model that mirrors the financial world, with fixed year end bonuses, and no equity opportunities. That's what this thread is basically advocating for, even though right now it mean…

I've been working in finance for years, and a couple of startups. From my own personal experience and from the experience of many people I know, you get stock but the stock is viewed as a 'nice little bonus' versus something that you expect to change your life.

In New York City:

Small tech startup -> very low salaries, questionable options

Fintech -> higher salaries (than tech), "nice to have bonus" type of stock options, plus a bonus

Banks and Hedge Funds -> For tech people, this is the "FANG equivalent". High salaries, big bonuses, and stocks that aren't theoretical. The pay is probably is not in the millions, but close to half a million if you're a Director or above on the tech side. Bankers always make more than tech, and tech is always viewed as a cost.

Now, Amazon and Google are expanding. I'm not sure how this will change the landscape.

I read a substantial part of this thread, and honestly I don't know a single person making 200K a year in equity as per some comments here.

Maybe I'm in the wrong part of the country.

Fintec

Post reply on HN