The author sells equity as a main motivator in joining a startup. But if you believe in equity, you are far better off being a founder than an early employee Being the first employee (or an early employee) of a startup seems to be the worst possible choice. * none of the stability of a larger company * a salary which is likely less than market * 10 to 100 times less equity than a founder (So, in an exit, you'll make…
The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have
61–70 of 121 posts
Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have
#62The author sells equity as a main motivator in joining a startup. But if you believe in equity, you are far better off being a founder than an early employee Being the first employee (or an early employee) of a startup seems to be the worst possible choice. * none of the stability of a larger company * a salary which is likely less than market * 10 to 100 times less equity than a founder (So, in an exit, you'll make…
The worst statistic of all: the vast majority of employees never exercise their stock options. According to this article, less than 5% of employee stock options are ever exercised: https://medium.com/@henrysward/broken-cap-tables-bbf84574a76... Start-ups would love for you to take a lower than market rate salary in exchange for options as the risk is entirely leveraged to the employee.
If you are going to work for a start-up you should never count your options as payment in lieu of salary. They are a lottery ticket and they are no substitute for cold hard cash. There are various other good reasons one might have for joining a start-up, but options should not be one of those reasons.
Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Unless you're using equity to compensate for a lower salary, which you should never do. If the startup is offering a fair market salary + equity the only real thing you're risking is stability. Yeah you might only have the job for a year because the company goes under but short term employment is more common place now so that seems like a low risk.
> If the startup is offering a fair market salary In that case, yes. But that's definitely not the way quite a few of those pitches go. It's more like: take this below market salary and this tiny bit of equity which will surely be worth more one day than the salary that you're foregoing today. Of course it takes two to tango and you're free not to believe that spiel but I've seen it more than once in my own career.
After I ditched the idea of working in the Valley based on my experience interviewing there I decided to focus my search on distributed teams only.
What I found was surprising. Not only were these new startups outside the Valley offering remote work but almost all had higher salaries. It was crazy. Here I was thinking that the only way I could earn a high paying wage was to live in one the most expensive cities in the world. Little did I know that I could earn a market salary and live anywhere.
If I could give anyone advice about finding a new job at a startup it would be to seek out companies offering remote work. It's the only way to go.
Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have
#64Scenario one: Smart 20-year-old college grad accepts an offer to go work for Big Tech, Consulting, whatever. Their salary allows them to pay down any student loan debt they might have, build a cash cushion, and sock away $10K/year for retirement. At 35, when they've built valuable industry experience and connections, they decide to go out and do their own thing. They stop investing in their retirement account, putting their cash into the startup or raising money, and let the retirement account sit and grow with compound interest.[1]
Scenario two: Smart 20-year-old college grad decides against the BigCo route and founds a startup (assuming this is even feasible given any loan debt they might have). Maybe raises a small funding round, takes a low salary...everything goes back into the business. There is no investment into a retirement account. Let's say they meander through startup land up until 35, making some money here, losing some there and given the high failure rate of startups never really sees the "big exit". At 35, when things like marriage and family happen, they're forced to take a job at BigCo (or MediumCo, SmallCo, whatever) and finally have the means to start investing something into a retirement account. Let's get aggressive and say they put in the same $10K/year that scenario 1 grad did up until 65 (hard to do if you start having kids, buy a house, etc).
At 65, scenario 1 grad would have $2,046,783 in their retirement account after just 10 years of investing $10K/year and then letting it sit and collect compound interest. Scenario 2 grad would have just $1,010,730 in their retirement account after investing $10K/year over a period of 30 years. The difference between scenarios comes out to over a million dollars!
Obviously there's an endless list of variables that could throw a wrench in this model, but the point is that people who fail to assess the time value of money and the opportunity cost for a dollar spent (or not invested) today vs. one invested over the long term do so at their own peril. If you're 20, just $1,000 invested into the market once will turn into $21,000 when you're 65. If you keep putting money in regularly, this amount will grow significantly and the sooner you start the more it will grow. It's up to each individual to determine the right path for them, and I'm not saying it would never make sense to go do a startup when you're young (you have more energy, creativity etc), but you must be aware that the tradeoff is losing valuable years early in your financial path that you will never be able to get back. Arriving at the same spot at 35 that you could have started at at 20 will put you significantly behind others who have used those early years to put the miracle that is compound interest to work for them.
[1] http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calcu...
Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have
#65The author sells equity as a main motivator in joining a startup. But if you believe in equity, you are far better off being a founder than an early employee Being the first employee (or an early employee) of a startup seems to be the worst possible choice. * none of the stability of a larger company * a salary which is likely less than market * 10 to 100 times less equity than a founder (So, in an exit, you'll make…
cmd-f: "You'll make more money and have more impact"
Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have
#66The author sells equity as a main motivator in joining a startup. But if you believe in equity, you are far better off being a founder than an early employee Being the first employee (or an early employee) of a startup seems to be the worst possible choice. * none of the stability of a larger company * a salary which is likely less than market * 10 to 100 times less equity than a founder (So, in an exit, you'll make…
Having the opportunity to take on a larger role earlier in a company's lifespan has a lot of allure to me - you get a lot of valuable experience that a larger company would be loathe to offer to not as experienced employees. For an example, I am a senior/lead software engineer with only about 2 years of professional experience. However, my experience has been increasingly high quality, and allows me to move up at my…
Has the term senior lost all meaning?
Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> "But if you believe in equity, you are far better off being a founder than an early employee" But not everyone is cut out to be a found or has a good idea they can execute on. For those people being an early employee is the best they can do. It's also incredibly more stressful being a founder and a lot of people don't want that. They are happy to take a lower than market salary in exchange for lottery ticket (equi…
Employee #1 is taking on 80% of the risk of a founder for usually a sliver of the upside. I know a lot of single-digit startup employees and I really think you're doing them a disservice by characterizing that role as really at all less stressful than being a founder. You see founders parachute straight into consulting or speaking after flaming out of their tech startup. Their team needs to go get jobs.
I can't speak for everywhere on earth but in this current Bay Area tech job market, I can just as easily parachute into a well-paying, full-time gig at $TRENDY_TECH_COMPANY. You build interesting experience & insight being the first-hire and, if you're actually a skilled engineer, shouldn't have a problem finding your next job in about 4 to 6 weeks if things don't work out.
Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having the opportunity to take on a larger role earlier in a company's lifespan has a lot of allure to me - you get a lot of valuable experience that a larger company would be loathe to offer to not as experienced employees. For an example, I am a senior/lead software engineer with only about 2 years of professional experience. However, my experience has been increasingly high quality, and allows me to move up at my…
"a senior/lead software engineer with only about 2 years of professional experience" Has the term senior lost all meaning?
Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have
#69Re: The Career Path I Didn’t Consider, But Should Have
#70The risk of a startup has moved from investors to founders and now from founders to employees. Investors diversify their investments to minimize the risk. They don't really care if a particular startup they invested in will fail. They have tons of other investments... Now with this new generation of "entrepreneurs" who start five startup at a time, they are not too afraid of startup failure either. They did diversify…
I generally agree with you that investors and founders mitigate their risk through diversity and networking. However, I wouldn't single out employees as "the only one who really loses when a startup fails." Like you said, choosing a Google-like startup is tough, and most founders believe theirs will be incredibly successful when they hire early employees. But I can think of at least one example where the employee of…